Tim Ireland on tabloids, media, blogs and politics
The Political Weblog Movement
Andy Coulson: certain people
10th Jul 2009
As a prelude to ‘smeargate’, Paul Staines went on live television and claimed that there was a Downing Street briefing document titled ‘how to get [Iain] Dale’. He even promised to publish it that very afternoon.
He didn’t.
But from that moment on Paul Staines and Iain Dale repeatedly spoke as if it existed.
Iain Dale was certain that there was a Downing St conspiracy to ‘get’ him specifically. Later, still hanging on this yet-to-be-seen document, this appeared to evolve into a claim of a Downing Street conspiracy against both of them (specifically if less exclusively).
Iain Dale was also certain that Tom Watson was involved, and said so repeatedly in a number of ways… to the extent of smearing Tom Watson, it turns out.
(Psst! Nadine Dorries was certain Gordon Brown was involved, and said so on live television. Notice how none of these ‘bloggers’ risked these claims on their own damn weblogs.)
Iain Dale’s position was (and presumably still is) that Tom Watson must have known about emails being exchanged on another person’s computer, because he was in the same office.
It would appear that Iain Dale and I have differing views on privacy, but I’ll get to that in a moment. First, you need to compare Iain Dale’s position on Tom Watson to his position on Andy Coulson:
On SKY News last night, Iain Dale insisted quite strongly that one must acknowledge the possibility that Andy Coulson while acting as editor of NOTW was unaware of the activities of one of the journalists in his office.
Iain certainly wasn’t certain that Andy Coulson must have known about this or should have known about that; he even went so far as to imply that Coulson could not even be expected to be aware of relevant payments for questionable/illegal activity because he himself did not sign the cheques.
Iain Dale said this while knowing that it was now rather a matter of Andy Coulson claiming to be unaware of the activities of not just one but as many as 20 or 30 journalists in his office, and blind to the kind of money that is certain to come to the attention of most if not all editors regardless of who actually signs the cheques.
Iain Dale said this while knowing that it is an editor’s duty to maintain the integrity, legality and profitability of any given publication.
Iain Dale said this while speaking as the editor publisher* of Total Politics magazine.
It is not just the specific acts of ‘tapping’ that are a concern, either, but the entire practice of ‘blagging’ on stories with little-to-no merit (see: ICO PDFs). Here is where Iain and I differ on privacy, and this is the reason why I think he will have very little to say about the practice of ‘blagging’:
Phil Hendren, a close ally of Iain Dale’s, once blagged my private details and published my ex-directory home phone number on his website to intimidate me into silence. Not as part of a story or toward any noble end, just to shut me up.
The way he puts it, Phil just called someone on the off chance they would have it and – gosh, what a stroke of luck – they did. So, to keep Hendren happy, let’s call it ‘casual blagging’ as opposed to creepy or downright illegal blagging. But blagging all the same. And he clearly used the data maliciously, without any hope of a ‘public interest’ defence even if he did want to play ‘Citizen Journalist’.
But Iain Dale did not publicly condemn the blagging and malicious publication; he was too busy denying being the source of the data at the time.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that there are few things we can be certain of, but I certainly won’t be trusting Iain Dale on this issue, even after it swallows Coulson or passes him by; when Iain’s not siding with the Tories, he’ll be siding with the tabloids. Each to their own.
[Incidentally, the reason why Phil Hendren published my number is worth a look; I pointed out that there was one person who couldn't possibly be behind certain comments on Phil Hendren's website, and Phil didn't like that because... he was certain that Tom Watson was behind them (screengrab). Is it still paranoia if you think they're out to get someone else?]
-
UPDATE – *Quick fix there. My bad. Iain is, of course, the publisher of Total Politics, not the editor. Which, if anything, makes it worse IMO.
Boycott the Total Politics poll of weblogs
6th Jul 2009
Iain Dale has been running a self-serving ‘poll’ of weblogs since 2006. When faced with any charge that his polls are heavily biased on a personal or political basis, Dale will typically claim that the poll is ‘just a bit of fun’ (with a major sponsor) and/or expect you to be pathetically grateful that it’s slightly less rigged each year.
Last year, the poll carried the ‘Total Politics’ name, suggesting that the poll was as balanced as TP’s political coverage claims to be, when the truth is voting was primarily conducted at/via a website where 70% of readers vote Tory. It even had to be pointed out to Iain at one stage last year that maybe it wasn’t a good idea to accept votes via anonymous comments (that he now admits he had no way of tracking).
