Iain Dale says; “Whoever has done this deserves all they get when they are found out.”
When they are found out?
Well, there’s genuine outrage for you. Iain’s so annoyed about this that he’s going to sit back and wait for whoever did it to be found.
I think Iain Dale can do better than that… if he wants to.
I think Iain Dale can identify Norman Lamb’s impersonator(s). At least, I think he’s got a better shot at it than most of us put together… and I’m about to explain why:
[Note – As the possibility remains that more than one person is involved, I’ll be referring to the impersonator(s) by their static IP address – 184.108.40.206 – and using this as a name to identify an individual or team/group.]
1. Judging by the varying disinformation 220.127.116.11 has been putting out (i.e. naming/blaming everyone but the Tories), we are almost certainly dealing with a Tory source.
2. Judging by the local knowledge (and support of Trevor Ivory) shown in the Wikipedia edits, we can be reasonably certain that 18.104.22.168 moves in the same circles that Iain moved in when running as a candidate in the same area.
3. The fraudster(s) blundered about under multiple/false personalities with a single static IP address… even after it had been discovered. So they play with weblogs, but they’re relatively new at it or not very good at it. As the premier blogger that most newbies and wannabes never tire of kissing up to, Iain Dale is the most likely recipient of an identity-revealing comment or email from 22.214.171.124 regardless of (1) and (2).
So, to summarise and help Iain Dale along…
I think there’s more than a good chance that Iain’s tracking data (he uses *three* third-party packages, all for the same site) contains a record of the IP address 126.96.36.199 – if that IP address was used to post a comment under a known profile and Iain has a record of it, we’ll have our man. Or woman. Or men. Or women. Oh, you know what I mean.
Some of this data has already been and gone, so he’ll want to crack on with this sooner rather than later, before the trail goes well-and-truly cold.
Iain can also spend some time thinking about likely suspects who might have emailed him, and might even want to start by checking for messages from any Suffolk Conservative Councillors (who use the same provider as our target). It’s also possible that 188.8.131.52 foolishly emailed Iain under their real name promoting the impersonation in some way (by claiming to have ‘found’ it, perhaps).
Of course, it’s not practical that he go through all of his email… just those from some likely suspects. All he needs to do is look at the source data of messages in his suspect shortlist and keep a sharp eye out for the magic number 184.108.40.206… the process is so simple he shouldn’t even need Dizzy to hold his hand.
(OK, that last comment was unfair… and unseemly. Dizzy is a clever chap when he’s not trying to be, so perhaps he can think of some faster and better ways to check records and chip in.)
Iain, no doubt, will wonder out loud why he should do anything I ‘order’ him to do on his own personal property lah-de-dah. To avoid burdening readers of both sites with yet another loaded question, I’ll simply answer it ahead of time:
Because, let’s face it, you’re going to come across as a bit insincere if you utterly condemn something without taking reasonable measures to stop or discourage it.
UPDATE (6pm) – Iain appears to be claiming here that he did all of this or better before I suggested he do it. But why does he appear so reluctant to take my advice if it’s so clearly in line with his thinking? Who did he tell about his findings? What were those findings? I’d ask these questions and more, but he’s not answering my emails and he appears to have banned me from his website without telling me again. If he’s playing the not-rising-to-the-bait game he’s got a bloody nerve after dumping that “He insinuated!” post that included its own insinuations.