Ellee Seymour: a timeline of lies and libel

Posted by Tim Ireland at November 7, 2007

Category: The Political Weblog Movement

This entry was posted on
Wednesday, November 7th, 2007
12:50 pm and is filed
under The Political Weblog Movement.

[The following introduction has been presented without relevant hyperlinks in order to keep this post focused on the recent actions of Ellee Seymour. Those wishing to see background to any of the text in the introduction should check this recent post for a shedload of related evidence.]

Many moons ago, in the lead-up to the 2005 general election, the then Conservative candidate Anne Milton lied to me, and tried to fob me off about it. I began a blog that subjected her campaign, and then tenure as my MP, to scrutiny. Milton and her activists responded by smearing me while declaring Milton to be the victim of smears.

As it turns out, I was on the right track almost from Day One; the very first ringer I identified in her pamphlets later went on to use an anonymous weblog to smear his direct political opponent and put him in considerable danger by publishing his name, a photo, his whereabouts… and a claim that he was a paedophile.

I took clear evidence if this to the perpetrator’s employer (the Learning & Skills Council), Milton’s office, the Guildford Conservatives Association, and Conservative Central Office, but to no avail.

I also brought it to the attention of the two leading bloggers from the right at the time, Iain Dale and Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes). Both refused to condemn the action or even acknowledge publicly that it had taken place.

Shortly after this, I spent a few months watching how Iain Dale, Paul Staines and others from their overlapping posse conducted themselves online, and then later spoke up about it.

A familiar pattern soon emerged:

Dale, Staines and their activists responded by smearing me while declaring Dale and Staines to be the victim of smears.

Common themes included false claims about my political orientation, my sexual orientation, and my state of mind.

It was at this time that Ellee Seymour got involved.

The facts were right there in front of her face, but instead she chose to endorse and promote Dale’s absurd claim that he was the victim of a political/personal vendetta.

I had her filed under ‘ignore/sheep’ until she published and failed to delete this anonymous smear that was clearly designed to undermine my credibility and boost Dale’s:

Teri says:
February 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 am

Whos is this crazy Manic/Guido 2.0/Tim Ireland. He seems to have more personalitys that cybil. After reading that ranting nonsense over at Iains blog, I’m not sure if it’s me or manic many that needs the prozac.

It was always going to cause some kick back but thankfully Iain is thick skinned enough to deal with it.

I watched and waited for a fair period of time, but Ellee did not challenge or delete an obvious smear under a post defending a man falsely claiming to be the victim of smears. She could no longer be classified as an unwitting victim of propaganda; rather, she had shown that she was clearly willing to play the same reindeer games that – sooner or later – lead to the type of anonymous claims that go beyond putting reputations at risk.

And *that* is what earned her this slap.

I posted text and a link under that post that challenged the body of her post, and her conduct as a blogger.

Ellee then deleted that comment and went on to lie about it on other weblogs.

Now we fast-forward a few months to Nadine Dorries making an absurd and unsustainable claim about the conduct of Guardian columnist Ben Goldacre and then suddenly deciding – when she gets called on her false claims – that she will no longer be publishing comments on her ‘weblog’.

[Important Bit To Remember: Both myself and Garry Smith have been blogging about this and following developments.]

OK, here comes the timeline. Some posts/comments have been truncated for focus and brevity, but a link to the source or a screengrab of same appears before each quote under the time/date stamp. Please note that all of Ellee’s time-stamps have had to be corrected here by minus one hour (either her system is set at the wrong time zone, or it missed the clocks going back a week or so ago):

November 5th, 2007 at 12:57 pm – Ellee Seymour expresses her disappointment:

Nadine’s blog is very amusing and a great read. However, in my opinion, it has stopped being a blog as it no longer accepts comments. It is now an online daily diary. A blog must allow readers to comment and be interactive, it facilitates two-way communication which is crucial for MPs.

November 5th, 2007 at 9:40 pm – Nadine Dorries amusingly uses the comments facility on someone else’s website to defend the closure of comments on hers. In her comment, she repeats a claim she has yet to back up with evidence; that she did so because of multiple abusive comments:

The fact is I was getting hundreds of comments. Many, as a result of what I have been doing with regard to abortion, some of which were absolutely vile. There are some lovely people out there, but there are also some serious low life – and when you put your head above the parapet, as I have, the low life take aim. I may, when my work regarding abortion takes a slower pace, re-introduce comments. However, in the meantime, having to deal with people who think it’s cool to re- post their comments 40 times a night, and there are dozens of them, so that it takes over an hour to sort out the email account in the morning is no joke… I did take comments on my BB but I am afraid I had to stop that also when I started to receive some very weird posts late at night, which frankly scared me.

November 5th, 2007 at 10:07 pm – Your humble author, who has just watched Iain Dale delete an inconvenient comment exchange while falsely claiming that he did so because it contained ‘vitriol’, counters:

So, Nadine, your argument is that you have refused all valid challenges to your abortion-related posts because of a series of invalid ones that we’re not allowed to see. I could say something about throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, but instead I’ll suggest that you get a more robust blogging platform, which will make moderation of the alleged abuse easier to handle. Oh, and I would seriously consider doing this before the difficulties of the abortion debate (some of which are nothing to do with the contentious issue of abortion, and of your own making) have passed you by… otherwise people might get the idea that you’re the kind of person who makes spurious/baseless accusations and then runs away when called on them.