After failing to honour or even acknowledge boycotts of his poll last year, this year Iain Dale offers a chance for blogs to ‘opt out’ while not admitting for one second that (a) this might amount to a boycott and/or (b) he might have been wrong not to honour/acknowledge boycotts previous to this:
If you are a blogger and do not wish your blog to be included in the polling, please email katy DOT scholes AT totalpolitics DOT com by the end of next week. All blogs will, however, be included in the directory at the back of the book. – Iain ‘liar’ Dale
(Note: Last year, Dale claimed to have acknowledged all boycotts of his poll online and in print, which was not true. This post makes no mention of any commitment to do better this year.)
Now, I realise that publicity is an issue for many bloggers, but it’s my position that this is publicity you can do without.
In fact, this year I am going to ask you to join me in boycotting this poll.
Why should you do this?
Well, let me put it this way:
1. Iain Dale is a lying, self-publicising blog-cheat who knowingly uses smears against his political enemies. Why should you reward him with the status this poll affords him?
2. The poll is (and always has been) sponsored by APCO Worldwide, a pro-tobacco PR company with a history of astro-turfing. Why should you lend credibility to a sponsor that engages in activities most bloggers regard to be abhorrent?
To boycott Iain Dale’s latest rigged poll of weblogs, please email katy DOT scholes AT totalpolitics DOT com by July 17, and make sure you request that your boycott be acknowledged (i.e. you do not wish to be included in the poll, but you do want to be listed/marked as a blogger who chose not to take part in the poll).
If Iain Dale has any integrity to speak of, he will honour your boycott and inform the readers of his magazine why certain weblogs may not appear in the charts.
Cheers all.
(Psst! In order to dodge questions from me about the likely bias of last year’s poll, Iain Dale launched a dishonest attack on my professional reputation that he later dismissed as ‘banter’. If you are going to be public about your boycott and explain your reasons why, you might want to be prepared for some backlash, most likely in the form of anonymous/personal attacks.)
Paul Staines and the Guido Fawkes ‘logo’
2nd Jul 2009
News reaches me via this comment in this thread that copyright for the ‘logo’ that Paul Staines has been using for well over 4 years on the ‘Guido Fawkes’ site most likely rests with IPC Magazines, and not Paul Staines (or any of the names/entities that he or his many relatives trade under).
I recall clearly the day I accused Staines of helping himself to other peoples’ copyright-protected material and hosting it on MessageSpace servers and he drunkenly threw Donal Blaney in my face, so I’ll choose my words carefully this time (not least because I also hear that some people in this country are sensitive to a mix of expletives and pejorative terms… e.g. like ‘two-bit thieving twunt’):
So, Paul, have you always had a formal arrangement with IPC magazines for ongoing commercial use of this image that we’re/they’re somehow unaware of?
If not, then exactly how many t-shirts (and other tat/objects) have you sold with this face on it? How often have you printed or otherwise broadcast/distributed this image for publicity, gain or profit? Because I think that might be a bit of an issue if that image doesn’t belong to you.
(PS – Overheads must be a doddle if you’re as likely to just take stuff as pay for it. Is this part of the reason why you find profit-generation so effortless?)
Iain Dale is knowingly complicating my harassment case
29th Jun 2009
There are many things that I would love to blog about right now. I would love to tell you all about [censored] and their threat to [censored] but there are significant legal and moral obstacles.
Iain Dale knows of these obstacles. He also knows that I am effectively (and quite unjustly) silenced on this matter while suffering the continued fallout from a multi-faceted smear campaign involving an increasing number of players. (I can’t even address the Private Eye writer casually smearing me as a “nutter on a bus” in the current precarious conditions.)
However, for reasons he is keeping to himself, Iain Dale is knowingly continuing to publish and broadcast claims about me that he knows not to be true.
He does this knowing that the person smearing me is building their smears/fantasies on these false claims, and that his claims have also sparked several ‘copycat’ attacks that are no less damaging/alarming.
On top of this, the man claiming to act as Dale’s lawyer refused the offer of the relevant contact details and case number that would allow him to quickly establish why I had at least one good reason to persist in my attempts to contact Iain Dale on the weekend he was smearing Tom Watson. Instead, the man claiming to act as Dale’s lawyer has ignored my every email, for weeks now.
