As much I’d love to bring you an opaque post full of tedious detail, this is all you get today; Mr Popularity strikes again…
As much I’d love to bring you an opaque post full of tedious detail, this is all you get today; Mr Popularity strikes again…
I don’t think the good people at the Mirror really thought this one through:
– You’ll want to read this article on torture, even though it contains few surprises.
Why are the Tories trying to convince everyone that there’s meat in the shit-sandwich they should be eating?
Rheotrical question, obviously.
Justin McKeating – V for Vacuity
Anton Vowl – Well yes, when you look at it that way…
Unity – The Purloined Policy… <--- long but potentially quite important Paulie – David Davies – refusing to co-operate?
Iain Dale has not been able to show any substance behind his feigned outrage here and here. Challenges to his declaration that “…to most people nowadays, the word ‘grooming’ has only one connotation and it’s related to paedophilia” have been ignored or dismissed.
You may also ‘enjoy’ Richard Littlejohn as he defies the British police state from within his gated community in Miami and waves Dr David Kelly’s corpse around like a weapon.
(On the latter point, Littlejohn describes Kelly as being hounded to death “for telling the truth about Iraq’s non-existent nuclear weapons”… but this the same man who, when at the Sun, dismissed a million people with doubts about WMD claims as selfish, naive peaceniks.)
(Psst! First face I noticed in the footage was that of notorious sock-puppeteer Grant Shapps. I’m amazed that Cameron still has this clown in his cabinet.)
More details below the fold for those who need them:
[ —————— FOLD —————— ]
BBC – Row over Green ‘grooming’ claims: Senior Tories are furious that police who arrested MP Damian Green accused him of “grooming” a Home Office mole to leak him information… When police questioned Mr Green – the shadow immigration minister – they are said to have suggested to him that he had not “simply received leaked” information but “groomed” a civil servant who had allegedly passed him 20 confidential documents. The man, who has been named in newspapers, was a Conservative activist who is believed to have previously applied for jobs in Mr Green’s office. There was Tory anger over the police’s use of the controversial term “groomed” because it is usually used in relation to child sex offences.
Oh, spare me.
What possible reason could the police have to avoid using this word? I mean, apart from the selective hypersensitivity of Conservatives looking to gain recently-lost ground. (Oh, and perhaps mask a bit of misconduct, eh gents?)
FFS, they’re charging about all over the place like hysterical pepperpots; there are causes for concern in this case, but this isn’t one of them.
Don’t wave a six of clubs in my face if you’re trying to convince me that you’re holding a royal flush.
Footnote about a footnote: the following was said about Paul Staines (aka ‘Guido Fawkes’) recently in relation to another matter, but it certainly applies here;
“Footnote: it’s always enjoyable to catch Guido Fawkes in a tizz, the insouciant mask of worldly, non-partisan cynicism dropping as the Tories get into difficulty.” – Michael White
MINI-UPDATE – Another example, and this time we are spelled for spoiling errors. Are these the “window
liquors lickers” that Paul Staines speaks of when lamenting the sorry sewer-like state of his comments?
Justin McKeating – That poor oppressed ruling class again
Jim Bliss – Tories living in Stalinist Britain
Septicisle – Green and a very suddenly established police state
This and more in a blogging round-up at Liberal Conspiracy
[Psst! It may be a quiet one this week. A new animation is on the way. That, and I’m being paid by a Stalinist state to keep schtum.]
UPDATE (3:30pm) – Proof, if you need it, that the grooming ‘smear’ is only in the public domain because the Tories brought it into the open and presented it as a smear:
The Times – Damian Green is accused of orchestrating up to 20 leaks: In a welter of briefings from police, ministers, civil servants and Commons officials, the most incendiary came from a senior Conservative who said that Mr Green was accused of “grooming his contact” during his nine-hour detention on Thursday. “Damian was very angry at this clear attempt to provoke him and did not reply. As a party we want to make it clear that this was grossly inappropriate but symptomatic of the cack-handed way the police have conducted this investigation.”
