Rachel Reeves denies claims of plagiarism.

Curryman

Curryman

Well-known member
From the BBC Site.

Rachel Reeves has denied claims of plagiarism, after it emerged some passages of her new book were lifted from sources including Wikipedia.

The Financial Times reported the shadow chancellor's book included reproduced material without acknowledgment.

N.B I have acknowledged where this has come from. Read all about it on the BBC site.
 
Speaking to BBC Broadcasting House, Reeves said: “It is true that there were some sentences in the book that were not properly referenced in the bibliography. I’m the author of that book, I hold my hands up and say I should’ve done better.”

Asked if the errors were a result of her being too busy, she said: “Obviously I had research assistants on the book, but I take responsibility for everything that is in that book.

“What I wanted to do was to bring together the stories of these women, and if I’m guilty of copying and pasting some facts about some amazing women and turning it into a book that gets read then I’m really proud of that.


“I will put this right because in any future reprints I will make sure that everything is properly referenced in the bibliography, that is important to me and I will put right those mistakes.”
 
Curryman said:
What a surprise, no comments from any of our Labour supporting members, yet the other piece I put on at the same time regarding a Tory MP sees them flocking their like seagulls around an empty fish and chip box!🥺
Click to expand...
Not just Labour supporters, nobody commented.
 
Curryman said:
From the BBC Site.

Rachel Reeves has denied claims of plagiarism, after it emerged some passages of her new book were lifted from sources including Wikipedia.

The Financial Times reported the shadow chancellor's book included reproduced material without acknowledgment.

N.B I have acknowledged where this has come from. Read all about it on the BBC site.
Click to expand...

Whoever her editor is should have picked up on this as it’s part of their job. Adding correct references at the back of the book.

Did she write the book herself?
 
Curryman said:
From the BBC Site.

Rachel Reeves has denied claims of plagiarism, after it emerged some passages of her new book were lifted from sources including Wikipedia.

The Financial Times reported the shadow chancellor's book included reproduced material without acknowledgment.

N.B I have acknowledged where this has come from. Read all about it on the BBC site.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely terrible. Labour can never be near power ever again after such despicable behaviour.

She should have doubled down, not apologised and pretended that it never happened. Then refer to getting Brexit done and the vaccine roll-out. When will labour ever learn.
 
Chunkylad said:
Whoever her editor is should have picked up on this as it’s part of their job. Adding correct references at the back of the book.

Did she write the book herself?
Click to expand...
You're right, but you'd be amazed at how the political publishing sector works (source, I worked as a consultant at HarperCollins for a while).

Basically no-one at all reads or buys these books. The average print run is about 2500, most of which will be pulped when they are returned to the publisher. A typical advance is about £40k, which the publisher doesn't expect any return on.

It's just vanity to be associated with various politicos. At HarperCollins in particular they would print any right-of-centre politicians book because Rupert Murdoch tells them they must. I'm sure there is an equivalent left-of-centre publisher too.

They run the entire output, from finding the ghostwriters to running the launch party, to running the PR campaign. Most political books are based on a series of verbal interviews with the 'author'. Very few put pen to paper.

It's basically just a content mill.

When I was a consultant at HarperCollins, it was to look at integrating ChatGPT into their 'editorial pipeline'. You can easily make the leap that soon these books will be written by LLMs!
 
cside said:
You're right, but you'd be amazed at how the political publishing sector works (source, I worked as a consultant at HarperCollins for a while).

Basically no-one at all reads or buys these books. The average print run is about 2500, most of which will be pulped when they are returned to the publisher. A typical advance is about £40k, which the publisher doesn't expect any return on.

It's just vanity to be associated with various politicos. At HarperCollins in particular they would print any right-of-centre politicians book because Rupert Murdoch tells them they must. I'm sure there is an equivalent left-of-centre publisher too.

They run the entire output, from finding the ghostwriters to running the launch party, to running the PR campaign. Most political books are based on a series of verbal interviews with the 'author'. Very few put pen to paper.

It's basically just a content mill.

When I was a consultant at HarperCollins, it was to look at integrating ChatGPT into their 'editorial pipeline'. You can easily make the leap that soon these books will be written by LLMs!
Click to expand...
I am surprised that she didn't get ChatGPT to reinterpret those sections.
Her research assistants need to get up to speed with how we do things nowadays - simple cut and paste is so 1990's!

Can I ask, cside, why publish this then, if there is no money to be made and no strong political leaning at the publishing house? She looks like a sensible future chancellor and possible future PM - are they betting against the future?
Or is it a crude attempt to gain influence in the near term?
 
