Serial blogger Tim Ireland has a bit of an ill-disguised vendetta "thing" for fellow serial blogger Iain Dale, which borders on, well, let’s put it this way, if they were in primary school now he’d be pulling Iain’s pig-tails and pushing him down right around now. It’s love, jealousy and hatred all rolled into one glorious whole called Bloggerheads.
Tim Ireland, lest we forget, was the creator of Backing Blair (some fantastic videos on there if you have a few minutes), defended Craig Murray and subsequently had his blog temporarily taken down, and made a good (if headache inducing) submission to the recent SOCPA / Parliament protest consultation, so he is capable of making positive contributions to the UK’s political web movement.
For some reason, however, he seems intent on attacking certain political bloggers, invariably on the Conservative side. The aforementioned Iain Dale, Paul Staines, Donal Blaney and Shane Greer have all come around the paranoid microscopic of Mr Ireland’s attention in recent days.
This all erupted most recently when Tim Ireland (not wholly without merit) accused Paul Staines of distributing copyrighted material without permission. Paul Staines didn’t take too kindly to this and is now threatening to sue for libel (and of course Tim Ireland has pointed out the hypocrisy of Guido Fawkes using the legal system to bludgeon criticism of him, a charge Paul has in the past been only too ready to make against others). So far, so good. A person has made a valid accusation against another, that other person feels this is unjustified and may resort to the courts for redress.
What has followed, however, and which has marked Tim Ireland’s strategy in the past, has been a form of obsessive bullying against all those around Paul Staines, even where the comments they make have been unconnected to the originating issue (in this case, the libel), he has woven them all into a narrative of persecution by these right-wing bloggers. When Shane Greer posted about "feeding the trolls", he mentioned Tim Ireland as an obsessed Iain Dale and Paul Staines follower, and characterised him, perhaps a little unfairly, as "obviously unbalanced". This lead to a series of postings on Bloggerheads blowing this aside out of all proportion, culminating in this latest one, where he resorts to name-calling in the headline.
My conclusions are essentially two-fold:
-
Tim Ireland treats everyone else’s blog as his own plaything, and is upset when that plaything is taken away from him (i.e. Shane refusing to make any further comments on the feeding the trolls post or Iain sometimes banning Tim from commenting on his blog). This is part of a general view of "blogs as a public space", which he believes creates a duty on blog owners to respect freedom of speech. This view is fundamentally flawed, as blogs are more akin to private venues, owned, usually, by the content creator, and where you are expected to obey their rules. They may, unilaterally, change those rules or apply them in a way which you deem unfair. Tough, it’s their place, not yours.
-
Tim Ireland is, in my opinion held without malice, an obsessive bully. He simply won’t let certain things lie and seems intent on blowing minor attacks against him out of all proportion. He should learn to calm down, and not go after anyone who makes the slightest criticism of him.
Declaration of interest (FAO Tim Ireland): Yes, I know Iain, Shane and Donal personally, you paranoid idiot, does this for some reason prevent me from having an opinion? I’ve also seen Paul Staines, and was disappointed that such a rotund individual was masquerading as the svelte blogging hero Guido Fawkes.
Loading ...
49 responses so far ↓
1 Tristan Mills // Feb 6, 2008 at 12:43 pm
I’ve long since given up on the whole thing with that lot…
2 Gavin Whenman // Feb 6, 2008 at 12:47 pm
More fool me I suppose for keeping Bloggerheads in my RSS reader - every other post has been about Iain Dale / Shane Greer / Donal / Guido and I was getting sick of it.
3 Tim Ireland // Feb 6, 2008 at 1:13 pm
An aside?!
Shane Greer did more than refer to me as ‘obsessed’ as an aside; the post focused on me and grouped me with a convicted stalker.
Greer has - so far - refused to answer any challenge to that. For days.
Further, Staines has not to my knowledge resorted to any actual legal action. His (tax) lawyer has no business bullying me for a home address or compelling me to undertake unnecessary expense.
As for the rest, when someone threatens me secretly, I go public.
And if I think a question warrants an answer, I will continue to press until I get one.
I don’t think it’s fair to describe me as a bully when, during the above process, it is me who is subjected to deeply personal attacks while the person I’m seeking an answer from dismisses fair scrutiny/criticism as a personal attack.
