 At Navarra Media, we pride ourselves on being independent of billionaire barons. That's because we're funded by our audience, we're funded by you. We don't have to answer to anyone with particular vested interests. It's very different from people who work for the Murdoch press, people who work for the sun, people who work for the times, people who work for talk radio. They do know that ultimately their wages are being paid by Rupert Murdoch. And this is why I think they often lash out at us. They lash out at independent journalists who aren't funded by billionaires. It happens quite a lot, surprisingly. And it happened this week. This week, we got attacked by Oliver Kam. He's a leader, writer and columnist for the Murdoch owned Times. On Thursday, he tweeted the following. Navarra Media can say whatever it likes without checking. That's the difference between blogging and genuine reporting. Now, I saw that tweet and it piqued my interest. Someone challenging, disputing the editorial standards of Navarra Media. I wanted to know about it. He was sharing an article from the Jewish Chronicle. And so their headline Pro Corbyn Journal claims Stammer agreed quick deal to former leaders return. This is a reference to a brilliant article we have on our website by Oliver Eagleton. It's about the events which led to Corbyn being suspended from the Labour Party. Now, I'd expected that I'd have a look at that JC article and there'd be some disputation of what was in that article. Some sort of claim that what was written there was false. That seems to be the implication of what Oliver Kam has said. I read that entire Jewish Chronicle article. There was nothing all it had. The only criticisms it had of the piece was was the following. They write, according to the article, Sir Keir had personally promised his predecessor to share his speech in advance, but failed to do so. The leaders office has yet to comment on the claims by Mr. Eagleton, editor of the New Left Review and author of a new book on Sir Keir. But the article was met with derision on social media. Actor Marlon Solomon branded it the comedy revision stage of Navarro Media's anti-Semitism coverage. He posted, so Stammer withhold sending him his speech just so Corbyn could walk into the trap of just being Corbyn, then he could suspend him. Filmmaker Oskar Terji branded the article a ridiculous narrative saying it was actually hilarious that they had settled on this story to defend their cult leaders' behavior regarding anti-Semitism. Now, that's just two tweets from people who are always angry at Navarro Media, making no factual claim about what was in the article. They're just lashing out on Navarro Media as they always do. These are, by the way, two very obsessive accounts. And Oliver Kam thinks this counts as a cautionary tale. I was very confused. I pointed this out to Oliver Kam. I think this was in, I thought it was quite a polite tweet, to be honest. So I tweeted Kam, how is this a cautionary tale in anything? We've published a well-sourced article. You're sharing an article based on tweets from two obsessive accounts in a newspaper who last week had to pay out damages for publishing something they admitted was entirely untrue. That was because of their coverage of Mark Wadsworth. Now, I didn't get a sensible response from Oliver Kam to that. Instead, he put his account on private so no one could see that tweet. He just tweeted and no one could see anything he tweeted. He locked his account then behind the veil of secrecy. Now, we had to see this from screenshots because obviously we can't see his account once it goes private. He goes on to slag off Navarra Media now, not because of any supposed factual inaccuracy, even though they couldn't find any, but because of where we live. So Oliver Kam writes, just protected my tweets, comrades and friends to preempt a drearily predictable fusillade from Navarra Media, denouncing me from the comfort of their bedsits. Life is short and I've got work to do. Aaron, I want to bring you in on this. We have discussed before times journalists lashing out at Navarra Media on very shaky foundations. I mean, this is particularly shaky and then ends up just being very unpleasant. You're saying we live in bedsits. Now, you can see where I live, it's not a bedsit. But if it was, I wouldn't have any shame about that. Many people do have to live in bedsits. It's where you live if you're on a low income, right? Actually, to be honest, not many people can afford to live in a bedsit in London. Now, you really always have to share a house with lots of people. But anyway, the impression he is trying to make there is these people don't have much money. So he said, one, you don't have high editorial standards. Oh, you've called me out because I actually couldn't locate where the editorial standards were wanting. Now I'm just going to diss you on the basis that you don't have as much money as me. Aaron, what's going on here? What a pathetic little worm, Michael. Oliver Cam, you pathetic little worm. First of all, like you say, we're regulated by impress. People are welcome to dislike Navarra. Fine. It's a free country. Knock yourself out. Some people are going to like us. Some people are going to dislike us. It's a well researched piece, well written. The gentleman's going to write a book with Verso books. You know, it's not just some made up, gobbledygook. There's serious arguments are being made, well researched. If you want to find a problem with them, like you say, Michael, when that tweet went out, the article went out from the Jewish Chronicle, I thought, oh, God, we've got some inaccuracy here. We're going to have to edit something, make a correction. OK, well, let's see. And like you said, it's just two pranks, frankly, tweeting about us. And they're upset. They are obsessives. And it had nothing remotely to do with the substance of the points being made in the article or even countering them. And when this was pointed out to Mr. Cam, who is quoting a piece from the Jewish Chronicle, which has been subject, I think, now to four libel settlements, it's settled. It's given money to people over libel cases in recent years. It's been forced by Ipso, which is regulated by to make nine corrections, I think, in three years. We're regulated in our media by Impress, which is a higher standard than Ipso. Ipso is effectively a self-regulator for the print media in this country. We're regulated by Impress. We've had zero corrections in the last three years. The Jewish Chronicle have had nine and Oliver Cam, because, frankly, he's an ignorant man, but because he's posh, because he has money, he thinks that he always knows best. It's remarkable. He was completely found out. He was revealed as the ignoramus that he is. I mean, you just haven't got a leg to stand in a second, though. Just a blog. They're not regulated. Actually, we are regulated to a higher standard, and we've had no corrections. People said, well, people don't really care about Navarro media. Guess what? When you're writing articles about John Ware, about the labor leaks, about trade union general secretaries who subsequently had to resign because of a story we published, we're getting lots of correspondence from lawyers. You wouldn't be surprised. Point is, we do things professionally, and we haven't fallen short yet. We might have to make a correction one day, but so far we haven't. So we're regulated. And of course, the moment he was found out, Michael, this this cheap, smarmy little man had to start making comments about where we live. I don't I don't live in a bedside. If I did, it wouldn't make the slightest difference in terms of the quality of my opinion or the substance of my character for better or for worse. And actually, if Oliver Cam is any indicator, there's somebody who has a presumably he has a nice home, who's very well off, who's very expensively educated. They can be arseholes. It doesn't mean that they're particularly intelligent because he was wrong in this instance, and he sort of made a sort of cowardly way out by rather than sort of apologizing or trying to defend his argument, just started name-calling. And it's factually inaccurate. And also people said, you know, they're student politics. Students don't live in bed-sits, as you've just said, Michael. It's generally single men on low incomes. It's generally single men on low incomes. And actually, I'm not surprised he used that argument, Michael. And actually it was in a way it's positive because rather than saying this nonsense or actually in a foreign media, they're all posh. He's now saying, well, actually, they're all in bed-sits. They're they're poor idiots. I'm not going to waste my time on them. I only waste my time on rich people. I bet you do. I bet I bet those are the only people you talk to. That's why you were very out of touch and a whole bunch of issues. I'd rather him say that, Michael, it's a compliment than saying we're posh than saying, you know, we all live in beds. It's fine. You go knock yourself out, Oliver. You ignorant, small, twit.