|
home : best of bloggerheads : photoshopping : rupert murdoch : mps and weblogs : email tim ireland : search engine optimisation : viral marketing : weblog marketing |
|
| Bloggerheads Archives :: welcome to the hard shell | |
|
to front page to date archives to category archives national service © Tim Ireland 2004-2006 Design by Wibbler RSS | RSD | Atom |
|
|
« Blimey! | Main | Ten silverish linings » November 20, 2007Let's All Pick on Vulnerable Right-Wing Chicks Week: Part Five[Please note that there has been a sudden change in schedule due to circumstances beyond my control. I had my eye on a pretty little redhead today, but instead I'm compelled to write on the further antics of Nadine Dorries... and others.] Nadine Dorries' difficulty with blogging began with a personal attack. Nadine was not at all impressed with the outcome of the Science and Technology Committee's report on abortion and so, with Bob Spink MP, released her own report. Initially, she claimed that it was merely a time issue. Then a narrative developed where she was claiming that she was refusing all comments because of repeated comments, then abusive comments, then repeated abusive comments and "very weird posts late at night, which frankly scared me." It was only a matter of time before someone helpfully filled in the blanks and screamed 'cyber-stalker' for her. (Note - It is not wise to cry 'wolf' at the expense of potential victims of genuine cyber-stalking.) This narrative was further developed when Ellee Seymour sought to use it to her advantage, by suggesting that I was a cyber-stalker. This narrative was quickly picked up and developed yet further by Now, at some stage during this narrative's development (right after Ellee's adventure, to be exact) Alex Hilton went live with a post featuring a screen capture of a mystery Facebook profile and within about half an hour, it was revealed under comments to be the Facebook profile of one of Nadine Dorries' daughters (with the full name revealed within a day). [Note - I myself did not see this item until Nadine blogged about it yesterday.] In an attack on Dorries that would have been well out of order regardless of this, Alex Hilton played the race card by falsely attributing a quote to Dorries' daughter. And, even if one disregards the above (and/or wishes to debate the merit of publishing details about Dorries daughters when she's been doing it herself this past week), let's face it; if someone is already claiming victim status and you pass them this kind of ammo... you're not helping. *However*... For pretty much the same reason why a woman should never yell 'rape' (and, yes, 'stalker') without good cause, a mother should never yell 'paedophile' without good cause. It has to do with resonance and responsibility. Further, one would expect an MP to at least be cautious enough to not stray recklessly into this potentially life-destroying area. But Nadine Dorries goes off the rails right after addressing the falsely attributed comment when she says this (the highlight is mine): ...the issue is now on it's way to Simon Smith at Schillings , to ask his advise as to whether or not this matter is libel and actionable. http://www.schillings.co.uk/Display.aspx?&MasterId=af8a38df-e12a-48da-953b-d4be1b79d6da&NavigationId=233 OK, so she's justifiably upset. That, for me, gets her off the hook for that totally unfair partisan generalisation and the assault on Hilton over his alleged/suggested use of taxpayer-funded resources for party political purposes (without a scrap of bloody evidence). I'm even willing to let her threat to use the firm Schillings go by with nothing but a knowing smirk. But to imply that someone is a paedophile?! Even though, technically, that final passage is open to interpretation (the word might be 'bully' or 'arsehole', for example), the juxtaposition of ages that leads up to the closing statement gives it a pretty damn clear direction. And even if this is *not* what was intended, I would expect an MP to be wary enough not to publish anything that might be misinterpreted in this way. And even if that MP were so blind to the bleeding obvious that the above didn't even occur to them, I would bloody well expect them to be wary of publishing personal outbursts if they were still stinging from a recent one. And even if they were so blinkered that they'd miss all of *that*, I would *still* expect them to later correct their error by at *least* clarifying a statement like this one when it's pretty bloody clear how it's been interpreted. Admittedly, the Age of Accountability appears to have passed us by, but MPs have been forced to resign over less. Further class acts include... New corporate political gossip blog on the block Westmonster declaring Dale to be the 'referee', and basically chanting "Fight! Fight! Fight!" Alex Hilton publishing and not deleting or challenging anonymous comments that air groundless suggestions about the sexual orientation of Dorries' eldest daughter and this charming comment about her youngest; "I'm gonna wait till the younger daughter is 16..." David Reeves drops by, followed by (ahem) an anonymous supporter of David Reeves carrying the 'Mad Nad' stick. ... which is all very helpful. Now, did I or did I not make it absolutely clear to readers on numerous occasions (most recently here) that this whole game of comment diddling, sock-puppeting and engaging in personal attacks while claiming to be the victim of personal attacks and/or screaming 'cyber-stalker' will eventually lead to someone screaming 'paedophile'...? I want a subsection under Godwin's Law named after me, I do. And while someone is sorting that out... Alex Hilton: You need to delete a few of the more insidious or insensitive items from your blog and apologise to Nadine Dorries. Nadine Dorries: You need to either clarify what you meant by that closing statement in your latest post or withdraw it. Then you can bury any resulting apology to Alex Hilton under your long-overdue apology to Ben Goldacre. [Note - Those wishing to comment on Nadine's original article can do so here. Comment moderation has been enabled at the mirror blog for reasons that should be obvious.] UPDATE (21 Nov) - Iain finally spoke up in his own comment thread late yesterday. Here's the bulk of what he had to say (timestamps link to individual comments): Iain Dale said... Well, there you have it... straight from the horse's ass. Iain Dale appears to basing his case on what Nadine says could or might have happened, and not what actually did happen. It would also appear (and this is *not* a threat or an incitement) that Iain will remain Posted by Manic on November 20, 2007 1:05 PM in the category The Political Weblog Movement Pings (Trackback)For trackbacks, this is the URL: Comments I'd like to see a claim from Nadine that she wasn't implying he was a paedophile - considering Alex Hiltons exact words were: "1. How many incidences of the words “Nigger”, “Nigga” or similar derivative can be found on this person’s facebook profile?" More implication, nothing explicitly stated. They're both as bad as each other! Also - the sexual orientation claims aren't exactly groundless. According to the screenshot, she says herself she's into women AND men. Posted by: mou at November 20, 2007 2:15 PM mou: I'm pretty sure that any claim to interest in men or women in that context relates to possible *friendship* (or what passes for it on Facebook). Posted by: Manic at November 20, 2007 2:32 PM Obviously both of them don't have enough sense to scale things down. Let this year's candidates for the Darwin Awards slug it out. Two less Labour and Tory minions...a win-win situation if ever I saw one. Posted by: irritant at November 20, 2007 3:13 PM Ireland's corollary to Godwin's Law ...the more outraged someone is about a minor slight to a young person, the more likely it is that accusations of paedophilia will appear. How's that? Posted by: Dave Cole at November 20, 2007 9:02 PM irritant: tempting... Dave: I think it has more to do with the growing feeling of invincibility people experience when they refuse to be held accountable for their own actions and get away with it repeatedly. They soon start saying all sorts of foolish things. Posted by: Manic at November 21, 2007 9:40 AM Interesting. Though Iain *has* had some paedo smears I think. This should see him understanding the genre and having a word with Nads. Reeling her in a bit. But basically she is completely out of control and unsuitable to represent any UK citizen. To my mind Mid Bedfordshire is an 3-way marginal and anyone that can get a grip there can overturn a 5-figure majority. One of the parties should stand down to get rid of her. She is not functioning correctly as an MP IMO. Posted by: CPLOL at November 22, 2007 12:04 AM Post a commentThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out) (If you're new to Bloggerheads, you may need to be approved by the moderator before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) | |