Also, the way that Dale and Staines conduct themselves and allow others to carry on under comments on their websites (sock-puppeting for example is widely tolerated until the opposition does it) has a pronounced effect on the wider community, even those who do not engage via weblogs. Just ask the Lib Dem then activist and later candidate who was anonymously - and falsely - accused of being a paedophile. One of the two jokers who published/promoted this confirmed himself to be a regular comment contributor to the GF website and used many of the tricks he learned there to undertake this disgraceful attack.
This responsibility applies especially to Iain Dale, who casts himself (or, if you would refer, allows himself to be cast) as an expert and role model. But, of course, I only object to this because I’m ‘jealous’.
(And perhaps you didn’t notice that, while Iain claimed to ban me from his website for insisting that he follow my rules, I was in fact banned for insisting that he should follow his own rules.)
Finally, on the charge of ‘paranoia’, it was not I who initially made the claim that Staines was stealing images and bandwidth… it was the artists involved. But for some reason, Staines decided to threaten to sue me.
Paranoid, you say? The evidence suggests otherwise.
Bullying, you say? I’m simply switching on lights and watching cockroaches scatter.
4 Aaron Heath // Feb 6, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Hmmm.
You’re entitled to disagree with Tim, be suspicious of his motives, and defend his targets, but calling him a “paranoid idiot” is evidence that you’ve swallowed the whole “ignore him, he’s a stalker” line that Iain and Paul have used to skirt legitimate challenges Tim has made in the past.
5 Gavin Whenman // Feb 6, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Aaron, I kind of half-accept your point (perhaps “paranoid idiot” was a bit harsh). I think the thrust of my argument, however, is that I’m very specifically not swallowing the “ignore him, he’s a stalker” line, but highlighting where Tim is right and then demonstrating how he undermines his own arguments with the tactics / methods that he uses. That, at least, was my intention.
6 Tim Ireland // Feb 6, 2008 at 2:03 pm
The tactics/methods I use would be far less likely to undermine my arguments if certain people weren’t so intent on misrepresenting them.
Anne Milton sought to deceive the electorate, and resisted any challenge to that from a lowly constituent. Nadine Dorries levelled a disgraceful and deeply flawed ad hominem attack at Dr Ben Goldacre when a committee report didn’t go her way and then closed comments on her website when people sought to question her about it.
There have been other examples in the past (some of which Iain Dale has actually applauded me for), but watch Iain Dale choose two poor, vulnerable women as ‘proof’ of his repeated stalker claims and totally ignore any circumstances that may have led to confrontation with the two (when he himself is constantly chasing after one MP or another on his own site):
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/01/pmqs-why-cant-brown-answer-simple.html#c6067482837207643474
Iain Dale: “Ask Anne Milton or Nadine Dorries what it is liked to be stalked by this idiot.”
[This same comment is where, as I note above, Iain claims to ban me from his website for insisting that he follow my rules, when I was in fact banned for insisting that he should follow his own rules.]
7 JSM // Feb 6, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Thank you for clarifying your intention - there is at least the start of some valid criticism there (brevity is not the soul of Tim!).
But it does not absolve you of responsibility for one of the most myopic and politically naive misreadings of a situation I’ve ever seen a liberal post!
Your disapproval over tactics gets lost amid a summary narrative that provides support to your political opponents when they are being confronted with well merited criticism. Can I suggest you get over your preconceptions and any “boredom” at having to examine evidence in bulk, (re?)visit the relevant sites and give yourself a much-needed reality check!
8 John // Feb 6, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Isnt Tim Ireland a Lib Dem?
9 OneHourAhead // Feb 6, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Are you just trying to get on LDV’s Top of the Blogs this week, Gavin?
Can. Worms. Gavin. Tinopener. look how they all fit together!
10 Tim Ireland // Feb 6, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I have done work for a Labour MP. I have done work for a Conservative MP. I have also done work for the Liberal Democrats as a party. I believe that all sides deserve a fair hearing, and that’s what this whole Dale/Staines thing is about. I am totally fed up with the sock-puppeting and personal abuse actively encouraged by some people and I make no apologies for highlighting and fighting it whenever and wherever I see it.
11 DonaldS // Feb 6, 2008 at 3:01 pm
>visit the relevant sites and give yourself a much-needed reality check
I’ll second that. Your reading of this is way off; no idea whether that’s lack of the required research or the inevitable skewing effect of personal relationships.
I’ll happily disclose I’ve never met any of them. And, yes, I’d probably describe Tim as a bit on the obsessive side about all this - my tactic with your friends is to ignore them (politically speaking) in the hope they might go away at some point. But Tim’s generally only tried to call them up on grounds of honesty, transparency and propriety (good Tory values) and has, as far as I can tell, been subjected to the most appalling personal attacks.