Curryman said:
What a surprise, no comments from any of our Labour supporting members, yet the other piece I put on at the same time regarding a Tory MP sees them flocking their like seagulls around an empty fish and chip box!🥺
Click to expand...

So with the issues going on in this country, cost of living crisis, people using food banks, interest rates, the NHS on it's knees, MP's accused of rape this is all you have? Clutching at straws. Deary me.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I am surprised that she didn't get ChatGPT to reinterpret those sections.
Her research assistants need to get up to speed with how we do things nowadays - simple cut and paste is so 1990's!

Can I ask, cside, why publish this then, if there is no money to be made and no strong political leaning at the publishing house? She looks like a sensible future chancellor and possible future PM - are they betting against the future?
Or is it a crude attempt to gain influence in the near term?
Click to expand...
I couldn't really tell you, but I suspect you're right about it just being 'influence'. It's an easy way to attract attention, and add faux-academic credibility.

There was a good episode of the Private Eye podcast recently about how the system works, but I can't find it again :)
 
cside said:
I couldn't really tell you, but I suspect you're right about it just being 'influence'. It's an easy way to attract attention, and add faux-academic credibility.

There was a good episode of the Private Eye podcast recently about how the system works, but I can't find it again :)
Click to expand...
I may have heard it, it's a good pod
 
Old_Laytonian said:
Speaking to BBC Broadcasting House, Reeves said: “It is true that there were some sentences in the book that were not properly referenced in the bibliography. I’m the author of that book, I hold my hands up and say I should’ve done better.”

Asked if the errors were a result of her being too busy, she said: “Obviously I had research assistants on the book, but I take responsibility for everything that is in that book.

“What I wanted to do was to bring together the stories of these women, and if I’m guilty of copying and pasting some facts about some amazing women and turning it into a book that gets read then I’m really proud of that.


“I will put this right because in any future reprints I will make sure that everything is properly referenced in the bibliography, that is important to me and I will put right those mistakes.”
Click to expand...
So a case of taking responsibility. Compare and contrast with the likes of Boris. Deny, deny, deny until forced to grudgingly confess.
 
Curryman said:
From the BBC Site.

Rachel Reeves has denied claims of plagiarism, after it emerged some passages of her new book were lifted from sources including Wikipedia.

The Financial Times reported the shadow chancellor's book included reproduced material without acknowledgment.

N.B I have acknowledged where this has come from. Read all about it on the BBC site.
Click to expand...
Your like the Daily Mail, desperately trying to scratch around for something because you know your lot are getting kicked out very soon.
 
Hello Curryman.

I'm sorry I haven't responded before. I'm busy renewing ties with one of our former EU partners ( our oldest ally) and helping to boost their economy. It's hard work, but someone has to do it.

I agree that what she's done is reprehensible. Must seriously affect her chances of senior office in the forthcoming Labour Government.
 
There we are, I've stirred the pot and it's amazing what you find at the bottom.
Rather than answer all the comments, I'll simply pick on one. PNENIL being the lucky ball in the hat.

'Your like the Daily Mail, desperately trying to scratch around for something because you know your lot are getting kicked out very soon.'

My lot, as you put it, are not and never have been in power. I have voted green for the last 12 years or so. I don't know how many times I have to state this. Prior to that I've voted LIB DEM, Conservative and even Monster Raving Loony Party as I couldn't see anyone worth voting for on the ballot paper.
 
Curryman said:
What a surprise, no comments from any of our Labour supporting members, yet the other piece I put on at the same time regarding a Tory MP sees them flocking their like seagulls around an empty fish and chip box!🥺
Click to expand...
Not fair. I've only just seen this thread and you're what, 23 posts in already. For me, if you quote directly from a source you must recognise it in print. If that source is simply adding to your collected thoughts that then add to your writing, no you don't need to. I haven't read Reeves' book so I cannot comment further.
 
Curryman said:
There we are, I've stirred the pot and it's amazing what you find at the bottom.
Rather than answer all the comments, I'll simply pick on one. PNENIL being the lucky ball in the hat.

'Your like the Daily Mail, desperately trying to scratch around for something because you know your lot are getting kicked out very soon.'

My lot, as you put it, are not and never have been in power. I have voted green for the last 12 years or so. I don't know how many times I have to state this. Prior to that I've voted LIB DEM, Conservative and even Monster Raving Loony Party as I couldn't see anyone worth voting for on the ballot paper.
Click to expand...
Why couldn't you just have just put 'they're all as bad as each other' which is the common tory voter , I can't bare to vote for them anymore theme/ excuse.
I notice you put both stories up within 5 mins of each other, obviously looking for a reaction and comparison.
 
I listened to the radio interview and she accepted plagiarism but not the quote they used as the BBC got that one wrong!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top