I am boycotting this years Total Politics Blogging Guide.
I’m not so deluded to think that this place is popular enough to get in and so me saying I’m not going to participate is a bit like saying ‘next week, I’m not going to walk on the moon’. The same amount of effort is required to achieve both.
But I am saying I want no part of it. Rather than just watch the poll happen and have no part in it, by not voting for anyone, although there is a fucking huge list of people that deserve a vote in a propor poll, and also by virtue of being part of that niche blog genre I like to term Rather Shite.
The reasons are two fold.
All the underhand techniques used by the Fail Dale to keep himself ‘right’ and the results of stuff like this poll with the right results.
All that stuff is understandable. The blog is part of Iains’ revenue generation machine. It is a small part of his TV appearances, speaking engagements and publishing ‘things’. It may not actually generate revenue itself, apart from a small amount from Messagespace, but it is where people can find him, where Iain can show off his expertise, his knowledge.
Iaian needs to be right on his blog, otherwise it will impact on his other areas. And a man’s gotta eat. Right? It may not be right, but it’s understandable. That’s business.
The second reason is because Iain Dale is a cunt.
It’s one thing having a commentor leave a comment accusing someone of being a member of the Labour Party or refusing to engage in debate on neutral territory, so that you can’t control it, when you’ve been called on a point. It’s really childish to play the victim instead of just apologising for/removing the offending article. They’re relatively small things. Leave teh internets and these things disappear, or at the worst need a little explanation/can be laughed off.
It’s a completely different when help is requested and offered but then not given and still insistent that it was. Especially when the help is to investigate proper, serious accusations and isn’t just a load of hot air but involve the Rozzers, in the real world.
So there you have it.
Who needs a rigged and flawed beauty contest anyway?
Shares in Phorm, the Aim-listed technology firm, have plunged after it emerged that BT has quietly pulled plans to roll out its controversial advertising system, which tracks the internet habits of customers and has been attacked as online snooping by privacy campaigners.
BT was a key player in the development of Phorm’s Webwise system, which uses information about which sites an internet user visits to target them with relevant advertising on subsequent pages. News that BT has in effect mothballed the technology sent shares in Phorm down 40% by lunchtime today.
Like most people today*, I’ve had a quick squint at my MPs’receipts that have now been published, thanks to a FoI request, on the parliament website.
The following picture is a snapshot of one of the .pdf’s and seems fairly typical (click to enlarge)…
What bloody good is that? You can only presume the two bits go together by the total, as on the proper receipt even the name of the company is blanked out. Why is that? Why can’t we know the company that issued the receipt?
Why are the items blanked out? Why aren’t we allowed to know what the £64 was actually spent on?
All that tells us is that Dr Evan Harris spent £64 on something from a company that might be called Caudwell Communications.
I can understand the blacking out of an MPs’ phone number or most of their address, though there is no reason to black that out completely as just leaving us with the town or city would be enough to give some scrutiny. But to leave a receipt with just a total figure and present it as being open and transparent is just complete bollox. The receipt could be for a bucket of used condoms from ‘Cocks R Us’. How would we know?
MPs’ reckoned they were sorry. My fucking arse, are they. Even when told to be open and transparent, they still try to cover up. They knew they had been milking the system, it was never ‘sloppy accounting’ or errors of judgement, as we were kept being assured.
If it hadn’t been for the Telegraph, these money grabbing shits would’ve been able to blag their way to keeping their seats and their reputations (ha!) thanks to a metaphorical black marker.
It’s called a Freedom of Information request, dummy. So lets have some information.
*actually, most people are probably having a long hard look.
2 Things, that are quite apt for the title.
The first is Nadine Dorries (yes, yes) has been tried to unsay things on her blog, here’s the original post in full via Googles cache (and I’m also using the same title so it should show in searches, hopefully)…
My Labour opponent had a very strong letter in the Beds On Sunday this week.
In the letter he deployed his usual tactic of distorting the facts, something I’m becoming used to these days; however, he also said:
“I fought for as a soldier in Iraq in 2003”.
Anyone who reads my blog will know how pro-military I am.
I stand in awe and admiration of our soldiers, their professionalism and bravery.
Only last week, I wrote of how moved I was when I heard a Scots Dragoon Guard use his moment on TV to talk about the moment a soldier receives his pre-assignment message: ‘ contact with the enemy is certain’ – and what it is that fires that soldier on, one of our heroes, into battle.
So, you can imagine, when I read the words “I fought as a soldier in Iraq” I was quite impressed. Gosh, thought I, good job I’m the MP or I may be tempted to vote for him myself.
Only, did he fight in Iraq? Did he go out into the danger zones along with the a regiment on Op Telic 8, and risk his life and limb side by side with our soldiers, for the sake of freedom and democracy? The values for which he claims to have “fought in Iraq” .
I will be interested to find out the answer.
Claiming to be a hero when you write a political letter as the Labour candidate in a newspaper is a very big claim indeed. One that secures advantage and wins you votes.
Quite a scathing attack. Calling into question whether someone has actually fought or not. And here is the New & Improved post…
The local press are picking this up now, I will leave it up to them.