Further, Iain Dale has taken it upon himself to independently call people directly/tangentially involved in my case and accuse me of harassment (just as the man harassing me has been doing).
I went to call Iain Dale about this man and his recent publication(s) this morning… Iain answered the phone apparently under the impression that he was speaking not about that man, but to that man. He even greeted me by that man’s first name.
1. If Iain Dale has been in touch with the man who is harassing me, then perhaps he could admit it. Or deny it.
2. Either way, he also needs to explain why he appears to have ‘accidentally’ done so much to help that person over the past three months
3. And perhaps he could ****ing bring an end to it; I’m sure he’s quite enjoying my silence but the treatment I’ve been subjected to is entirely undeserved.
When other bloggers (from the left and right) recognised this attack on me as beyond the pale and went out of their way to help, Iain Dale took multiple steps to complicate rather than alleviate the situation. For a while there I thought that perhaps he was merely initially careless about the smears aimed at me and feared losing momentum and/or moral authority during ‘smeargate’, but his recent actions raise many doubts.
(NOTE – Iain was aware of a similar event in Guildford, but decided not to speak out about the actions of fellow Tories, and instead went on to smear me as a stalker… just as he is doing now, as it happens.)
-
UPDATE – No names in comments, please. It should be obvious what to avoid. Cheers all.
-
UPDATE – Iain Dale denies using that man’s first name in greeting on this morning’s call. He aso denies speaking to him or emailing him, but that is all Iain is prepared to say (or do) about this. He didn’t say a word about the increasingly problematic claims about me on his website that he knows to be false/untrue, be he did take a few seconds to accuse me of lying.
Goodbye, Poons
14th Jun 2009
The funeral for Dave Halligan is this Friday (19 June).
If you would like to send a message of condolence and/or share your memories of Poons with his family and friends, please send them to my Gmail address no later than 12:00 midday on Thursday (18 June):
( bloggerheads DOT com AT gmail DOT com )
-.– In your email, please use the following as your subject header (including brackets): [poons]
-.– Please also make sure that you sign your message with the name or nickname that you regard to be most suitable for this purpose (keeping in mind that these messages will not be posted on the web, and only seen by myself, then Dave’s family and closest friends).
I will be collating these messages into a single document and passing this on in time for it to be printed and suitably presented at the funeral reception, where it will be made available to guests.
Thank you.
Poons is gone
8th Jun 2009
“As many of you will by now be aware, the one and only Dave Halligan ceased to be on Saturday, 30th May 2009. The funeral will take place in Birkenhead in a couple of weeks. A lot of folks will be unable to attend, so the intention is to have a ceremony of our own in order to share our memories of Dave at a time when everyone can make it. Please feel free to post any ideas you may have here. Thank you all.” (source)
Poons was a longtime supporter of and comment contributor to Bloggerheads. In fact, his last post on his main weblog was made in support of me.
Recently, Poons spent most of his time on this alternative weblog, and I’ll let the introduction speak for itself:
Hi my name is poons and I am an alcoholic.
I also suffer from depression and have suicidal tendencies.
I tried to end it all on Monday 20th April 2009 and so I will document the consequences of that action.
The main objective of this blog is to allow my friends and family to keep up with where I am at, and maybe on the way inspire other people who find themselves in a similar situation so that they also make steps to address the issues of alcohol dependency and depression which I have found go arm in arm.
I will endeavour to post daily updates about my progress and details of the help I am receiving with pointers to hopefully help others who wish to get their own life back on track.
Despite support from myself and many others much closer to him, on Saturday 30th May 2009 Poons lost his battle to manage his alcohol intake & handle depression, and took his own life sometime after this last post at 3pm on that same day.
Poons is gone.
I’m going to have to do something to celebrate his life… but right now I’m busy mourning his death.
Back shortly.
Iain Dale is an ['expletive'-deleted] liar
1st Jun 2009
In an earlier post, I referred to this exchange, where Iain Dale’s lawyer tried and failed to specify an example of libel on my website after accusing me of repeated libel:
L: So far as I’m concerned, it is plainly obvious; you have accused my client of being, in various guises, a liar… with a number of adjectives which accompany it.
T: Riiiight..?
L: He denies that he’s a liar.
I’d like to expand on that theme briefly if I may, because it appears to me that someone is seeing bad language where there is none… while being blind to their own, no less.