Independent – Arrested MP accused of ‘grooming’ mole: The Conservative MP Damian Green was accused by police of “grooming” a Home Office mole. The accusation came during nine hours of questioning by police investigating at least 20 leaks of secret documents from the department. As details of the investigation emerged, the shadow Immigration minister told friends he was livid that detectives resorted to “provocative” language used to describe sex offenders and suicide bombers.
Somehow, this became a Telegraph headline “Damian Green accused of ‘grooming’ Whitehall mole, claim police” when there is, in fact, no such claim from the police in that article or in any other that I can find; everything comes back to what unnamed sources close to Green have been saying.
The (alleged) accusation of Damian Green ‘grooming’ Chris Galley (for any purpose) is only in the public domain because Green and his supporters chose to bring it into the public domain, and they made damn sure that they and associated it with sex offenders and/or suicide bombers when they did so.
Either the police are devilishly clever in the way they go about smearing someone (and in the habit of leaving a lot to chance when they do so) or this ‘outrage’ has been feigned and fabricated by the Conservatives in order to draw attention away from some or all of the police investigation.
[Psst! Peek in comments for a link to Iain Dale’s contribution.]
UPDATE – Or click here, I suppose.
You might initially think that this issue pales into insignificance next to the million assumptions that simply must be made immediately about matters in Mumbai today, but I for one believe that the reliability of information is important across the political spectrum, and identity is often key to this online.
Take, for example, the comments about Andrew Gilligan and/or his articles that would look very different once confirmed to be from Andrew Gilligan or one of his close associates.
Take, as another example, the many newspapers desperate to belittle blogs and bloggers while simultaneously scrambling to get in on the action, and their typical approach to comment moderation; (refuse substantial criticism no matter where it comes from, and publish almost any damn thing that doesn’t harm them specifically… no matter where it comes from).
Most bloggers who have been talking about the Andrew Gilligan matter recently may have noticed a number of trolls seemingly designed to confuse the issue and mock concerns about the use of multiple false identities in the political arena.
Most if not all of these are the work of one man – Martin Wiesner – and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
You most likely know him as ‘Lobster Blogster’ (CiF), one identity he carried on with for an extended period before adopting ‘Tory Dipper’ and then semi-outing himself as ‘Martin’ or ‘Pogsurf’ (CiF)… i.e. he somewhat belatedly declared a connection between some of his sock puppets, using an old nickname that – with research – might someday lead you to his real identity and some information about his political affiliations that he really should have declared in any number of instances in the first place.
As Lobster Blogster, Martin sought to involve himself with the whole Paul Staines thing and even earned a blogroll link on ‘Guido 2.0′. Eventually it emerged that we disagreed on the crucial matter of identity and accountability (i.e. the issue at the heart of my problems with Paul Staines, aka ‘Guido Fawkes’) but it wasn’t clear just how fundamental our differences were until I had cause to explore the edit history of a few entries at Wikipedia, most notably the entry for Paul Staines.
And on that note…
Months ago, I asked Martin how many anonymous edits he had made to Paul Staines’ Wikipedia entry. His response can best be described as acidic distortion:
Hang on Ireland! You want my help now? Maybe you should have thought about that before you started slagging me off on the internet. (Tory Dipper stands accused of the most hideous of internet crimes, sock-puppetry. Tim has yet to present his case, but of course he has already been found guilty by Justice Ireland.)
Just for the record, Tory Dipper is completely unaware of any way to make anonymous edits on Wikipedia. The Dipper has edited Wikipedia in the past, but only ever using the methods described at Pseudonymity, so the correct answer to his e-mail is “none”.
Even with this ‘pseudonymity’ distortion in place (a pseudonym is often chosen for purposes of anonymity; only in some contexts are they separate concepts), Martin can easily be proved to be stupefyingly ignorant, forgetful, or a liar:
Most, if not all, of these anonymous edits were made by Martin Wiesner, who is clearly aware of how one might make anonymous edits on Wikipedia, but not wily enough, it appears, to avoid detection. I have evidence of my own that’s quite distinct from the assertions of experienced Wikipedia editors, and I’m willing to have it tested in court (not that Martin will want to do anything other than cast doubt upon that evidence, or me personally).