Anyone who reads this blog will understand that I have the hugest regard for all serving military personnel, TA, Army, Navy and Air Force and consider myself very lucky indeed to have two bases in my constituency. RAF Henlow, Chicksands and a TA training base.
I talk to many soldiers, regular and TA before they leave to serve, and as detailed in my blog, ‘A Soldiers Tale’, when they arrive home. I know and understand well exactly the danger and the operations they engage in.
However, the one thing I have learnt over the last few weeks is that in the battlefield of politics, one needs to be absolutely honest AND precise. Nothing less will do.
As you can see, quite a difference, with no mention of whether anyone has physically fought the enemy or just fought for democracy, which, unless one knew, would make you wonder what all those people in the comments were going on about.
Another entry on the catalogue of why Mid-Beds should vote for someone else when they get the chance.
(Update 06/06/09: Just noticed another proof of change)
Now, it is common knowledge that Nadine is friends with Iain Dale. They often post about various outings they have together. But, do you know how close they are? Apparently, it’s extremely close. So close infact, that Iains’ lawyers have warned Tim…
Dale regards my criticism of Dorries to be aimed at him. I’ve been warned not to persist #sackdorries
Er, so. Tims’ criticisms of Nadine Dorries’ behaviour, even when not involving Iain Dale in any way constitutes and attack on Iain.
Just a quickie, it’s not gonna move the debate on at all but can I just say that whenever Dizzy, and to a lesser extent Iain Dale, come riding to the defence of Nadine Dorries, with their shiny armour and big facts, it always reminds me of the little exchange with Neils’ father that comes after this clip of The Young Ones (I couldn’t find a clip with the actual quote in it)…
Rick: Well you can shut up now, Vyvyan. You can just about blummin’ well shut up! Because if you’ve got anything horrid to say about Felicity Kendal, then you can just about blummin’ well say it to me first!
Vyvyan: Rick, I just did!
Rick: Oh you did, did you? Well I ought to give a ruddy great punch on the bottom for what you just said! You’re talking about the woman I love!
Neil: And me, I love her too!
Neil’s Father: Well I agree with the spotty twerps on that one. Felicity Kendal is sweetly pretty, just what a real girly should be. I mean, speaking as a Feminist myself I can safely say this; that Felicity Kendal is a wonderful woman, and I want to protect her.
Vyvyan: Well it’s the first time I’ve ever heard it called that!
My first post titled Irony was quite good, and involved Iain Dale. But this one is a cracker. And involves Iain Dale again.
(I was going to call this post something else and now this first bit doesn’t really work. I’m lazy and I like that post linked to so it stays.)
Mr Watson complained of an article by Iain Dale, headed “Smears, glowering henchmen-like the Nixon White House” published in the Mail on Sunday on 12 April 2009 in which it was stated not only that Mr Watson was copied into emails sent by Downing Street press adviser Damian McBride to Derek Draper, but that he “encouraged” them. The emails were reported to have made serious and false allegations about the private lives of a number of Conservative Party MPs in the course of discussing proposals for a new website to be known as “Red Rag”.
As the Court heard today, Associated Newspapers Limited now accepts that these allegations are entirely untrue. In fact, Mr Watson was not copied into any of the emails exchanged between Mr McBride and Mr Draper. As Mr Watson has already publicly made clear, he had no involvement in or knowledge of the “Red Rag” website and he did not condone the content of the emails and, indeed, regarded them as completely inappropriate.
…and then gives a couple of different stories about having already apologised to Tom. Once in this post, which has no apology at all, and this one here that nearly has an apology. Well, Iain says an apology is owed, but never gets around to actually saying ‘I’m sorry’ or ‘I apologise’ or anything similar that says sorry.
Smug? Oh I’m just happy you forced Associated Newspaper to pay out “substantial damages” and its now on the record that you have smeared people without fully knowing the facts.
But Iain doesn’t just smear people and let other people do the same in his own comments, he likes to control other peoples comments, one of the things that he used to accuse Tim of regularly…
Comment amended upon request. So far she has not offered any explanation for claiming the amount of expenses. Comment amended upon request.
Comment by jailhouselawyer — Sunday, May 17, 2009 @ 11:47 am
I hope you will delete that comment from JHL. It is entirely untrue and probably libellous.
Comment by Iain Dale — Tuesday, May 19, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
Iain I have amended the comment. However, when I consider some of the comments I have seen you allow on your blog which attack other people on issues of both sexuality and on mental health, I think you should be paying far more attention to your own comments.
Comment by The Morningstar — Tuesday, May 19, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
Only last night self proclaimed leading UK blogger Iain Dale accused me of allowing an untrue and potentially libelous comment to be posted on this blog, here. The comment was aimed at one of his friends, that doyen of political blogging Nadine Dorries, I stupidly just gave in and amended the comment without consulting the author. At the time I didn’t want to start a ridiculous fight over a comment, mental health issues can suck the fight right out of you, but when I realised the the comment was essentially factual I Apologized to the author and posted a link to the relevant news paper story.
So Iain Dale lied to me, on this blog, in order to get a comment removed that was factual.
So, I present to you the King of Irony, Iain Dale.
