Bloggerheads

Well, it looks like Phil Hendren isn’t the only retro-moderating right-wing blogger on the loose today; Nadine Dorries is busily rearranging her website to avoid the consequences of a complaint she was laughing off just a few short days ago.

Too bad for her that I have copies saved. This is something you eventually get into a habit of doing when you’re obsessive when you’re dealing with a whole tribe of pseudo-bloggers who have a history of changing their website(s)/profile(s), inventing back-stories and/or and claiming that this or that never happened.

:o)

Unity says it best right here:

Call it a ‘code of honour’ if you like, but the general gist is that reverse-engineering your way out of an embarrassing situation is a no-no and a major breach of ethics in a medium in which reputation and transparency of behaviour are part of the social glue that keeps the medium ticking over.

Speaking of deletions and reputations, I was reminded of a past event this morning by Nadine’s most recent nonsense and Phil Hendren’s outrage over a ‘set up’ and – after checking one the darker corners of the web and seeing that this too has been retro-moderated out of existence – I can finally file a full report without fear of inadvertently libelling Nadine Dorries in the process:

Way back when Nadine Dorries was levelling false accusations at Dr Ben Goldacre, Ellee Seymour was busily retro-moderating her website to keep pesky facts at bay, and Phil Hendren (aka ‘Dizzy’) was helpfully running interference by being a deliberate pain in the arse, ‘Dizzy’ managed to get not-at-all-outraged when someone laid a little honey-trap for me that was so OTT it was actually damaging to the woman he claimed to be defending at the time.

The events are best explained by publishing this email that I sent to Nadine Dorries in November last year (and no, she didn’t reply to it):

—– Original Message —–
From: Tim Ireland
To: dorriesn@parliament.uk
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 2:51 PM
Subject: URGENT: actionable claims

Dear Nadine,

Just in case you’re not already aware, the following anonymous weblog was created by persons unknown in the early hours of Saturday morning:
http://ironedsardine.blogspot.com/

An attempt was made to anonymously publish links to that URL at the following websites:
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/
http://www.bobpiper.co.uk/
http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/

Each of the webmasters of the above websites took swift action to remove the URL and/or references to it (example)…
http://www.bobpiper.co.uk/2007/11/you_know_who_theyre_writing_ab.php

… but you should be aware that the person behind this website will most likely continue in their attempts to – by implication – smear those who have been critical of you, while not giving a damn about the possible cost to yourself.

(In case it is not clear, I am aware of the rumour behind the most actionable claim made on this anonymous weblog, and I have expressed a view on it here [snip])

I have my suspicions about who is behind the anonymous weblog but, sadly, cannot share them with you.

I can, however, issue you with a warning that what appears to be a clear trail to the person behind it (the IP address that appears as if it were used to create the anonymous weblog and make a relevant edit to Wikipedia: see below) is almost certainly a FALSE one, laid out for my benefit.

Nevertheless, I have already issued an abuse report [*] to the relevant provider, as this could be an important first step to confirming – at least – if any IP shenanigans are afoot.

You may wish to issue a complaint to Blogger.com about the content, but you should also be aware that I’ve been involved in a similar case…
https://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2006/08/proof_mike_chambers.asp

… and Blogger will in these cases either refuse to remove the material and/or ‘helpfully’ suggested that you get in touch with the site owner (who, obviously, is going to great lengths to mask their identity).

This anonymous weblog had a tracking package in place that was not only accessible to the public, but openly dangled. It provides the following data about the first tracked visits to the anonymous weblog that clearly show referrals from Blogger-based URLs indicating that this first tracked visitor is also the blog creator:
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s20ironedsardine&v=1&r=9&vlr=8&pg=21&d=1112

The same IP address was logged during this (since corrected) edit at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nadine_Dorries&diff=prev&oldid=170538614

I cannot stress enough that I think this is a false trail laid out for my benefit, but it might regardless pay to check the IP addresses used to submit to you – via comments and email – the ‘vicious and personal’ material you claim to have received and see if 87.102.42.211 is among them.

Regards,

Tim Ireland
www.bloggerheads.com

PS – I do look forward to the day when you can allow comments on your site again, not least because it will save me a small amount of time and effort. I would heartily recommend the use of WordPress, which is far superior to your current platform in every respect, but will also say that you will have difficulty regardless of platform until you deliver the apology that Ben Goldacre deserves.

[*I got nothing back from that report, BTW.]