12 Jherad // Feb 6, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I think you’ve come down on the wrong side of the fence on this - and a strange side for a Lib-Dem. Tim sounds like a stalker only if you exclusively listen to Guido and pals. One may question whether his fights are worth it at times (I have), but I’ve not seen a convincing argument yet that he’s actually *wrong*. Stick a sign up in your front yard for anyone to see accusing someone of being a stalker, and they’ll want a right of reply - private property or no. Blogs are *very* public.
13 James Graham // Feb 6, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I have to say I find that Tim tends to get a bit obsessive and can blow things out of all proportion. In particular, writing specific detailed allegations about the content of comment number 56 in a thread that almost no-one has bothered reading is a little odd.
But his “targets” can stick up for themselves, and several of them, in particular Guido and Blaney, make him look the epitome of rationality and calm by comparison. A bully is someone who picks on people who are smaller than themselves. Tim can hardly be accused of that.
I just wish he’d concentrate on what he’s best at - the big picture.
14 Aaron Heath // Feb 6, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Don’t you find that ones who actually make a difference are the “obsessive” ones?
*whispers* as opposed to armchair blowhards who flit from one cause to another ;o)
15 Iain Dale // Feb 6, 2008 at 7:02 pm
The bullying point is an interesting one. Whether Tim Ireland intends to bully is one thing. But those on the receiving end FEEL they are being stalked and bullied, so the effect is the same.
Believe me I have tried to enter a rational debate with him, but it is impossible. I have now given up. He has his little cotorie of freinds (he calls my friends sockpuppets, of course) who hang on his every word (yes, that’s you Justin McKeating and the Axe killer John Hirst. Hmmm. Nice) and try to police the blogosphere for him, and report back to Daddy with their findings.
As you rightly report, virtually every post at the moment is about me Guido, Donal or Shane. Is this really of interest to anyone? I know it bores me rigid.
16 Tim Ireland // Feb 6, 2008 at 8:41 pm
“I have tried to enter a rational debate with him”
Did you see what he did there, children?
“and the Axe killer John Hirst”
Did you see what he did there, children?
[pulls up]
Sorry, but this cannot be an authentic comment from Iain Dale, because Iain has stopped talking to me and I’m already part of this conversation. It would be silly for him to come charging in with his version of events and expect me not to have anything to say about it. Especially when he knows that I can prove that I was banned from his website for insisting that he follow his own damn rules, not mine.
What you have here is most probably a troll. If it’s really Iain, then I invite him to post about on his site to verify that, and we can take things from there.
(Psst! James! The devil is in the detail.)
17 Tim Ireland // Feb 6, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Also, if it’s genuinely from Iain Dale, then he picked a hell of a time to pick a fight:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/02/sfx_fanfare.asp
18 Martin H // Feb 7, 2008 at 12:18 am
Ha ha.
Tim Ireland is SOOOOOOOO self-important.
‘He picked a hell of a time to pick a fight’.
(SFX Fanfare)
I bet this latest earth-shattering revelation will be up there with “SHOCK HORROR OMG Iain Dale uses image from BBC website”
I do hope whatever you’ve got is better than the page-long posts dissecting trivia in minute detail that your website consists of to date.
19 Anon // Feb 7, 2008 at 1:09 am
I’ve been reading Bloggerheads for getting on 5 years, in fact I think it was about the first blog I read daily. But this whole Guido/Iain Dale obsession has really turned me off it; as an earlier post said, seemingly every other post is about one or the other.
20 matt buck // Feb 7, 2008 at 11:12 am
Hello, I am not a regular commenter here but I do have something to say about this post and as I am involved I think it is worth reading. Underneath all the ongoing Tim and Guido noise is a story and it ought to be heard.
http://tinyurl.com/2g4w5g
21 Jherad // Feb 7, 2008 at 11:35 am
I hope for his sake that *isn’t* the real Iain posting above, as he proves Tim’s point rather well. Also worth pointing out that the difference between Iain + Guido’s sockpuppets and Tim’s friends is one of anonymity. The majority of those who support Tim do so with accountability - even those without their own blogs maintain a single online persona (I’ve been using this handle exclusively since about ‘92).
When the rats come out in force to attack Tim, they’re almost inevitably posted by ‘Manicsuxxors’ , ‘Anonymous’, or some generic ID never heard from before, or to be heard from again.