Here’s a further exchange that I really wish I could bring you as audio. The best I can do is present this image as a description of the mocking tone used by this lawyer during this conversation:
L: I think that calling someone an expletive-deleted liar is not necessarily the most temperate way of diffusing a situation.
T: Actually, I…
L: … you could always say that someone has ‘been untruthful’.
T: … because I’ve been led into this trap* before, I’ve been very careful about my language with Mr Iain Dale recently…
L: I can only tell you…
T: … but he is a liar.
L: I can only tell you, it may be something that you may used to but the majority of people in this country still find very strong.
T: Wha…? I resent that, I really do.
L (mocking): “Oh, you resent that, you really do.” Cut the crap.
T: What’s with the mocking tone, sir?
L: Because I’m not here to be buggered around with.
[*Dale himself will himself tell people to "piss off" and describe them as "first class pricks" and allow/publish much worse from supporters on his website, but will feign shock if you ever swear back at him. So, because it is something that he nearly always takes advantage of, lately I've tried to be very careful about swearing at Iain.]
Now, leaving aside the possible status of ‘crap’ and ‘bugger’ as expletives, I’ve looked back though my posts from 2009 (because all of this crap started at or about the time that bugger Jenvey turned up) and all I can find are these two items:
In this post, I describe Iain Dale as “a shameless liar”.
In this post, I describe Iain Dale as “a malicious liar”.
So, depending on which of these two words is an expletive, we may finally have found what Iain Dale is referring to when he accuses me of libel… so is ‘malicious’ the expletive, or is it ‘shameless’?
Neither word shocks me, but that’s not a reliable guide, as it may simply be something that ‘people like me’ are used to. Would someone civilised care to point it out? Ideally, someone who represents “the majority of people in this country.”
-
[Of course, if this were a libel case, then I would have to prove that I speak the truth when I call Iain Dale a liar (which will be very easy to do if this ever sees the inside of a courtroom, because he lied to me), but this is not a libel case; Iain is instead alleging harassment, using accusations of repeated libel to support that allegation, and 'inviting' me to shut up and back off and let him have his way with continued publication of his lies about me while assuring every man and his dog that he isn't trying to gag anyone, because he doesn't like being called a hypocrite, either... even though he is one. Iain? You agreed to call Mercer, then didn't, then lied about it. You also lied when protesting your innocence over the false claim about Tom Watson that cost the Mail on Sunday "substantial damages". You also allege that I was harassing you when trying to contact you about both of these matters (and my statement to police, obviously) when you were in the process of misleading your readers about Tom Watson's association with Draper/McBride/smeargate, and my association with Draper/McBride/smeargate. You were not sitting at home innocently twiddling your thumbs or fearfully hiding behind the sofa; you were busy publishing libel at the time (and/or 'letting it ride' after withdrawing same just a little too quietly), and I was one of the targets on your site and others. Instead of throwing lawyers and allegations at me, you should come down from your ivory tower and explain yourself under comments like any blogger worth their salt would have done weeks ago. Until you do so, you can piss off, you first class prick.]
[MINI-UPDATE - After initially allowing me to publish their letter(s), Iain's lawyers now inform me that I am no longer permitted to do so... for reasons of copyright. (Tch. They'll gag me with an accusation of jaywalking next.) Iain's lawyers also refuse to clarify if criticism of Nadine Dorries amounts to harassment of Iain Dale in his eyes, as they appear to contend in their original copyright-protected letter.]
Steve Uncles of the English Democrats is a cowardly scoundrel
1st Jun 2009
Rather than risk yet another ridiculous legal threat from yet another [expletive deleted], I’ll mostly let Steve Uncle’s own words speak for him in this post:
“You may recall the ‘self hating’ blogger – Chris Lightfoot, who in 2004, ‘went off on one’ just because he got a leaflet through his letter box with an England Flag on it. 18 Months ago the poor lad Committed Suicide – that’s what happens when you hate your own country, you have no identity, no focus – nothing.” – Steve Uncles, 30 May 2009
And just in case that wasn’t enough:
“Good! Let’s hope you go the same way as Chris Lightfoot” – Steve Uncles, 30 May 2009
And, as you can see, this is not a one-off or a ‘moment of madness’ but a theme that Steve Uncles keeps returning to:
“If we get the Liberal’s way, and have a multi-cultural “soup” everywhere in the world – what fun will it be when we go abroad ? You self haters, really need to sharpen up you game. Chris Lightfoot, did not do ANYTHING for English Democracy. The guy was a waster.” Steve Uncles, March 18, 2009
Jebus! I can only hope that if I pass on before him that Iain Dale will continue to take me this seriously*.
