« Home | With friends like these... » | Save The Royal Surrey » | Mike Chambers caught on camera at the Conservative... » | A minor irrelevance » | The Guildford Conservative Association: proudly in... » | Behind the smearing wheel » | The Health Select Committee » | Regarding Anne Milton's Wikipedia entry » | 28 Days Later (aka The Walking Dead) » | A clear conflict of interest » 

Friday, January 12, 2007 


There will soon come a day when the Conservative Party will want to be able to deny any knowledge of Anne Milton's antics. But I'm not going to let them get away with it.

Below is just a recent sample of the traffic from Conservative Head Office to this specific area of my website:

I can seee you!

The good people who work for the Conservative Party have also been directly informed of a number of developments, and have even been provided with the relevant evidence. Each and every time they have fobbed me off.

Finally, I know for a fact that David Cameron was made aware of these disgraceful personal attacks by Anne Milton's activists, just a few weeks before he maintained a 'dignified silence' while his activists screamed "Personal attack!" on his behalf. That makes him a very special kind of hypocrite.

Conservative Party Peeps, I have two messages for you:

1. Here's something really special for you to look at; one of Anne Milton's cheerleaders has been making deeply personal and libellous claims about me in Wikipedia (while making empty accusations of libel in the process... and accusing anyone who seeks to correct their vandalism of being me acting as some kind of magical sock-puppet):

Take a look at this, this, and *especially* this. Go on, take a good look. Here's a hint for you if you're confused; the bits highlighted in green are the parts that Milton supporters have added; thereby compromising your party and placing Wikipedia at risk of legal action. Oh, and take a few moments to browse through this website before you claim that this could be the work of a well-meaning member of the public; it was established long ago that the bulk of Anne Milton's endorsements came from Conservative councillors, activists and/or family members.

[Oi! I was arrested for hacking in 2005? Funny, I don't remember that. I don't even remember being questioned by the police. Surely something like that would stick in my mind for a long time to come. No? Oh well. Maybe the experience was so traumatic that I blanked it from my memory. Oh, and speaking of memories, I seem to recall that the *only* person who has *ever* accused me of hacking (mainly because he doesn't know the difference between hacking and tracking) is Dennis Paul, who currently claims to be 'a member of the Executive Committee of Guildford Conservatives and an active Branch Member in Worplesdon'.]

When I saw early abuse of the Wikipedia system that was focused primarily on Anne Milton's entry and tracked it back to a Parliamentary IP address, I sent a complaint to Chief Whip Patrick McLoughlin. Surprise, surprise, he fobbed me off... not only with a vague suggestion that perhaps an over-zealous staff member was to blame, but also with the assertion that it was quite an acceptable and valid use of an MP's time to make 'corrections' to their Wikipedia entry. I found this reply to be particularly galling as the bulk of my letter read as follows:
Circumstances would suggest that these edits originated from Anne Milton’s office, but if you require a greater level of certainty before taking action, all you need do is request the HTTP/access logs from the relevant IT department for the times/periods specified above.

Now, I can understand the need for an MP to spend a small amount of time ensuring that their Wikipedia entry does not contain any inappropriate content or factual errors (this strays into a grey area, as part of an MPs duty is to ensure that their constituents are well-informed), but I do not think your average taxpayer would approve of this type of vanity-editing and/or censorship using time and facilities that they pay for.
McLoughlin didn't even acknowledge this section of the letter, and failed to follow the matter up with a simple technical exercise which could easily have confirmed or ruled out Anne Milton's involvement.

The HTTP/access logs I mentioned all those months ago are sure to have been deleted by now in the natural course of server maintenance. So now there's no way of clearing Anne Milton outright.

And since that exchange, the abuse of Wikipedia centring on Anne Milton's entry has escalated. All that these people have learned is (a) how to better cover their tracks and (b) that nobody in authority is going to do a damn thing to stop them.

How often do you find yourself wondering why they call you 'The Nasty Party'?

2. Much shorter this one... but I'm not sure that you'll thank me for it:

You chose her. You backed her. Hell, since all of this happened you even *promoted* her.

Do yourselves a favour... next time you pop by to check what Anne Milton has done recently that compromises you, take a good, long, hard look in the mirror and think about how you have compromised yourselves.

Labels: , , , , ,

I thought you might be interested to hear that at Boris Johnson's appearence at the university today, Anne Milton had the nerve to claim she had supported David Cameron from the very beginning. Is there anything she won't lie about?

- | -

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

About me

    Hi. I'm Tim. I live in Guildford. I've built a few political weblogs here and there. If you're wondering why I decided to start this particular blog, click here.


    Save the Royal Surrey




Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates