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?)

Posted by Manic on July 2, 2009, 6:01 PM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

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.

Posted by Manic on June 29, 2009, 1:57 PM in Updates | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

There will be very little in the way of blogging this week but you can follow me on Twitter if you like.

Comments are closed at this time.

Cheers all.

Richard O'Brien: Over At The Frankenstein Place (Acoustic Version)

Posted by Manic on June 21, 2009, 10:45 AM in Updates | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

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.

Posted by Manic on June 14, 2009, 8:56 PM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

"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.

Posted by Manic on June 8, 2009, 9:30 AM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack (2)

This is a photo from a friend's private collection. I hereby dedicate this scan to all the little Hitlers of the world.

Bless them, their ickle jackboots, their adorably unsteady goose-stepping, and most of all their dream of not only annexing the sandpit, but (one day) the entire playground.

Posted by Manic on June 4, 2009, 6:52 PM in Tolerance | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Right-click, 'save us', upload to Twitter, then tweet:

Easy. Now go out and vote.

_ _ _ _

_ _ _ _

Posted by Manic on June 4, 2009, 1:46 PM in Tolerance | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

MINI-UPDATE - see also: The Daily Quail - Why the BNP hate Britain

The BNP decided last night that they would (finally) broadcast their policies instead of riding the expenses scandal. Meanwhile, they've urged all of their activists to share their policies push the 'protest vote' message wherever they go.

Today I'll mostly be on Twitter and spreading the word that #theBNParetwats - but I will also be adding to this post as the day goes by to show you what really lurks behind the BNP's published policies.

Email or message me if you'd like to contribute to the fisking of these '10 reasons to vote BNP', or simply share the love on YouTube with the Billy Brit trilogy box set:

http://bit.ly/billybrit | http://bit.ly/billybrit2 | http://bit.ly/billybrit3

Also, if you're on Twitter, please consider changing your profile image to something suitably anti-BNP and RTing this message.

And now, on with the fisking of '10 Reasons Why You Should Vote BNP' (be warned that relevant links go direct to the BNP website):

Reason to vote BNP number 1: Workfare not Welfare - BNP Housing and Welfare Policy.

NCCLols takes a closer look at this; one thing he highlights is the oft-repeated myth of a housing crisis driven by immediate handovers to 'illegal asylum seekers' and the like. As many people struggle to understand, the BNP are calling for radical change to reverse/correct something that isn't really happening.

I'll field this one a bit, too; they oppose what they describe as "social engineering" before proposing their own social engineering scheme (a theme they often return to), and the entire policy is unworkable without their casting off or cutting off large numbers of brown people regardless of their willingness to work. So you'll get your welfare improvements after Johnny Foreigner is out on his ear and "utterly bogus asylum seeker and immigration swindles" are done away with. Maybe.

Reason to vote BNP number 2: British Soldiers Defending Britain - BNP Defence Policy.

Sim-O has this covered. Some spectacular isolationism from the BNP, who are at the same time trying to make gains on the backs of an near-to-infinite number of grandfathers who died in WWII.

(see also: Foreign Affairs Policy)

Reason to vote BNP number 3: First Class Health Service for a First World Nation - BNP Health Policy.

To be fisked.

Reason to vote BNP number 4: Nurturing the Genius of Our Nation's Youth - BNP Education Policy.

Bookdrunk reveals at its core; "a bold policy of sweeping away citizenship lessons and replacing them with.. uh.. a compulsory citizenship organisation for young people"

Reason to vote BNP number 5: Restoring the Rule of Law - The BNP's Crime and Justice Policy.

Justin McKeating has this one covered. In a disgraceful ad hominem attack that's certain to enrage non-racist debating expert Phil Hendren, Justin points out that the authors of these policies are a bunch of crooks. (I might also add that they lie about crime rates and even specific crimes.)

Reason to vote BNP number 6: Preserving British Identity - The British National Party's Immigration Policy.

Five Chinese Crackers - BNP Immigration policy - something* tells me it's not just about immigrants

[*Actually, that would be Nick Griffin, wouldn't it? ;o) ]

Reason to vote BNP number 7: How the BNP Will Rebuild Britain's Economy.