James Graham has more detail here.
PDF uses immoderate language to describe Steve Uncles here.
Oh, for those who don’t already know, Chris Lightfoot put more into our democracy than even this parasite could hope to extract.
Steve Uncles is a coward and a scoundrel and unworthy of your vote.
-
[*If you think that sentence unfair, then consider this; Iain Dale, like Steve Uncles, is completely blind to his errors/failings - or unwilling to admit to them in public - and describes my criticism of him as having "nothing to do with advancing political debate or matter[s] of any public importance” because he’s so gosh-darn important *and* right all of the time. Further, the only time that Iain Dale will address that criticism is when he knows I am not around and/or I have been effectively silenced… just as he did during the Usmanov event, while posing as a supporter. After his (in)actions over the Mercer call especially, I have every reason to believe he’d do the same while posing as a mourner, and I’ll even stake a fiver from my vast estate on it.]
Iain Dale and the subtle art of legal gagging
29th May 2009
“Dear Iain Dale, I think Nadine Dorries is a twat. This doesn’t mean I think you’re a twat. But as it happens, I do.” – Anton Vowl
1. According to lawyers acting for Iain Dale, I am not mad/insane and they know that. Hooray. However, at the same time, they fail to recognise that their client has repeatedly authored/published comments that imply/claim otherwise… while they contend that I pursue him for no good reason and/or to an unreasonable extent.
2. Earlier, I sent an email reply to them and hyperlinked to the full document rather than include it. They did not reply to this email or even acknowledge a further mail from me requesting that they do this. They now contend that because I sent a hyperlink to a document instead of the whole document, that I did not actually send them a reply.
3. According to those same lawyers, the reason why Iain Dale has not simply reported me to the police for harassment (or, one assumes, one of the other crimes alleged on his site) is because “we do not wish to waste public funds to deal with you” (accent on the you, which was just one example of this chap’s rather demeaning manner).
4. But one of the main things that I called them about and wanted to clarify (especially when they had not replied to anything for more than a week after issuing a 1-week deadline) was their apparent assertion that any pursuit of Nadine Dorries would be interpreted by Iain Dale as ‘further’ harassment of him; i.e. could I enjoy the privilege of never saying anything about Iain Dale ever again, but still prompt a harassment complaint by being critical of Nadine Dorries? See, they’re either accusing me of actively/unfairly pursuing Nadine Dorries about what Iain Dale published about myself (and/or Tom Watson) – one of many accusations in that letter and section that I deny – and/or they are trying to claim or imply that by pursuing Nadine Dorries I am aiming to get at Iain Dale. It is just one of the things the original letter is annoyingly vague about, but it’s important given that there is so much about Nadine Dorries that is worth reporting right now. Here’s what happened when I tried to get them to be clearer on this position:
['This' refers to the lies about me and others that Iain Dale was publishing on his site at the time (that are still live today) and his refusal at the time to contribute to a formal statement to police about an ongoing crime (my being harassed by being falsely accused of being a paedophile). 'T' = Tim (me). 'L' = lawyer.]
T: You’re saying that I chased Nadine Dorres to pursue this?
L: I didn’t say that you chased Nadine Dorries…
T: Yes you do, in the letter, that’s exactly what you say in the letter.
L: I did not say you pursued this, not to pursue this.
T: Oh, so why did I pursue Nadine Dorries?
L: About Mr Dale.
T: It’s to get at Mr Dale, is that your position?
L: I don’t know; you’re going to explain, no doubt.
He later clarified that he meant ‘explain in court’… but I was wanting to clarify what action might be perceived by Iain Dale as something that would prompt him to take me to court. If it wasn’t their position that chasing Nadine Dorries equated to harassment of Iain Dale, I would expect them to much clearer about it, and leave no room for uncertainty.
However, I was also politely warned that “it might be better to halt the war rather than continue it,” and I took this to mean that, yes, this is seen by some as a tribal issue of sorts, and I potentially open myself to a charge of harassment if I continue to publish/say/do anything about Nadine Dorries that Iain Dale and his lawyers regard to be ‘unreasonable’ (and, going by the way they both approach comment moderation, I expect this to include just about anything they don’t personally agree with or wish to talk about).
