Total Politics spam from Exact Editions

Posted by Tim Ireland at 17 November 2010

Category: Tories! Tories! Tories!

This entry was posted on
Wednesday, November 17th, 2010
at
5:57 pm and is filed
under Tories! Tories! Tories!.

FFS. Once again, I’ve been spammed about Total Politics. (Here’s an earlier effort; this one direct from Total Politics staff.)

To: Webmaster

From:
Emma Bradfield
emma.bradfield@exacteditions.com

Message:
Hello

Total Politics, the lifestyle magazine dedicated to all things
political, is now available as a digital edition through Exact
Editions.

You can preview it here: [LINK SNIPPED]

Hope it’s of interest!

Best wishes
Emma

The person who sent this did not even take a moment to glance at what was then the most recent post on my site or an of my entries about Total Politics. Had she done so, she might have seen before sending her email that her offer is of NO interest to me; she may even have had formed the beginnings of a clue that I regard Iain Dale, the publisher of Total Politics, with nothing but contempt. I don’t think I’m wrong in suspecting this person is simply trawling political blogs for contact details/forms so she can spam the authors, without taking any care to determine if what she’s pushing might actually be of interest to them.

Iain Dale is not only a vindictive bastard who takes politics far too personally, he is a liar, a scoundrel, and a rogue publisher with bias on par with a putting green on the side of a cliff. I have ZERO interest in reading his two-bit magazine that itself relies heavily on its status as junk mail to keep its circulations figures up (it is “distributed freely to all MPs, MEPs, peers, political journalists, members of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies, and all senior councillors down to district level” whether they want it or not).

I’d say that Iain Dale needs to sort this out, but one of our earliest disagreements was over an obvious spamming by him that he refused to admit to on the basis that he only sent the unsolicited email to a few about 8 over 30 recipients, before trying to project the spamming charge back onto me by objecting to my linking to supporting evidence in comments on his site. So even if he’s going to pretend that he’s entirely unaware of this promotional push for the online version of his own damn magazine…

… I doubt he’d admit to it being spam in the first place.

Oh, and before anyone asks; yes, I am pretty darn sure that this is a genuine email from the good people at Exact Editions, because the same IP address used for this email was used to make these edits to Wikipedia.

(You will find equally-illuminating edit histories here and here. There’s a word for this kind of behaviour, but it escapes me at the moment.)








7 Comments

  1. dizzy says

    You could just delete it.

    • Tim_Ireland says

      And Iain Dale could simply acknowledge receipt of the occasional email instead of pretending not to receive them while taunting me about it in Twitter like a child. I'm not allowed to contact him while his rag repeatedly spams me? Forget that.

      Spam is spam and these spammers are spammers.

      (You may recall Iain was really upset when I dared to say that he refused to cooperate with a criminal investigation? Well, he just did it again. Mind you, he may have been unable to come up with the relevant log/incident number because he lied about making a complaint to police.)

      • dizzythinks says

        Come on now Tim, you quite often accuse myself or others of misleading people, so I think you should stop with this whole "refusing to cooperate with a criminal investigation" line that you're pushing. I;m not suggesting that you're knowingly doing it, but in does appear a tad disingenuous.

        What you actually mean is that Iain is refusing to cooperate with *you*. It is wholly unfair and misleading to imply otherwise by what you've said.You're using the word "criminal" in such a way as to confer some sort of complicity in criminal activity upon Iain, especially when you know full well that Iain offered to speak to the Police on the matter you are referring too but you wouldn't for some reason provide the details to let him do that.

        • Tim_Ireland says

          I cannot reply to this comprehensively without violating the Chatham House rule, as you should be aware, but I will remind you that there is a burden on victims of harassment to gather evidence, and I am (again) doing so for a criminal investigation in progress. In the first instance, Iain Dale was the ONLY blogger to refuse to cooperate, and in this instance, he is refusing to provide me with a log/incident number that he should have if he made a complaint to police as he claimed. I am beginning to suspect he was not entirely honest about his complaint, just as Nadine Dorries was not entirely honest when she gave the impression she had reported Charlie Flowers to police.

          I have already rejected Iain Dale's kind offer to have police call him so he can deliver his component of any statement on the hoof by phone. Everybody else is content to submit text and put their name to it. Why not Iain? His 'offer' is as misleading and worthless as your defence of him here.

          A criminal investigation is in progress. I am trying to give police a complete and accurate picture. Dale has repeatedly refused delivery of an email on that subject and even seen fit to taunt me about it. My description is accurate and entirely fair. If Iain wants to dispute that, he can defend his position himself.

          • dizzythinks says

            Sorry, I just want to clarify something, who is carrying out the "criminal investigation" that is "in progress"?

          • Tim_Ireland says

            The Batman, who do you think? FFS.

            Tell you what; I'll provide you with the relevant crime reference number if you like… the moment your mate Dorries coughs up the crime reference number(s) she promised weeks ago.

            Until you can produce those number or an admission from Dorries that they don't exist, you get the treatment Dale doles out to me. All comments deleted, all email/tweets ignored. I'm sick of being attacked by proxy. If Dale wants to defend himself, let him speak up and attempt to substantiate the claims he knows a certain person has been putting to good use (despite his denials).

            Bye.

        • Tim_Ireland says

          Oh, and for the record, I contend that Iain Dale knowingly tried to take advantage of circumstances in which I was being smeared as a paedophile, and then further harassed with smears about my being an extremist and stalker.

          As for complicity, an individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so. This applies to Dorries more than Dale, as you know, but again I risk violating the Chatham House rule. How lovely for you to have that advantage.

  • External Channels

  • Page 3 Politics

    Page 3: a short history

  • Main

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Twitter

  • The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

    The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

  • Badges + Buttons

    religion