To be fisked.

Reason to vote BNP number 8: Britain First - The Simple Logic of BNP Foreign Affairs Policy.

Irritability Incarnate: The BNP - on a different planet? points out where "the BNP's position on foreign policy is somehow incredibly simplistic yet remarkably contradictory and confusing at the same time."

Jamie Sport offers: "'Simple' is the operative word in the BNP's 'Foreign Affairs Policy', which actually just consists of not having any affairs with foreigners. This is classic BNP non-politics; policy which proposes nothing, relying instead on simply doing the opposite of whatever it is the mainstream parties would do. BNP policy is devised not by formulating plans or generating ideas, but by taking current strategy and saying 'Nah'. This is anti-politics, anti-integration, regressive and harmful to our country, and betrays an inability to seriously run a political party, let alone a country. Mr Griffin and his cohorts have not the faintest idea of how Europe or indeed any international relations work, evidenced by their pie-in-the sky, unworkable soundbite policy points (all *cough* four of them)"

Reason to vote BNP number 9: The BNP Is Britain's Most Democratic Party.

Five Chinese Crakers - It's not a baying mob - it's democratic tells you everything you need to know about the BNP's commitment to democracy, which goes about as deep (and lasts about as long) as the first layer of cloth in a cheap suit.

The Pickards - The Most Democratic Party? is a completely thorough fisking, and well worth your time.

Reason to vote BNP number 10: The BNP is Britain's Only True Green Party.

To be fisked.

[Psst! To hear more about their unpublished policies, check out this video of Nick Grfiffin speaking to his American Nationalist and Klu Klux Klan buddies.]

[MINI-UPDATE: 'Dizzy' really wanted to help, but thought it more important that you 'learn' the BNP are really left-wing. For true.]

Posted by Manic on June 4, 2009, 12:28 PM in Tolerance | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

A bit rushed this one, but it's from the heart. Don't forget to vote, folks!

Billy Brit III (the BNP are Nazi wankers)

Warning: this video may contain language that "the majority of people in this country find a bit strong*"

(*According to the chap that Iain Dale has hired as his lawyer, who is slightly xenophobic and/or having himself on a bit.)

Posted by Manic on June 3, 2009, 10:17 AM in Tolerance | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Below is what a search for 'billy brit' returned last night (and this morning's results are even better).

That's near-total ownership; strong control of the brand in Google within a week, using just a few short minutes of video, and it can only get better after the BNP muppets have surrendered.

Go us. Roll on, finale.

(For those who don't know, this is pretty much what I do for a living, only I don't play anywhere near this rough on the High Street.)

Posted by Manic on June 2, 2009, 9:45 AM in Tolerance | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

[The Russian crew watches the USS Dallas surfacing at speed]
Russian midshipman: [in Russian] Captain's scared them out of the water!
[the Russians cheer]

The Hunt for Red October

As recently as 29 May, the YBNP site was offering signed 'Billy Brit' posters. This followed the Dorries-like stunt in which they responded to being mocked on HIGNFY by announcing that Billy Brit was a success because he'd been on TV (see: "Billy Brit is a special guest star on Have I got News for You").

Sadly, a regular supply of deliciously dippy delusions has been cut off now that someone in authority (presumably in the BNP) has ordered the entire Billy Brit channel (formerly hosted at http://www.youtube.com/user/BillyBritPuppet) cuh-losed.

There are still posts like this on the BNP site, but they point to empty spaces where the 'Billy Brit' videos should be.

Journalists seeking a story that pretty much writes itself are advised to contact the BNP and ask them why Billy Brit has been removed from YouTube. My money's on a vast left-wing conspiracy of political correctness, or a ballsy statement about their taking their ball and going home (days before an election) because they had already 'won'.

Enjoy the only surviving* Billy Brit here or here if you haven't alerady. Oh, and thanks to everybody who chipped in (on Twitter especially).

-

[Tut. How is it that I bring about the closure of entire BNP YouTube channel, but I can't even get Iain Dale to apologise for being a total (expletive deleted) about my harassment case?]