November 5th, 2007 at 10:46 pm – Ellee has a sudden change of heart. It is unclear at this stage if it is because she has taken Nadine’s most recent claims at face value, or if she has allowed her personal dislike of me to cloud her judgement, or if it is because she knows that I once caught her doing much the same thing Nadine has done, albeit on a smaller scale. Or perhaps a little of all three:

Nadine, thanks for this clarification. I really had no idea you were getting hundreds of comments. It’s a compliment in many ways, so please don’t give in to the low-life, don’t let them win. However, I sympathise with how you must have felt getting vile comments too, especially with such intensity… I can understand why you need a breathing space right now, I look forward to when your comments are reinstated. I love your blog too.

November 5th, 2007 at 10:59 pm – Your humble author highlights some aspects of Nadine’s most recent claims that may have passed Ellee by and suggests that Ellee take a look at the evidence:

Erm, Ellee… Nadine is also claiming that many of those “hundreds of comments” have been coming from one individual. I’d also invite you to read what she broadcast just before closing down comments. The need for ‘space’ is spin at best.

November 6th, 2007 at 9:03 am – The next morning, I post an item to the new weblog I created that *would* allow people to comment on Nadine’s output:

Nadine Dorries uses comments to challenge article about her refusal to allow comments:

No, it’s not irony… it’s *hypocrisy*.

Nadine Dorries says: The fact is I was getting hundreds of comments. Many, as a result of what I have been doing with regard to abortion, some of which were absolutely vile.

Ah, the ‘secret evidence’ ploy, mixed with a heady dose of alleged vitriol. I did tell you that she’d learned a lot from Iain Dale. And, happily, it allows Nadine to refuse all comments (valid or otherwise). Nadine also seeks to assure us that she may reinstate comments “when… work regarding abortion takes a slower pace.” In other words, when the fuss has died down over the false claims she made before bravely running away.

[Psst! If you’re wondering why Ellee suddenly becomes a lot more generous toward Nadine during the comment exchange, it’s probably because my presence reminded her of this minor event. Despite this past failing, Ellee deserves the usual courtesies, so please don’t all go piling into her comments just because it’s a rare opportunity to engage with Nadine Dorries.]

November 6th, 2007 at 2:22 pm – Ellee expresses her new-found sympathy for Nadine in a dedicated post:

I lay in bed last night thinking about Nadine’s dilemma. I expressed my disappointment yesterday that she had switched off her comment facility, which I feel is crucial to a blog. Nadine indicated it was a time-issue, without mentioning that she had been targeted by hundreds of merciless “low-life” bloggers. I’m sure I would do the same in her shoes… Nadine left a comment last night in response to my post. I do send her my sympathies, particularly being sent “scary” messages too late at night. It is unfair that her loyal following should be deprived of the chance to debate a very serious topic, that it should be hijacked in such a forceful way, leaving her no choice but to ban comments altogether. I share Nadine’s hopes that she will re-open her comment facility when she feels comfortable about it. We want Nadine to continue writing her great posts without being under duress from cyber stalkers.

November 6th, 2007 at 2:48 pm – Your humble author points out that Ellee’s trust might be misplaced and – again – invites her to view the evidence. This time, hyperlinks are provided to ensure this evidence is readily available:

No, Nadine *claims* to have been targeted by hundreds of merciless low-life bloggers – and/or targeted by a few low-life bloggers submitting hundreds of entries (she has yet to make this clear). But the reality of it is that Nadine made a claim that was totally unfair and totally without foundation in reality, and she is now unwilling to retract the claim or even have it subjected to scrutiny on her website.

Again, I invite you to have a closer look at the background:

November 6th, 2007 at 3:43 pm – Garry Smith also expresses concern about misplaced trust on Ellee’s part:

I’m afraid you’ve been sold a lemon, Elle. Nadine closed her comments because she wasn’t able to defend her position. The links Tim has provided explain but here’s the short version: [snip] That’s the nub of Nadine’s problem right there. Rather than dealing with the evidence which demonstrates that she has made a spurious accusation, she censored all mention of Goldacre’s response in the comments to her blog. The next day, she closed comments. She has not withdrawn the accusation or apologised for making it.

November 6th, 2007 at 4:15 pm – At this stage I had growing suspicions about personal prejudice clouding Elle’s judgement. She herself says nothing about those prejudices, but happily an anonymous contributor (‘Matt’) does it for her. This comment is clearly designed to undermine my credibility and that of Ben Goldacre. It is a smear that is completely without foundation that I find deeply insulting given all of the time and effort I have given freely to MPs wishing to engage honestly and openly with their constituents and the wider electorate:

Is this the same Tim Ireland who stalks people on their blogs? Maybe you are the low life Nadine is referring to? Read the stuff about the Guardian – seems she was right to me. You wouldn’t be trying to create a storm in a teacup would you so that people will hit your blog via the links you have put on Ellee’s site and put your hit rate up? if I were Nadine I would write to the editor of the Guardian, this guy seems pretty un-profesional to me. Ellee, you should put a block on the name Tim Ireland – he is the reason many MPs don’t blog. He makes their life a misery with his obsessive comments and stalking.

November 6th, 2007 at 4:30 pm (approx.) – I call Ellee on one of the numbers published on her website. She claims to be rushing out the door to pick up her children, so I get to the point; I make it clear to her that it would be in her interests to find out who submitted the above libel to her website, but – even though I would very much like to know who is behind it – it is up to her to decide what information she shares with me. At this stage, it is unclear if her back-end keeps a permanent record of the relevant IP address, or if we are reliant on Statcounter data. If it’s the latter, then time is off the essence. It is made clear to Ellee that the opportunity to identify the relevant IP address could pass us by if we do not act quickly enough. She claims to be unable to work the back-end of her website to the extent of being able to identify the culprit by IP address, so I quickly offer to talk her through the process and leave her to be on her way with a request that she call or email me as soon as she is able to do so.

Two hours pass, and she has not returned my call. In the meantime, Garry and I nearly trip over each other as he and I respond to the comment above and others.

November 6th, 2007 at 7:20 pm – I try calling Ellee on her main number and her mobile, but there is no answer. Instead, I send the following email:

—– Original Message —–
From: Tim Ireland
To: Ellee Seymour
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 7:27 PM
Subject: smear/troll published on your website

Dear Ellee,

Please call me this evening regarding this comment left at your website:

I would hate for you to be a situation where you were unable to trace the source of the comment because you did not act quickly enough.

Tim Ireland
[home number snipped]

PS – You were wrong in what you said here, as the attached file should prove:

It could very well be that your inexperience caused us to bump heads needlessly. Let’s not have that happen here.

Nearly another two hours pass without a response. But Ellee is clearly online, as she has just left a comment in another thread on her website.

November 6th, 2007 at 8:59 pm – I leave a comment under her most recent one letting her know that I’m awaiting a response, just in case she’s using the web but not checking her email:

Ah, good; you’re up…. When you have a moment to deal with that rather more serious matter that we discussed earlier…

November 6th, 2007 at 9:12 pm – I then send another email:

—– Original Message —–
From: Tim Ireland
To: Ellee Seymour
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: smear/troll published on your website


Please call me before 10pm this evening. Details are scant because I needed to let you go this afternoon, but time could be of the essence.

[home number snipped]

November 6th, 2007 at 9:12 pm – Ellee chooses to respond not via email, but under comments at her website:

Tim, Regarding your request, I regard it as confidential information and am not prepared to pass it on.

At the same time, she engages comment moderation. All comments submitted to the site from this point on have to be cleared by Ellee prior to publication.

November 6th, 2007 at 9:14 pm – Another anonymous smear appears, very much like the first. This one comes from an anonymous contributor using the name ‘Dave’. It suggests that Garry Smith and I are the same person and also that my disapproval of the actions of Nadine Dorries has something to do with a personal or political agenda:

Really Tim, funny that, because on the other blog you and this Garry guy blogged straight after one another. So is Tim Garry and Garry Tim? A certain Anne Milton MP has had some very bad experiences with you hasn’t she Tim?

November 6th, 2007 9:29 pm – Now, it would be very easy for me to assume that Ellee is making these comments herself, but instead I continue to give her the benefit of the doubt, reiterate my offer to help her identify the culprit without being privy to details myself, and remind her of the possible consequences of her actions. On that last point I should remind you that the libel published on Ellee’s website targets not just myself, but also Guardian columnist Ben Goldacre. Without making any assumptions about what actions Dr Goldacre and/or the Guardian might take, I feel that Ellee deserves fair warning about what she might be letting herself in for. The following email is sent:

—– Original Message —–
From: Tim Ireland
To: Ellee Seymour
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: smear/troll published on your website

I’ve just read your latest comment, and have noticed that you’ve suddenly switched comment moderation on.

I have also noticed that you have since *knowingly* cleared the following comment, of a similar tone and purpose to #3 in the same thread:

I still need you to call me before 10pm, and now must also remind you that – should push come to shove – you will be legally obliged to reveal those details:

I would much prefer that I at least helped you to determine where this comment came from, without being privy to the details myself.

The process should take no more than 10 minutes, and I’m happy to talk you through it.

[home number snipped]

November 6th, 2007 9:55 pm – The deadline looms. Ellee needs to know that if she makes it clear that she is not only willing to continue to host these smears, but also unwilling to take any action to identify the individual(s) behind them, then I’ll be forced to defend my reputation on my own weblog and make it clear why I have been forced to do so. The following email is sent:

—– Original Message —–
From: Tim Ireland
To: Ellee Seymour
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: smear/troll published on your website

Ellee, if you force my hand, I will have no choice but to make it clear – in a very public fashion – that you have done so… and you’ve painted yourself into a very tight corner here.

Contrary to the propaganda some people are fond of spreading, I do not relish these types of confrontations… but when people make or publish claims that are totally false and then try to fob me off instead of removing or backing them up with evidence, I don’t shy away from them, either.

Please call me before 10pm.

[home number snipped]

November 6th, 2007 at 10:12 pm – Ellee responds by removing all comments made by me in this thread and this thread. My side of our exchange of that afternoon and evening has been entirely deleted – while the baseless smears that have caused me concern are left in place!

Further, I find when attempting a response to the latest anonymous smear that I have been blocked as ‘a potential source of spam’. It is at this time that Ellee also deactivates general comment moderation.

November 6th, 2007 at 10:22 pm – Then (again) Ellee chooses to respond in the comments of this unrelated thread rather than answer my emails. In this comment, she airs a claim of ‘threats’ in front of her readers, without giving any details to back up her claim. Here, I should point out that this post that you’re reading right now contains every* scrap of information sent to Ellee via email as part of this exchange.

[Added Nov 8 – *Minus my home phone number, which I now regret trusting her with.]

Tim, Sorry, but no, and please don’t send me any more threatening emails. Don’t expect me to respond, or to phone you. And I’m not going to divulge confidential information to you about people who leave comments on my site. I regard Nadine as a superb woman, a superb MP and a superb blogger. Nothing you say will change that.

Well, finally, she has said it. The evidence is right there in front of her face, but she is allowing personal prejudice to cloud her judgement. She has also taken to smearing me personally while claiming to be the victim of the piece. A familiar tactic.

The anonymous smears that she has published, and her and her readers’ reactions to them, currently give the impression that I am in the habit of cyber-stalking female Tory MPs, and so am the most likely culprit behind the ‘vile’ messages Nadine Dorries claims to have received. Not on. Not on at all.

Also, despite repeated offers (from the get-go) to help Ellee identify the culprit without being privy to the details myself, she also falsely states to her readers here that I am asking her to part with ‘confidential information’. Not so. Not so at all.

But here comes the real money shot…

November 6th, 2007 at 10:41 pm – Clive Summerfield chips in and asks Ellee why the discussion thread now appears to have dirty great gaps in it:

What a weird comment thread. Have some comments been deleted or are Dave and Matt externalising some inner conversation with “Tim”?

November 7th, 2007 at 5:17 am – Ellee denies that any comments have been deleted!

Clive, no comments have been deleted. I’m afraid I can’t answer your question as I don’t know the answer. I admire Nadine and respect her judgement on this.

Did you get that?

It. Never. Happened.

Ellee Seymour is refusing to take published evidence into account with regards to Nadine Dorries’ conduct, but she has willingly accepted Dorries’ claims when she has provided no evidence to back them up

Further, Ellee is publishing anonymous smears that are completely without basis, and publishing smears under her own name without a single scrap of evidence while deleting my responses (and the related evidence), denying me a right of reply – and denying that she has done so!

And guess what? Her readers are buying it and congratulating her for her bravery!

November 7th, 2007 at 9:19 am – Here’s blogger Liz and her two cents:

I’m sorry to read your comments to Tim. How sad that someone should resort to threats. Well done you on standing firm.

Appalling. And quite scary.

If you’d like to have a quiet word about it with Ellee Seymour, the best place to start is right here… but do tread carefully. You might suddenly find yourself under personal attack on her website and banned from responding to those attacks. Not a happy place to be.

UPDATE – Ellee Seymour was ranked by Iain Dale as the 10th-best blogger in the UK.

UPDATE (08 Nov) – Documentation continues in this follow-up post, but do take the time to read some interim follow-ups in the comments here, and one contribution from a person who has gone to great lengths to disguise their identity and then have a go at me for using the word ‘sock-puppet’ when I actually see one.


  1. Justin says

    Just disgusting. Craven, nauseating behaviour from Seymour. You know, I think it's time to start buying lottery tickets again. Having the cash to pay a libel lawyer to send out one or two letters would wipe the smiles off a few faces.

  2. Jherad says

    Couldn't agree more with Justin. Another reminder that libel laws are for the privileged few.Another blog fallen to the dark side. There seem to be two 'valid' responses to criticism in certain quarters – prevent feedback completely, or spin comments through selective deletion, misdirection and sockpuppetry.

  3. cheeks says

    Without wishing to appear as if I'm defending anyone, could it be that your comments were belatedly recognised as spam and removed? I run a couple of WordPress blogs and occasionally that happens; a reader who has been posting for years suddenly comes to the attention of the spam filter, and all comments from the IP address used are retroactively removed.If this is the case, they can be easily rescued from within WordPress by going through the spam logs and marking them as 'not spam'.

  4. cheeks says

    I meant identified, not recognised!

  5. Manic says

    Given the timing, I seriously doubt it.The use of this function might, however, be the justification for Ellee's claim that 'no comments have been deleted' (i.e. they were merely disappeared into the spam folder).You should also be aware that my comments from this thread have not yet been 'disappeared':http://elleeseymour.com/2007/11/05/nadines-cult-b

  6. cheeks says

    Could be that older comments were from a different IP.I agree it seems somewhat coincidental, but it's possible; but at least if she tries this tactic you can tell her that spam is retrievable.

  7. Manic says

    That would make sense; a different IP address from NTL's local range is assigned to me each time I connect afresh. Regardless of this being triggered accidentally or deliberately, it would explain why these earlier comments were not removed.Oh, but if it were an accident, you would think that Clive's comment would have triggered a timely correction:http://elleeseymour.com/2007/11/06/my-sympathies-…I could simply ask Ellee, but she's made it pretty clear that I'm an unperson to her.

  8. Manic says

    Tut. Where are my manners today?Thank you, Justin and Jherad.Oh, and I've bought a scratch card on the off chance, but can't for the life of me work out if I've won or not:http://www.chickyog.net/2007/11/06/closing-time-a

  9. Justin says

    And to think it was only a few weeks ago when she was the stout defender of freedom of speech:http://elleeseymour.com/2007/09/21/outrageous-shu

  10. Manic says

    A damn shame, isn't it? Meanwhile, she continues to lie through her teeth about the circumstances/details of the exchange and the resulting deletions – and even the deletions themselves:http://elleeseymour.com/2007/11/06/has-anyone-die…Even though the gaps are there for all to see and I've published copies of the missing data *and* every last scrap of data sent to her via email. She could easily prove me to be a liar if I had altered the data and/or left anything pertinent out of this post.It's extraordinary. And, I would hope, educational.

  11. CPLOL says

    Rhetorically Speaking pointed me at a Dorries smear campaign (by Dorries not on Dorries) in the Mail and I blogged about it here:http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/1…Coincidentally Iain called me sub-human or something like that in comments here:http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/1…actually "lacking in human compassion" and "plain stupid" is what he said when I called his commenters for ridiculously horrible posts attacking Gordon Brown for being disabled, Scottish, gay and mentally ill. only two true afaik.I had wrongly assumed that if he was willing to post a piece of low calorie nonsense about the Queens Speech at 9 am before it had happened and then leave it mostly unattended but also moderate such comments in he was back in business after the recent death of his Godmother.This clearly hit him hard and I have deliberately been letting things pass rather than commenting for a week or two.I feel every sympathy for Iain actually. But if he wants quiet time he needs to (a) keep people informed that he is grieving and not up to it and (b) (more important) not post facile provocations if he cannot or will not tend to their repercussions properly.It seems to me that the plain stupid ones and those lacking in human compassion are the regular commenters on Dale's and Guido's blogs who will rip into anyone with the most vile personal attacks. This is hardly setting the standards we expect from the Best Blog in England say Americans or whatever he is up for next.

  12. Manic says

    I'll remind folks of this regarding 'lack of human compassion' and then ask that we bring this thread back on-topic:https://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2007/09/iain…I did see that Daily Mail piece BTW, and your post and the RS article:http://rhetoricallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2007/11/…That *is* worth noting for the record here, given the 'smear others while claiming to be the victim' pattern.

  13. m69.hunt says

    You are so full of shit it's untrue. Pretty much every other post on your blog is a self-important monologue stuffed with links showing alleged proof against whichever unfortunate you're on one of your self-righteous crusades against.In this case you are bullying some poor woman with legal threats because of a very mild comment on her blog. Coming from someone who is responsible for publishing attacks on Mr. Paul Staines for defending himself against malicious accusations against him, this is pretty rich.For one who has railed against the actions of nasty oligarchs for similar, your aggressive behaviour is very poor. I daresay if anyone were as self-important, bitter, and self-obsessed as you are, they could put up quite a handy diatribe against you in the same manner you have done.What on earth are you trying to achieve? Or is it just more self-publicity?"I would hate for you to be a situation where you were unable to trace the source of the comment because you did not act quickly enough". What kind of a nasty threatening comment in that? Why would you hate for her to be in that situation? What are you threatening?It's amusing, by the way, that you almost invariably insinuate that anyone who disagrees with you must be a 'sockpuppet', or the same person.Why don't you just sue the woman? Everybody will then see what a big man you are. I'm sure you'll get LOTS of sympathy for sueing over those comments, of course nobody will think you obsessive for maintaing a dedicated Anne Milton MP blog, a Nadine Dorries MP blog, not to mention your similarly non-obsessive Iain Dale (failed MP) and Guido Fawkes blogs.I knew you were full of shit, I didn't know you were a libel bully as well. You've gone to far this time Ireland.

  14. Garry says

    Well, Ellee has not published the polite comment I submitted last night in response to Welshcakes Limoncello. A quick check shows that she has published other comments to other threads in the meantime.She's also reinstated some but not all of your comments so it looks slightly less obvious that comments have been removed.I think we can safely conclude that she's manipulating what is published in her comments in order to try to defend the indefensible.It really is very nasty indeed.

  15. Garry says

    m69.hunt, can you explain why my polite comment was not published on Ellee's blog?Do you wish to discuss the fact that Ellee has not allowed my comment which provided proof that, contrary to her claim, some comments had been removed from the thread? Do you think it is reasonable to censor evidence provided in a calm rational manner in order to maintain a fictitious version of events?If you don't see that as a problem, I'd love to know why not.

  16. Manic says

    Garry:Spotted that. Just putting the final touches on some fresh forensics.-m69.hunt:Hello, and welcome to Bloggerheads. I apologise for your comment being held over for a couple of hours, but this is your first comment here, and I've only just recently checked the moderation queue. (I've been writing: see above.)1. If the evidence is in any way questionable, no doubt Ellee will be along to challenge it. Instead of, say, making claims with no supporting evidence.2. Right now, I don't have the cash to sue Ellee for the libel she has published, but the Guardian sure does. Ellee needs to learn the difference between a warning of possible consequences beyond my control and a threat.3. By refusing to responsibly address the libel she published (i.e. what you describe as 'a mild comment'), Ellee left me in a position where I had no choice but to reveal the details of our exchange in full. It was the only option left to me if I wished to defend myself against the personal attacks she published. Again, not a threat.4. Mr Paul Staines, not unlike Mr Usmanov, relied on one of those curious anomalies that make UK libel laws so attractive to moneyed overseas visitors. He did what he did, there is a record of it in the British Newspaper Library (The Guardian, Sat May 31 1986, Page 28) and the only question over the matter regards his intentions at the time. The 'retraction' he claimed to have a record of at the time turned out to be a (much later dated) personal letter from the journalist involved that again, only goes so far as to address intentions. Myself and other bloggers were most accommodating at the time, but Paul Staines broke almost every promise he made to us when we initially agreed to withdraw our original posts:https://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2007/02/withhttp://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1004http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1009http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/10125. Usmanov had Murray and myself silenced without taking us to court and with no intention of taking us to court. Chalk and cheese.6. I have the right to defend myself against personal attacks and attacks on my good name through means fair and legal (as opposed to means unfair and/or quasi-legal). I also support the right of others to do so, and have even been forced to assert these rights myself in the past. One good example was one of Anne Milton's activists falsely suggesting that I was a black-hat activist secretly acting on behalf of her political opponent, Sue Doughty:https://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2006/08/denn…7. Ellee's status as a woman doesn't enter into it, but I appreciate you trying it on.8. If it will make you happy, I'll do more than insinuate that sock-puppeting is at work. Check the next post. (Oh, and unlike some other bloggers, I do not yell 'sock-puppet' to avoid valid questions but, again, I appreciate you trying it on.)9. You seem to be remarkably familiar with local politics (if a little biased), and yet your IP address appears to place you in the United States. If you don't mind me asking; are you masking? (OK, so 'spoofing' is probably more appropriate here, but I do likes my rhymes. Somehow it makes this horrible old monster seem more human.)

  17. Paul.Ferrari says

    Just wanted to put in my tuppence worth here – I've read the whole entry with interest, and followed the links provided, and read the associated items – OK I had a slow day at work …. seriously though, there is one point that I think is most interesting.m69.hunt posts quite an abusive and rude comment, and it is published – Tim then answers the points without resorting to abuse. The comment is not deleted, nor does it appear edited in any way – though admittedly this would be hard for us to see.Why couldn't Ellee have a similar attitude towards comments made on her Blog ?

  18. dizzy says

    "You seem to be remarkably familiar with local politics (if a little biased), and yet your IP address appears to place you in the United States. If you don't mind me asking; are you masking? (OK, so 'spoofing' is probably more appropriate here"http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2661.htmlhttp://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3031.html

  19. Manic says

    (Note – Because TypeKey and/or Bloggerheads was playing up this afternoon, Dizzy sent this RTFM heads-up directly via email earlier today.)Thanks again for that, Dizzy. I would have thought that a self-confessed and unapologetic user of sock-puppets such as yourself would have more to say on the matter, but I'll be out for most of tomorrow, so you'll have plenty of time to come up with something other than what you've already contributed. If you feel like it.

  20. dizzy says

    Tim I couldn't give a fuck about your latest rantings and ravings really. However when I see you trying to make technical statements on networking and things like spoofing I think it's important to put you in your place. You see, a completely clueless user is harmless, but the most dangerous one is the one who thinks he knows but actually doesn't. I would hate for you to be in a situation where you were disseminating inaccurate technical knowledge due to your inexperience of routing, and failure to understand the many legitimate reasons why a presented IP might appear in a completely different location to the actual user without the user having anything to do with it.So here's what I suggest you do. Go away, read the RFC on layer 2 tunneling and the one on multiprotocol label switching and then come back and ask your Uncle Dizzy to explain to you how such technologies are deployed by service providers all over the world. If you have time, and for extra credit, you might what to read RFC 2131. This will help you understand why your clueless and witless connection does not always get assigned a new IP when you bounce the cable modem.

  21. Manic says

    Well, there's a turn-up for the books. Normally, you're right at my throat if I criticise a graduate of the Iain Dale School of Blogging Like a Complete Tosspot. Don't you have anything at all to say about any of this lovely, lovely evidence? Oh well."I would hate for you to be in a situation where you were disseminating inaccurate technical knowledge due to your inexperience of routing"To paraphrase 'm69.hunt', What kind of a nasty threatening comment is that? Why would you hate for me to be in that situation? What are you threatening?/jokePerhaps, as a mechanic who knows his way around these things, you could explain to this driver (in simple layman's terms) why your average UK-based web user might appear to be using an IP address from the range assigned to a bank in New York. As 'm69.hunt' did.But do make it short. I'd like to stay on topic if at possible. We were talking about the censorship of comments and the use of sock-puppets by certain web users who don't have the guts to attach their name/ID to their output when they're actively attacking the reputation of someone who does.

  22. m69.hunt says

    I chose not to use my name and details because you have a rather extensive track record of trying to expose people posting on the internet, contacting their employers, etc.All of which I'd personally like to avoid.

  23. dizzy says

    Comment on the evidence? There's not much to say really apart from the fact that you've edited the source code of your 'mirrors' so they're not mirrors at all and in my ever so sceptical eyes I don't trust cut and pasted emails without full smtp header conversations as well. Not of course that headers cannot be easily faked with editing too. Mind you I'm not saying they have been faked just that are easily fakable so they're validty as evidence in the current state is pretty weak. However like I say I don't really give a flying fuck about your latest proverbial bee in your cork-laden aussie bonnet. Personally I just think it's all pretty lame.However, back to your technical questions it's pretty simple to explain it away with multiple possibilities. Firstly who a CIDR range is assigned to and the location of the delegated RIPE address holder does not mean that the network itself, or for that matter the AS (see rfc 1171), exists in the same location. Global Crossing own oodles of CIDR ranges all registered to their head office but they cross the Internet globally – the give away is in the name.Second an american bank is likely to have satellite offices around the world on a global private wan. A user in, for example London, therefore sits on an rfc 1918 address range and is layer two tunneled to a gateway that seems to be two hops away but is actually on a transatlantic transit link – or they maybe connecting to an mpls cloud to achieve the same ends. This would centralise network security and integrity – something banks like to do funnily enough – in one location (the USA) and also dispense of the need to purchase a local tail circuit and employ even more net admins to look after the routing equipment in satellite locations.How about this less technically driven reason. The person works for the bank in the UK but is in America at the moment? Or maybe this one. The bank pushes all web traffic through a filtering proxy server and that is why you're being presented an IP from a distant location in the HTTP header. Of course if the person was spoofing the IP header then there would be no return path to their real location so that blows that theory as they would be able to do bugger all, not even browse your site, let alone leave a comment. I can think of more but you said that it had to be brief so I will stop there.The long and short of it is this though. You cannot leap to the conclusion that someone is spoofing based purely on who the delegated owner of the address is. What IP are you getting from this post and where am I?

  24. Manic says

    Dizzy:Thanks for all of that, but it’s largely academic now that ‘m69.hunt’ has admitted that he is deliberately masking his identity. As for the evidence of email and mirrors, you’re forgetting one small thing; Ellee Semour herself. I have the originals of those mirrors saved to disk, and they’re neatly time-stamped. Enough for any judge should Ellee wish to have a go. With emails, if I had sent anything that was not published here, Ellee would be able to produce evidence of that without having to go within a mile of a lawyer. But of course, as you’ve already indicated, I could provide even further evidence and you would merely feign indifference. You’re wasting your time and mine, so you may as well leave. HAND.’m69.hunt’:Welcome back to Bloggerheads. Please be aware that the most important aspect of my comment moderation policy is that I require contributors to verify at least their online identity before having any material published on my website. Be deliberately bypassing this requirement, you’ve outstayed your welcome before you’ve so much as opened your mouth.However, I feel we need someone in this discussion who is speaking up for Nadine, Ellee and all those other (mostly Tory) pretend-bloggers, and for now you’re it. An exception has been made for the sake of carpet-baggers and sock-puppeteers everywhere, so try not to let the side down.You said: “I chose not to use my name and details because you have a rather extensive track record of trying to expose people posting on the internet, contacting their employers, etc. All of which I’d personally like to avoid.”This, for example, is a perfect example of what not to do. The application of the ‘stalker’ tag has been documented, addressed and repeatedly discredited In this very post, for example. And now I have no choice but to cite precedent, thereby causing further embarrassment for your team:What I have, ‘m69.hunt’, is a rather extensive track record of intolerance for people who mask their real or online identity in order to hide their political or personal allegiances and/or agenda. I can also get a tad snippy if they are outright hypocrites. For example, if they are doing this while suggesting that it is someone who *does* have the guts to stake their real-life/online reputation on what they say who is hiding their political or personal allegiances and/or agenda. (See: Rovian projection)In fact, you may note I’m being just a little bit snippy with you now.:o)Two people who thought they were clever enough to get away with this kind of thing were Dennis Paul and Mike Chambers, supporters of and (one would hope former) activists for Anne Milton. Like many people who primarily use the Conservative movement as a vehicle for personal power-grabs, they will bitch until the cows come home about waste of taxpayers money and/or call for smaller government while working in a taxpayer-funded job (at least until they maybe get elected… into yet another taxpayer-funded job).Both of these political activists (and one-time council candidates) worked in a taxpayer-funded job and used time and resources paid for by the taxpayer to conduct personal attacks with a political purpose. While claiming that Anne Milton was the victim of same.I said this at the time and it stands:https://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2006/08/dennis_paul_mak.asp“As I’ve said before; normally it’s considered poor form to take a dispute offline… but when a man who is running for a position that involves him spending public money and he’s shown himself willing to abuse a similar position, all bets are off. I lodged a formal complaint.”If I catch anyone using time and resources paid for by the taxpayer to conduct party-political campaigns (be they downright vicious or otherwise) I will take the matter to their superiors. Every time. I do not do this for the sake of revenge, but to bring an end to the activity and see measures taken that ensure that the relevant resources are not wasted in the same way (or least by the same people) in the future.Another ‘outing’ you may be referring here to relates to ‘Guido Fawkes’.Paul Staines makes a public show of not caring who knows what his name is, but in this case someone (not me) revealed his *middle* name, which tied him quite reliably to the events related on Page 28 of the The Guardian on Sat May 31 1986. In a separate event he later claimed to have been harassed at home (IIRC), and while I’m sure he’d love to have people to think that I was involved in that, there’s no way he can prove it to be the case because it simply isn’t the case. My level of involvement in that affair was limited to my being just a little bit snippy with him (see?) when he had the audacity to come to me playing the victim when he cared not a jot about a Lib Dem candidate who had had his name, photo and whereabouts published online along with repeated claims that he was a paedophile.I am not, as you falsely suggest, in the habit of messing with someone offline purely because we have a disagreement online.I am, however, in the habit of tying sock-puppets to people’s primary online identities. Happily, I don’t have to do so in your case, because it should be perfectly clear to anyone reading this what you are and what you are trying to do.Also, by trying to divert/undermine the argument and then failing to address a single point of my response to your attempt (instead relying on the now well-overused ‘stalker’ tag), you have essentially shown that you’ve got *nothing*.What Nadine Dorries did was wrong, and in trying to avoid being held accountable for her actions, she graduated from lightweight blogger to heavweight hypocrite. In her attempts to defend Nadine Dorries, Ellee Seymour took the same dark path.And yet here you are calling me a hypocrite with nothing to back it up.You may treat your readers like fools over on your blog, but I’ll thank you to not try it here.