5. Finally, in their original letter alleging my harassment of their client, Iain Dale’s lawyers pass on several vague accusations of libel to make what passes for their case, but they fail to cite a single example. So today I asked for one single example of libel instead of vague, over-reaching claims of repeated libel. Here is the result of that (wasted) effort:
T: So are you actually in the habit of sending out letters accusing someone of libel without specifying what that libel might be?
(pause)
L: Well, what are you talking about?
T: Your client, in this letter, accuses me of libel more than once, but doesn’t actually specify what and where that might be.
L: Well, no doubt that will appear in any proceedings that will ensue.
T: Wha… [laughter].. surely if the idea is to..
L: You know what you’ve done, Mr Ireland
T: …no, I don’t. You see, there’s a large amount of confusion…
L: … you do!
T: Could you inform me what I have done…?
L: Well…
T: … if it’s that clear.
L: So far as I’m concerned, it is plainly obvious; you have accused my client of being, in various guises, a liar… with a number of adjectives which accompany it.
T: Riiiight..?
L: He denies that he’s a liar.
Pretty specific, huh? You’d best check your own site(s) and make sure that you haven’t called Iain Dale a liar, too; there could be repercussions.
“Nobody wishes to gag you,” I was assured. Apparently, I am free to take the risk of publishing what I please… within the limits stipulated by Iain Dale and his lawyers (using harassment law as their main device, in much the same way that many corporations do nowadays).
These limits appear to include not calling Iain Dale a liar when he is lying (which he does often), not criticising Nadine Dorries when she is lying (which she does often), and/or anything else that Iain Dale might intepret as an act of ‘war’ (which could be just about anything, depending on his mood).
That looks, smells and feels like a gag to me… and a bloody funny one that that.
(Psst! Oh, and I’m certainly not allowed to email Iain Dale to check any specifics before I publish anything; keen libel-law-watchers will appreciate the subtle art to this not-at-all-gagging technique, I’m sure.)
Why can’t Iain simply explain how/why he repeatedly and knowingly complicated my harassment case instead of helping me with it as I asked? Why won’t Iain remove claims about me on his website that he knows not to be true? Why can’t Iain specify anything on my site that he regards to be libel? Oh, and what kind of blogger takes matters to these extremes just to avoid having a conversation where they might have to admit to making an error or two?
All these questions and more, folks… for as long as Iain continues to be an [adjective] [expletive] about this.
Incidentally, this recent behaviour of Iain’s has complicated my harassment case more than the call to Mercer he didn’t make; Iain’s ‘parish notice’ post especially has prompted at least one revenge attack that included a repeat of Jenvey’s claims, and there is now a new assault on my character that I have not blogged about until right now; the new attacks merge Iain Dale’s repeated ‘mental’ smears with Glen Jenvey’s ‘paedo’ smears and allege that I have a long history of mental illness and am therefore likely to have staged the whole event and called myself a convicted sex criminal in the process.
Both of these attacks have been reported to the police, as will all future attacks on this kind. I trust that my doing so is not regarded by some as a waste of public funds.
Nadine Dorries censors Nadine Dorries
29th May 2009
This week, Nadine Dorries emerged from her tragically difficult long weekend with a fab new makeover and a ‘get some’ attitude. To show us how bold and brave she was (and that nothing had changed), she then misrepresented the contents of a negative letter published in her local newspaper (while completely failing to mention that the letter was about her conduct on expenses) and savaged the writer while playing the victim.
Classic Dorries, and so far so standard, but this morning I discovered that Nadine had retro-moderated the relevant post, essentially removing her attack without actually admitting to any error, righting any wrongs, etc. – like it never happened, and she didn’t dishonestly quote a man out of context or disgracefully split hairs over what constitutes fighting for what you believe in.
Well, I’m going to mirror her original post here in order to SAVE BLOGGING AND FREE SPEECH (or something):
All’s Fair in War and Politics
Posted (by Nadine Dorries) Wednesday, 27 May 2009 at 15:16http://blog.dorries.org/id-1397-2009_5_All%27s_Fair_in_War_and_Politics.aspx
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.
Let’s hope it’s true.
Save Nadine Dorries from Nadine Dorries… or next time, it might be you!