Posted by Manic on June 1, 2009, 4:21 PM in Tolerance | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

Original video and background if you need it.

In this video, I immediately deal with the what-passes-for-history debate currently in progress under the original video (apparently it's really important to some people that we 'prove' that St George was white) and move on to address the 29 million pamphlets distributed by the BNP:

Billy Brit II - the BNP pamphlet

Link, share and enjoy if you want one more before election day. Cheers all.

Posted by Manic on June 1, 2009, 2:02 PM in Tolerance | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

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.]

Posted by Manic on June 1, 2009, 1:39 PM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

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.]

Posted by Manic on June 1, 2009, 11:23 AM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Daily Mail - Unmasked: The football hooligans behind last weekend's bloody protest against a Muslim war demo: (Dave Smeeton) and his supporters were in Luton for the Bank Holiday to lay wreaths at the war memorial. And to take part in a supposedly peaceful demonstration against Islamic fanatics who jeered and waved placards saying 'Butchers of Basra' during a homecoming parade for The 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment in March. But the event on Sunday turned into mob violence. Asians - and Asian shops - were attacked, cars vandalised and stones hurled at police. At the centre of the mayhem, whipping up the 500-strong crowd, were skinheads and men in balaclavas with shirts bearing the Cross of St George... A similar coat of arms and Crusader imagery is featured in a notorious anti-Islamic website penned by someone calling himself Lionheart. Lionheart, we discovered, is Paul Ray, 32. Ray used to run a computer repair shop in nearby Dunstable, but is now unemployed. Last year, he was arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred and is still on bail... Guess which organisation Paul Ray belongs to? Yes, that's right, March for England. He took part in Sunday's demonstration, but says he was not involved in any of the trouble. Ray calls Smeeton a 'very good friend.' Another link between the men is Glen Jenvey, accused by several newspapers of fabricating stories about Islamic extremism. Jenvey has eight 'friends' on his Facebook site; two of them are Ray and Smeeton.

I love the 'several newspapers' bit. Why have you not reported it yourself, Mail peeps?

-

UPDATE - Rather more detail from Richard Bartholomew:

Richard Bartholomew - Daily Mail Article on Luton anti-Muslim Violence: And as for Glen Jenvey: it's a long story, but the guts of it are here. In fact, there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Jenvey (a pundit on the controversial Obsession DVD) has indeed fabricated stories which he then sold to newspapers, as has been investigated extensively by Tim Ireland (with a bit of assistance from  me). Alas, though, rather fewer than "several newspapers" have so far taken up the investigation; all we've had are two short pieces, one in the media section of  the Guardian and the other in Private Eye. Ray denounced the evidence against Jenvey as "propaganda", although he's been silent on the subject more recently. Of course, there is no reason to suppose that just because he's a Facebook contact of Smeeton that Smeeton knows much about him; Jenvey may have few Facebook links, but Smeeton has many more. Some clarification would be nice, though. And also alas - the Daily Mail continues to use the wrong picture to illustrate the extremist Muslims who gave Ray just want he wanted (just as he has now returned the favour).

-

UPDATE (2 Jun) - Richard Bartholomew - Daily Mail Pulls Article on Luton Disturbance: The Daily Mail has removed the article I blogged on here, which gave some background to the recent supposedly "anti-extremist" disturbance in Luton. I also understand that the reference to Glen Jenvey had been scrubbed before the whole thing was pulled... The thought of Glen Jenvey taking the stand as victim of mispresentation is a laugh, given his recent activities. And the complaint is back-to-front: the Mail suggested that being linked to Glen Jenvey makes the alleged hooligans look bad, not the other way round!

Posted by Manic on May 29, 2009, 10:44 PM in Old Media | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

"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.

Posted by Manic on May 29, 2009, 4:34 PM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

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 15:16
http://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!

Posted by Manic on May 29, 2009, 10:07 AM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Take a look at the real estate that's now under the control of those offering an alternative view to that put forward by the BNP though 'Billy Brit'. This took roughly 24 hours:

Matt Wardman also dabbles in the dark arts. As you can see, he's doing well; he's even placed above me in the early juggle and may do so again soon. Not that it matters when he's carrying the same message.