There’s more for those who care to poke around, but this response to his being indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia should be enough:
Please feel free to ban me again if you feel that is the right thing to do. There are many more names and IP addresses I could adopt, should the need arise.
Martin Wiesner is an unapologetic user of sock puppets (multiple false identities). This confirms it.
Sock-puppeting is regarded to be a harmless practice in some quarters, but not when sock-puppets are used in a way that impacts significantly on someone’s reputation, and certainly not when the democratic process is involved…
Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008
In the showcase by-election prompted by the resignation of David Davis, the Greens were significant players (in fact, their candidate came second).
Though he failed on the follow-through, Martin Weisner sought to involve himself in that by-election with a website that mocked David Davis. Most importantly, he did so without declaring his association with the Green Party. Especially in a field with so many players and the two main players bowing out, saying something like “It should be obvious I’m not a Tory” just isn’t good enough.
While the law has yet to catch up with reality (example), such antics are just as unacceptable as anonymous pamphlets in my view, and I suspect I’ll be just as busy dealing with this issue at the next general election as I have been during recent council elections and by-elections.
Martin’s current position on all of this is that I should be willing to live and let live… but this runs contrary to his actions that I’m objecting to in the first place, and even if I were to accept his reasoning on this front, we would still be left with the very real fact that I often get blamed for a lot of the crap that he does, which impacts on my reputation.
(Psst! Annoyingly, I even get blamed for a lot of the crap he does by a man who is himself an unapologetic user of sock-puppets; Phil ‘Dizzy’ Hendren.)
Martin is also prone to the use of outright distortion in his defence, and/or when throwing accusations in the face of his accusers (typically, just before retiring from the conversation).
One of the more worrying examples was his publishing a naked picture of himself (NSFW* link posted here) as ‘proof’ of his commitment to being more open about his identity in future or some such nonsense. When I referred to this bizarre action in a later email, the one-word reply from Martin was “Pervert!”
(*Link is also Not Safe For Lunch. You have been warned.)
Martin Weisner is currently dashing from website to website making a variety of attempts to confuse the Gilligan issue and/or mock Gilligan’s accusers, without declaring (never mind discussing or defending) his own position regarding the use of multiple false identities.
There’s more (so much more that the variety of attacks and the amount of time spent on these deceptions is alarming enough in itself), but this should be enough for most people who are considering the merits of banning Martin Weisner and his many sock-puppets from their weblogs.
Martin has 24 hours in which to respond under comments if he wishes to enjoy a right of reply, after which time he will be banned from this website.
If he persists with the use of distortions, diversions and groundless/irrelevant accusations, he will be banned immediately.
It is widely regarded as acceptable to blog on the subject of politics from behind a pseudonym, so long as your nicknames/accounts somehow clearly resolve to a single identity, you make it clear what your political allegiances are, and/or you avoid undeclared conflicts of interest.
It is widely regarded as totally unacceptable to use multiple/false identities in any act likely to impact on another person’s reputation, not least because you will have done so without banking your own reputation on what you have to say.
That is the act of a coward and a bully.
Where I come from, there is a clear difference between standing up to someone and punching them in the back of the head and running away.
There is no place for Martin Weisner’s antics in our community of political weblogs, and as long as he remains determined to continue with his antics, I would argue that there’s no place for Martin Weisner, either.
[This post will also be submitted to the Green Party as the body of my complaint about the conduct of this member.]
UPDATE (3pm) – Name fixed. It is Weisner, and not Wiesman, as some later sentences suggested before that fix. The variation resulted from my typing much of this on the train, and therefore going from memory on the name.
After giving Andrew Gilligan puh-lenty of chances to either deny or defend the use of multiple false identities to praise/defend his own articles and/or undermine critics of Boris Johnson, I finally ran out of patience with the bloke and took the fight to his doorstep.
This morning I dropped by Northcliffe House, home of Associated Newspapers (publishers of the Evening Standard and the Daily Mail, as well as the freesheets Metro and London Lite) and handed out roughly 180 copies of my own A4 freesheet Ailing Standards… most of them to Mr Gilligan’s colleagues as they entered the building.
