You're wrong! | IMGpapers 1976

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from a scan of a newspaper page, and the page was cut into articles by machine, at the headlines found by their type size. Nothing has been corrected: expect misread words, text from a neighbouring article, and titles that are the machine reading of the headline, some of them only fragments. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: headline found by type size in the OCR geometry (split_tabloid.py); 5-5 of 5; machine-segmented newspaper page; uncorrected Vision OCR.

page 14 of the scan

British Lesland slush fund documents, strongly regret your decision not to publish since I feel that you are in possession of information of absolute importance to the socialist movement in this country. Because you haven't published — as you sa properly did ul the Dobsen racist case — you are depriving us of a most valuable isight inca a key industry, and one which har a most important role to piny in social deacocratic ideas of control of the generation of surplus value Forilthere in a slush fund, and If vou are in a position to prove i, it meanschal a natjonalised industry is prepared to pay largesuns of money over to corrupt officials in, presumably, other parts of the world (we don't know, becaase vou won't tell us which will eventually end up on the price of the car or lorry that the people of that country want to buy Is that really what we want? Paying some trader his grait for gold-plated bath iaps or gambling money for the Playboy Club cannot be defended because they all do it', That's the sort of consense we can expect as a delence: if there is an argument for nationalised industries in a social democracy, part of it mouss be that they can use their power to fluence those kind By not feeling strong cough to publish what you have, you deprive the movement of bleat about Fleer Street's censorship: after all what did you expect? That's why we subscribe DAVID CLARK (SE London]