You can join in, too; all you have to do is blog about my version of Billy Brit on YouTube.

It will also help at this stage if you actually rate the video and/or leave a comment rather than just thinking about it.

(Yes, it really is that simple. No keyword fuss or tricks will be required*. Just blog about the video - or include a link to it in a longer post about the BNP and their recent antics - and make sure you leave feedback of some kind at YouTube.)

Billy Br*t (the racist sh*t)

We should hear more from Billy after the weekend (possibly earlier, if I can ply him with cider this evening). Cheers all.

-

[*Well, if you really wanted to, you could try including a single link like this - BNP - but it looks a bit cheap (i.e. in the tradition of 'A.A. Aardvark') and the effects will be temporary at best.]

Posted by Manic on May 28, 2009, 10:53 AM in Search Engine Optimisation | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (1)

A couple of weeks ago, I was chatting on Teh Twitter with some like-minded people and we happened across this video of a BNP puppet designed to teach Teh Kids about how cool it is to be white (or something like that):

It was then discovered that the BNP folks had not only helped themselves to a few stock images, but also bought a bog-standard store-bought puppet and presented it as an original character.

This meant that anyone could buy an identical copy of the puppet and use it to mock the BNP... which is exactly what I've gone and done. Many thanks to Mike Power for the finance and Chris Applegate for the idea.

Billy Br*t (the racist sh*t)

Share and enjoy, good people... share and enjoy. Oh, and don't forget to use the all-important tag if you mention this on Twitter: #theBNParetwats

-

UPDATE - Here's the reaction on b3ta/links

Posted by Manic on May 27, 2009, 11:05 AM in Tolerance | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack (2)

The Register - Sockpuppeting British politico resigns from Wikisupremecourt: A Labour councillor for London's City of Westminster resigned from Wikipedia's supreme court at the weekend, after admitting he gained election to the site's ruling body using a false name... When standing for election to the Arbitration Committee - known in Orwellian fashion as the ArbCom - Boothroyd's platform included the notion that "editors should be encouraged to register accounts, and then ideally to stick to one account." On a private email list used by the Arbitration Committee, Boothroyd acknowledged his real identity and admitted to using a second Wikipedia account under the names Fys and Dbiv. He has also used a third account under his own name.

Now, you need to keep in mind here that Iain Dale is a carpet-bagging blog-cheat who tolerates and encourages worse on his website when it suits him (while yelling 'sock puppet' at political opponents without a lick of evidence). Iain also has a near-pathological hatred of any 'lefty' who dares to have been in the internets longer than him. I mention this mainly so you don't suffer from undue surprise when Iain continues to show a lack of interest in the detail and just carries on exploiting this rare opportunity to yell 'sock puppet' in a leftwards direction.

AFAICS, what has happened here is that a man has tried to move on from his past identities, but fallen into the trap of becoming involved (at an admin/voting level) in some disputes that have overlapped with that past - the result being a conflict of interest in a position/environment that won't tolerate perceived conflicts, never mind actual ones.

I have every reason to be personally upset with some aspects of this, but I think it's more important that I encourage you to take some time to look at the detail:

- David has resigned from the Arbitration Committee, not Wikipedia as a whole (pardon my sloppy tweet) and certainly not as a councillor as some over-excited people have been saying/thinking.

- Many people are speaking up for David's latter editing record, and I urge you to at least scan this page to get a proper sense of that. At this stage there appears to be little reason to rush about undoing/ignoring all the good work he has done on Wikipedia, but such decisions/judgements are best left in the hands of people with far more experience and credibility than the likes of Iain Dale (or Phil Hendren, for that matter). Again, this is the page to be in on if you want to follow any of that.

- There isn't a scrap of evidence linking Mr Boothroyd to Damian McBride, but I'm sure the narrative linking the two will persist regardless of any evidence, as it's politically useful to Conservatives (who will, no doubt, recall all too well the indignity of watching their head of campaigning attempting something far more treacherous and failing on an epic scale).

- David has contributed many comments to this site over the years, and he's still welcome to do so.

Posted by Manic on May 27, 2009, 10:29 AM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)