Thanks to D-Notice for handling the camera work, Matt Buck for this ‘gift to the world’, and to security at Associated Newspapers Ltd, who acted like true gentlemen (knowing, as they must have done, that I had every right to stand on the pavement and hand out free newspapers).
Until further notice, I urge all of my readers to:-
– Download their own copy of Ailing Standards, print out as many versions as they can afford, and distribute them via any legal means they regard to be fair and proper
– Link to this post, so I may hope to one day soon be a top search result for ‘andrew gilligan’
Text from the main article in Ailing Standards appears below, as does a video of my morning adventure. Apologies for the crudity of the cut and the traffic noise.
In separate instances months apart, bloggers have detected multiple visits to their sites originating from searches for ‘andrew gilligan’ and resulting in anonymous comments about Andrew Gilligan. It now appears that these comments may have come *from* Andrew Gilligan, but those seeking confirmation of their own suspicions should beware; Andrew bites!
When it emerged that suspicious comments had also appeared on the Guardian’s ‘Comment Is Free’ (some of them containing specific phrases & claims that later appeared in articles by Gilligan), the journalist responded to the accusations of using multiple false identities (or ‘sock-puppets’) to praise/defend his own work and undermine critics by launching an attack on his accusers in the Evening Standard… without mentioning the accusations! In fact, the only denials from Gilligan so far involve:
– A vague claim about a marketing arm of the newspaper conducting “automated” research. (The Evening Standard denies that any such arm of their operation exists.)
– An even hazier claim from Gilligan that one suspected account belongs to his ‘partner’. (Life partner? Business partner? Tennis partner? He won’t say.)
No-one appears to be safe from the attentions of the mystery commenter, whose visits have been reliably traced back to Associated Newspapers Ltd; so far bloggers, journalists and even a professor of journalism have enjoyed his (or her!) attention.
So here we are on your doorstep, print media people. We really don’t mind journalists leaving comments under articles by themselves, about themselves or involving themselves… we just really wish they wouldn’t do so while pretending to be somebody *other* than themselves.
(Psst! The latest thread on this subject, containing yet another attempt by Gilligan to pass off a distortion as a denial, can be found here.)
(Primarily 22.214.171.124 by the looks of things, and you can browse from the most recent edit backwards starting here if you feel like taking a slightly different path; I’m sure there’s plenty more to be found, especially among the more recent edits.)
I strayed upon someone who has read one of my favourite books.
I spotted a dangerous leftist lurking in the bowels of their organisation.
I chanced upon distaste for “self-promoting articles in national newspapers”.
Where is real proof in the tiger actually showing homosexual behaivour? Personally I believe tigers would only be prone to show anti-homosexual behaivour, is it because of this people believe they might actually be closet homosexuals? –126.96.36.199 14:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I can get past the spelling, but:
– Note the immediate switch from a demand for proof to a reliance on belief.
– Note the fear that the very idea that a tiger could be homosexual might be enough to ‘turn’ people (or at least make them a little bit curious).
– Note above all the deep-set affection for tigers that has been sadly absent from our newspapers since the retirement of Bill Watterson.
Tigers are nimble, and light on their toes. My RE-spect for tigers continually grows!
UPDATE – Meanwhile… Hey, everyone! Andrew’s back!
This is the coolest thing you’ll see all day, if not all week:
This is a comment left on the Guardian’s website using the ‘kennite’ account. In other words, it is a comment made by Andrew Gilligan or his mysterious life/business/tennis partner (background).
I invite you to watch ‘kennite’ and marvel at the sheer gall of it all as he belittles Ken Livingstone (author of the article) and Brian Paddick (‘BrianforMayor’):
Mar 23 08, 10:12pm
I’ve never seen this before: an incumbent Mayor, and two of the other candidates, posting on a talkboard. On a public holiday, too. Could they, perhaps, be desperate? Interesting to see that Boris doesn’t feel the need to post.
Because what ‘kennite’ was doing – even if he is a ‘partner’ of Gilligan’s and not an invention of Gilligan’s – wasn’t at all pathetic or desperate, was it?
Oh, I’m going to enjoy this…