User:NeilClark66/Neil Clark (writer): Difference between revisions
Philip Cross (talk | contribs) m italics |
Philip Cross (talk | contribs) rm advertisements & links to *commercial* sites, defender of tyrants |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Neil Clark''' (born 1966) is a [[United Kingdom|British]] journalist and blogger. His work has appeared in newspapers and journals in Britain and overseas including ''[[The First Post]]'', ''[[The Guardian]]'', ''[[The Australian]]'', ''[[The Times]]'', ''[[The Observer|Observer Sport Monthly]]'', ''The Fleet Street Letter'', ''[[The Morning Star]]'', ''[[American Conservative]]'', ''[[New Statesman]]'', ''[[The Spectator]]'', ''[[Daily Mail]]'', ''[[Daily Telegraph]]'', ''[[Daily Express]]'', ''Racing and Football Outlook'' and ''[[Racing Post]]''. |
'''Neil Clark''' (born 1966) is a controversial [[United Kingdom|British]] journalist and blogger. His work has appeared in newspapers and journals in Britain and overseas including ''[[The First Post]]'', ''[[The Guardian]]'', ''[[The Australian]]'', ''[[The Times]]'', ''[[The Observer|Observer Sport Monthly]]'', ''The Fleet Street Letter'', ''[[The Morning Star]]'', ''[[American Conservative]]'', ''[[New Statesman]]'', ''[[The Spectator]]'', ''[[Daily Mail]]'', ''[[Daily Telegraph]]'', ''[[Daily Express]]'', ''Racing and Football Outlook'' and ''[[Racing Post]]''. |
||
He writes on subjects including politics, literature, travel, television sitcoms and sport. He is a http://www.guardian.co.uk/gambling/story/0,,1940468,00.html horse racing correspondent for ''Racing and Football Outlook'' |
He writes on subjects including politics, literature, travel, television sitcoms and sport. He is a [http://www.guardian.co.uk/gambling/story/0,,1940468,00.html horse racing correspondent] for ''Racing and Football Outlook''. In 1992, he wrote the biography of the Scottish point-to-point horse Flying Ace. He opposes British and American foreign policy in the Balkans and the Middle East and is frequently accused of being a defender of mass-murderers such as [[Slobodan Milošević]] by his numerous detractors. |
||
Clark supports the return of capital and corporal punishment and tougher prison sentences. He considers these to be the authentic Labour position which was distorted from the 1950s/60s onwards by people who were "liberals rather than socialists" (''[[The Spectator]]'', [[June 9]], [[2001]]). |
Clark supports the return of capital and corporal punishment and tougher prison sentences. He considers these to be the authentic Labour position which was distorted from the 1950s/60s onwards by people who were "liberals rather than socialists" (''[[The Spectator]]'', [[June 9]], [[2001]]). |
Revision as of 23:57, 17 January 2007
Neil Clark (born 1966) is a controversial British journalist and blogger. His work has appeared in newspapers and journals in Britain and overseas including The First Post, The Guardian, The Australian, The Times, Observer Sport Monthly, The Fleet Street Letter, The Morning Star, American Conservative, New Statesman, The Spectator, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, Racing and Football Outlook and Racing Post.
He writes on subjects including politics, literature, travel, television sitcoms and sport. He is a horse racing correspondent for Racing and Football Outlook. In 1992, he wrote the biography of the Scottish point-to-point horse Flying Ace. He opposes British and American foreign policy in the Balkans and the Middle East and is frequently accused of being a defender of mass-murderers such as Slobodan Milošević by his numerous detractors.
Clark supports the return of capital and corporal punishment and tougher prison sentences. He considers these to be the authentic Labour position which was distorted from the 1950s/60s onwards by people who were "liberals rather than socialists" (The Spectator, June 9, 2001).
In addition to his journalism, Clark teaches at Oxford Tutorial College.
In 2006, Clark attempted to sue the writer Oliver Kamm for comments Kamm had made on his blog but this claim was rejected. Kamm said that Clark had inaccurately cited source material in a review and that Clark had not denied this even when invited to do this if appropriate.