This was, in short, a joe-job and a honey trap:

[Over to you, ‘Dizzy’. What are your thoughts on the unknown author of the ‘Ironed Sardine’ weblog? Got any moral outrage to spare, me old mucker? Just while we’re waiting for our mystery player to get back from their holiday…]

UPDATE – It was John Hirst’s idea of a joke, apparently. More here.

Dizzy’s back, and it looks like he brought a bottle of angria home from his holiday. The short version is that he’s skipping the important bits and basing part of his (constantly changing) side of the story on a retro-moderated post.

While we wait for Mr Hendren to get his story straight (and for someone else to get back from their holiday), here’s a group of angry young men who really, really, really wish they were The Jam:

–

UPDATE (2 Jul) – 1. Gosh, did you see what I did there? Upon updating the post, I actually gave an indication that the post had been updated. I didn’t pretend that all of this was said yesterday like that retro-moderating dipstick Phil Hendren (who, regardless, is in no position to lecture anybody about failing to link to what they’re talking about).

2. This whole “Tell your mother that I’m not talking to her!” routine is a wee bit absurd and tiresome, but made necessary by a man so childish that he (still!) redirects inbound links from me and refuses all forms of direct communication… when he’s not calling me at home and telling me about his sex life.

3. Incidentally, we’re still not sure if he’s called on more than two occasions (a total of six times). There have been some calls in recent months involving some anonymous sod who hangs up when my wife answers. Phil may wish to declare something on that front before we go any further, but don’t get your hopes up for anything beyond him screaming ‘conjecture’.

4. He’s had a very long time to get his story straight, and he’s not doing very well. The best example of this is the ever-changing story about how he got my number, but more on that – and details of his latest call – a bit further on. I’d like to put this to bed, but I really am waiting for someone else to get back from holiday.

5. It’s your call, but others might wish to hang back a bit, too. No sense going off half-cocked on a total cock.

6. Contrary to what ‘Dizzy’ may think or say at the moment, I’m not making anonymous comments on his website. That’s more his kind of thing than mine. Oh, and the time previous to this when ‘Dizzy’ first called my home to yell at me (after publishing my phone number on his website)? It all started when that sock-puppeting fool (and his wannabe chum Praguetory) claimed that Tom Watson was sock-puppeting on his website… but comments that he claimed were from Tom Watson were made at the very moment we were watching Tom Watson in the House on live television! He didn’t appreciate me disturbing his version of reality at all, but at least he found an excellent excuse to later delete the exchange.

(Scenario #1: Tom smuggles a laptop into the Commons and makes anonymous comments on Phil Hendren’s website during the Budget because what ‘Dizzy’ thinks is *that* important. Scenario #2 – Tom gives a loyal underling access to his account so he/she may make comments in his place while, in the manner of a character in one of Jeffrey Archer’s shittiest short stories, he uses his appearance in the House as an alibi, because what ‘Dizzy’ thinks is *that* important. Scenario #3 – Tom’s account was hacked, because his password was ‘1234’.)

7. Any fool any fool bar one should be able to see that Nine Below Zero were not being praised yesterday, but here’s a clue for the slowpokes:

“… Dizzy only rated a mention because he cared enough to call me at home. Again.” – (Me @ CY)

And now, here’s a group of passionate young men (getting plenty of action) who really, really, really wish they were Duran Duran. Too bad they can’t even manage to get the boat out of the bloody harbour:

Civil action can be quite pricey and sometimes dicey, but for those with no time for critics and no taste for accountability, there is an alternative… call the cops and scream ‘harassment’:

Slugger O’Toole – Power of arrest used against Belfast blogger: I cannot and do not wish to speak to the veracity of Murray’s claims against the individuals named on his website. Free speech is rightly moderated by a civil code that gives both sides the opportunity to put their case before a court of law. There is certainly a case for the involvement of the police if a blogger, or one of their commenters implies physical threats against a specific individual. But I’ve been through Murray’s blog and have not been able to find any evidence of such; which might explain why no charges appear to have been preferred. If Malachi is right, the use of police power of arrest appears to have been used directly against a citizen for criticising several public figures on the Internet. That’s a development that should worry more than just the citizens of Belfast.

[Psst! On the subject of (ahem) strategic use of recent harassment law, do take the time to learn more about Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden.]

A little treat for you, fresh from the potting shed:

QUIZ: which right-wing ‘blogger’ are you?

Good luck.