  25. dizzy says

    [mod: snip of beginning segment of a lonnng comment]I am wasting your time by making you read this and decide whether to allow it through moderation. I'll also be wasting your time during the reply that you're trying to decide whether or not to write at this very moment.[mod: snip of end segment of a lonnng comment]

  26. Manic says

    Then why, Dizzy, should I bother with it at all if that's clearly your central purpose?For those who would like to read it, the full text of Dizzy's comment has been preserved here:https://www.bloggerheads.com/data/mirrors/ellee_se…And, for the record, Dizzy? I resent the implication that I'm timing the clearance of 'untrusted' comments in a strategic fashion. Especially when I've gone to so much effort to accommodate you and your fellow sock-puppeteer today *and* you've made it perfectly clear that your intention is to waste what little time I have to address this.

  27. dizzy says

    So much to the famed "right to reply". Here it is again minus the words that so annoyed you![mod: snip. again. text is already here and easily accessible]

  28. dizzy says

    I bet the preformatted text version is in robots exclude list as well!

  29. Manic says

    1. The text is perfectly accessible and is, by your own admission, part of a time-wasting exercise anyway.2. We've been here before, where you pretend to engage honestly (sometimes using multiple personalities), lose, and then run away laughing and saying "Ha ha ha, I made you dance."3. So I'll repeat my question; why should I bother with it?4. You big silly. You noted yourself that I had edited the HTML. These pages were subject to minor code edits as a courtesy to Ellee; to remove the Statcounter tracking code and *add a 'noindex,nofollow' robots tag* in each case. If the tags are in an unrelated HTML document, how can they possibly stop robots from indexing that .txt file? Next time, please read the post before commenting.5. The right of reply is the right to defend *yourself* against criticism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only primary criticism of you here is my description of you as a self-confessed and unapologetic user of sock-puppets. If you'd care to deny that (after admitting it and being unapologetic about it) then I'm all ears.6. [snipped and posted to correct thread, where Dizzy has also popped up]:https://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2007/11/im_a

  30. dizzy says

    "he right of reply is the right to defend *yourself* against criticism."Oh right….. I didn't realise. Silly me. There was me thinking the "right to reply" was all about having the right to point out how you are wrong. Pointing out how you are engaging debate on terms that ignore the Internet standards built over the past thirty plus years. I thought the "right to reply" meant that I could point out to you that harassment of people rather than using the mechanisms in place on the Internet to deal with such problem was not the correct way to do things. I thought that that "right to reply" allowed me to point out to you that you were (a) disseminating technical nonsense to people as truth and (b) ignoring the Internet community's already laid down standards for dealing with problems.

  31. Manic says

    Dizzy, any effort to rectify wrongs via those standards can easily be frustrated or rendered meaningless by people such as your good self who have the will and ability to bypass the relevant mechanisms. Sometimes, all one is left with is the possibility of taking your case to the public in the hope that it will lead to a correction and/or perhaps discourage similar behaviour from others – like you – who think they can get away with the sock-puppeting nonsense that is turning political blogging into a disaster area.Now, I can understand why you'd want to skip over your robots slip, but you still haven't answered my primary question:We've been here before, where you pretend to engage honestly (sometimes using multiple personalities), lose, and then run away laughing and saying "Ha ha ha, I made you dance.":https://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2007/03/what…Why should I bother with it?So… allow me to answer the question for you.I shouldn't bother with it because you are here to waste my time and have said so yourself.You are clearly taking the piss in a thread about unfair use of comment moderation, because you think that I will not dare to edit or ban you for fear of being called a hypocrite and/or that you can goad me into a position that will allow you convincely scream "Hypocrite!"You think you're in a win-win situation.But you're wrong.You're now banned. But only for 12 hours or so and for reasons that have been explained clearly to you and made public.That's far fairer treatment than you can expect on many other websites.Good luck with the 'hypocrite' charge.(Oh, and if you need something to do in the meantime, Wikipedia needs your urgent attention… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply

  32. Paul.Ferrari says

    It's interesting that Dizzy, who is obviously an intelligent chap, can be so …. hmmm what's the word I'm looking for …. blind !

  33. Manic says

    Or deliberately disingenuous.

  • NEW! You can now support Bloggerheads by buying handmade firelighters for camping and utility or deluxe firelighters for your home fireplace. Visit fireburngood.com to see my products.

    Fire Burn Good fire lighters

  • External Channels

  • Tim Ireland

  • Page 3 Politics

    Page 3: a short history

  • Main

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

    The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

  • Badges + Buttons