22 Paul Linford // Feb 7, 2008 at 11:58 am
Whether or not you agree with Tim’s analysis, he is neither obsessive nor a bully in my view. He has a view about how the blogosphere should operate, and pursues that to its logical conclusion by identifying those who, in his view, transgress those “rules.” As James Graham rightly points out, bullies do not pick on people who are “bigger” than themselves, and Tim’s targets are invariably people who have bigger blogs than his. I don’t always agree with him, but I do think it takes a certain amount of courage to do what he does, and if there is one thing bullies are not, it’s courageous.
As for obsessive, I don’t think his behaviour is any more or less so than (to take a random example) that of a right-wing blogger whose hatred of Gordon Brown is so visceral that he allows sockpuppets to concoct fictional tales of nappies and rocking horses etc in an attempt to help his Tory mates get back into power.
Finally, Tim’s contribution to the wider political blogosphere is beyond dispute. He was one of the pioneers of the medium, and, although he denies it, he would only be human in my view if he didn’t feel at least a trace of resentment at the way others have made themselves famous by following the trail he blazed.
23 Paul Linford // Feb 7, 2008 at 12:30 pm
One further comment. I think Iain Dale’s reference to John Hirst as an “axe killer” is unworthy of him. I know Iain to be a kind and generous individual but he seems to have a blind spot where Hirst is concerned. I don’t condone what Hirst did 18 years ago during what was evidently a period of mental turmoil, but he has paid his dues to society, and as such he ought to be entitled to the same respect as is due any other blog visitor.
24 jailhouselawyer // Feb 7, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Paul Linford: Actually, it was 29 years ago this June. As you say, it is an unworthy attack. It’s the sort of prefix used by the Daily Mail when reporting that I won prisoners the right to vote. People pointed out that it was a distraction from the story. So too, with Iain Dale. Recently, a friend pointed out that at the start of a recent Look North TV interview, I was described as “A Hull man”, and she said it was nice to see that the “axe-killer” label was dropped.
As you say, nobody condones my act. And, as you so rightly point out, I have paid my price to society. And, your conclusion, that I am entitled to the same respect due any other blog visitor.
I agree that Iain Dale has a blind spot in relation to me. The problem is, that when he is pushed to justify it he cannot do so. He refuses to be open and honest about it. Instead hiding behind hypocrisy and lies. And when I point out that he is both a hypocrite and liar, he gets upset and claims that this is what he has against me. And, claims it justifies his use of sock puppets on his blog. I think it is time he came out into the open and publicly states what went on behind the scenes at 18DS.
25 Iain Dale // Feb 7, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I don’t have a blind spot where Hirst is concerned at all. At one point I actually had some respect for his views. But I’m sorry, when he - like Ireland - continues a vendetta against me, then excuse me if don’t take kindly to it. The phrase ‘axe killer’ is an accurate one. He killed. With an axe. Which part of that is inaccurate?
And Paul, when Tim Ireland raised the point about some coding on my site being wrong, I immediately took action and asked Cassilis to look into it. He did, and sent Tim a polite email explaining what had happened and that it had now been rectified. Not satisfied with that Tim Ireland has spent the last twelve hours hounding the poor guy with four more emails seeking redress as if he were some kind of judge in a court. And he wonders why I don’t respond to his emails anymore. You just cannot reason with him.
No doubt this comment will again send him into a frenzy of comment on his blog. He says he wanted a ceasfire - well, it was him that was doing all the firing. I have no interest in engaging in a war with anyone let alone him. But I’m also not going to be bullied by him.
Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt. This is me.
26 Jherad // Feb 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Does something have to be inaccurate in order for it not to be an irrelevant slur Iain? If I were to discover something wrong you’d done previously in your life, and prefix each and every reference to you with a condensed description of said wrongdoing, I’d be a tw*t.
You’re very quick to play the injured innocent Iain, but never seem to get round to addressing the real accusations.
27 Tim Ireland // Feb 7, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt. This is me.”
You could be anyone. Confirm via email or on your blog that this is truly Iain Dale making these comments , please.
28 Legitimate Expectation: What it really means // Feb 7, 2008 at 4:21 pm
[...] Comments Duncan Borrowman on Derek Conway: Pesky GoogleTim Ireland on Tim Ireland: An Internet Bully?Jherad on Tim Ireland: An Internet Bully?Iain Dale on Tim Ireland: An Internet Bully?jailhouselawyer [...]
29 Larry Teabag // Feb 7, 2008 at 5:40 pm
This is an extraordinarily poorly aimed post.
What Tim does - and all he does - is keep a close watch on people who would really prefer that he didn’t. I’m not saying his tactics are beyond criticism. But to characterize *him* as “an obsessive bully… paranoid idiot” when he is genuinely, and undeservedly on the receiving on the end of some seriously nasty strong-arm tactics from your pals Paul and Donal, really is a grotesque distortion in my view.
Let me see… they try to frighten him into telling them his home address, and waste his money hiring a lawyer - absolutely unnecessarily and disgracefully - and you construe this as “So far, so good”. He responds with a few (in my view positively restrained) blog-posts and in your view *this* is the outrage?!
Shane Greer calls him “obviously unbalanced”, and groups him with a known lunatic, but it is the fact that Tim “resorts to name-calling” in response which is so reprehensible? What a load of rubbish.
I’d say you owe him an apology. You might also consider finding some nicer friends.
30 Iain Dale // Feb 8, 2008 at 1:37 am
No.
31 Tim Ireland // Feb 8, 2008 at 11:04 am
You silly person. That ‘no’ could have come from anyone, too. If you are Iain Dale, confirm or deny via email or bloggage, please. This is not Blogger.com, and there is no immediate way for a reader to verify who wrote these comments without you doing so.
32 Martin H // Feb 8, 2008 at 11:18 am
I can see Iain’s point.
Hirst has been attacking him on his own blog and Dale’s for many months.
Typical passage:
‘Statistically Iain Dale is a liar and a hypocrite
Iain “Pumpkinhead” Dale once more rolls out his lies and hypocrisy with this statement:’
I am not the subject of these criticisms, so I don’t really know how I would take it. But he does not have to take his abuse, and he is not required to be magnanimous and sit still while Hirst abuses him.
In the circumstances I see no reason why he should not refer to Hirst as ‘axe killer’. It’s a pretty big thing, no? Bit bigger than ‘I took drugs as a youth but I’m reformed now’ that some people might come up with. Hmm, dead person, axe. Not that pretty.
All these pious self-important types telling Dale that he has to be nice while Hirst takes every opportunity to snipe at him (while, I might add), Dale produces his OWN content and own blog ignoring him, attacking what he says and writes. It’s not just Hirst, Chris Paul, Tim Ireland and other seem obsessed with him too.
33 Confused of S. Yorks // Feb 8, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“The phrase ‘axe killer’ is an accurate one. He killed. With an axe. Which part of that is inaccurate?”
So Iain, you don’t object to being labeled as “Failed Tory Parliamentary Candidate Iain Dale”? And I assume that you do not believe in the rehabilitation of offenders either?
Yet it is ironic how you use the excuse of accuracy. If being accurate matters so much, then I would expect you to take to task anyone who refers to you as a “blogging expert”, given the numerous occasions where you have shown yourself to be anything but an “expert”.
In some respects you’re worse than Guido. At least he is consistent in his conduct, but the only constant with you is your lack of consistency. Your rules apply to everyone, except when it suits you. You could simplify your blog by replacing the page on rules with following statement:
“The rules I have set for this blog are akin to the laws handed down by an Old Testament God. They are arbitrary and obscure, applied in a fickle manner and only for the benefit of myself.
Abandon hope all ye who enter.”
34 jailhouselawyer // Feb 8, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I don’t see any problem with the post below, Iain Dale was being moderate. Then he came under fire from extreme elements in his comments section, and instead of holding firm he caved in under the pressure. The leader started following the pack. I asked him politely via email for an explanation for his sudden change of mind and attitude. All I received was hypocrisy and lies instead of an explanation. Then when I pointed out that he was both a hypocrite and a liar, he took umbrage with this. It isn’t about axe-killer, it’s about Iain Dale descending to the level of a schoolyard bully and hiding behind his sock puppets.
Prisoners and the Right to Vote
Iain Dale 1:49 PM
One of our regular viewers on 18 Doughty Street and a regular commenter on this blog is jailhouselawyer. His real name is . John Hirst and he has strong views on the issue of prisoners being given the right to vote. It was he (while serving a sentence for manslaughter) who took the government to the European Court of Human Rights and won. As a result, the government, through gritted teeth, has issued a consultation document today outlining the possible ways forward..
At the last election the LibDems supported giving prisoners, including murderers and rapists, the right to vote. Mark Oaten believes now it cost them many votes. Nick Clegg has now reversed their position.
Government ministers are privately spitting blood about being forced down this road, but apparently the British government has never ignored an ECHR judgement so they think their hands are tied.
I remain of the view that if society judges your offence to be so serious that you should lose your liberty you should also lose your freedom to elect the government.
In the new year I’m going to invite John Hirst and a range of guests onto 18 Doughty Street to discuss the issue at length.
Email | Permalink | links to this post | Comments (56)
* Delicious
* Digg
* reddit
* Facebook
* StumbleUpon
35 Iain Dale // Feb 8, 2008 at 3:13 pm
S. Yorkshire. How could I object to being called a Failed Tory Candidate. It may not be my first choice as a description but I was a Tory Candidate and I failed to win. It is a statement of fact.
36 Carl Eve // Feb 8, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I find it hard to accept anything that Dale says these days.
After being on the recieving end of a hissy fit from him, which I tried to calmly reply via private email, only to recieve another hissy fit (apparantly, I upset him by having a dig at him - and I didn’t use anything like the inflammatory language Shane and you’re using on Tim) I decided perhaps the rumours were true.
Dale, like Shane, like Guido are all very big on creating their own rules about conduct. But they just don’t abide by their own rules.
All I see Tim do is suggest they stop being two-faced, stick to the rules they have created and carry out a bit of mature comment moderation when the lunatics (anon or pseudonyms) start howling at the moon.
Added to which, on the not-so-hidden agenda front - there’s a lot more going against Dale, Shane and Guido.
Thank god I don’t blog. Only because bitched about for being a journalist.
37 Tim Ireland // Feb 8, 2008 at 3:48 pm
If that is Iain, then my answer to his latest comment is; you certainly object to being called a liar and a hypocrite… and that’s a statement of fact.
PS - Iain has ignored every email I’ve sent him asking him to confirm or deny if these comments are genuinely from him.
38 Confused of S. Yorks // Feb 8, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Iain, now imagine that you have been successfully elected to Parliament. How would you feel if people still referred to you as a “failed Tory candidate”? After all, in spite of your subsequent success in being elected, it is true that you have previously failed in attempts to become an MP.
Alternative analogy; a neighbour of mine was convicted of drunk driving a few years back. He served a two year ban and paid a hefty fine. After two years, he had to reapply for his licence every year and take a medical prior to it being issued each time. This went on for three years. He was also hit with increased insurance premiums for a few years. Is he still a drunk driver?
39 Carl Eve // Feb 8, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Confused.
No - that’d be libellous.
A drunk driver is someone who drives whilest drunk.
He no longer does that (unless he’s been arrested again recently).
He is a convicted drink driver.
The connotation of someone being “a” drunk is defamatory. This guy isn’t “a” drunk.
He was drunk when he was caught, but does not lay in shop doorways, cheap wine in his mitt, swearing at passersby and urinating in his frayed clothes. That’s “a” drunk.
sorry for length, but not girth. Hope it helps.
40 Iain Dale // Feb 8, 2008 at 9:11 pm
S. Yorkshire. You really are a dick. If I had been elected to Parliament I wouldn’t have failed, would I? You’ll have to do better than that.
And yes, Tim, I ignore your emails because if I ever reply to one, it just sets you off on another frenzy. Which, no doubt, this comment will too. Hey ho.
Carl Eve, yes, I remember your oh so sarcy emails. My blog is my domain. I create the rules. If you don’t like them feel free to frequent Mr Ireland’s blog. He needs the traffic.
41 Confused of S. Yorkshire // Feb 8, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Stunning argument there Iain, must remember to use your masterful and articulate approach to debate sometime.
Anyway, you claim justification in calling JohnHirst and axe killer on the grounds that he once killed someone with an axe. Certainly an accurate description at the time it happened, but given that he subsequently served his sentence and never repeated the crime, is it a fair description of him now?
If it is, then it would be equally valid to continue to label you a “failed Tory candidate”, regardless of subsequent achievements.
As I said earlier, some of us believe in rehabilitation, though it would seem that you don’t. Still, what can one expect from a failed Tory candidate who is incapable of conducting a civil discussion.
Isaac Asimov once said that “violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”. I’d add a rider to that; abuse is the last refuge of the ignorant.
42 Gareth Davies // Feb 8, 2008 at 11:28 pm
It’s not just Tim’s targets who think that he is off his rocker, I’ve had private mails from Labour supporters saying the same thing.
43 Tim Ireland // Feb 9, 2008 at 9:43 am
Gareth: Now why would they go and say a mean thing like that?
http://www.backingblair.co.uk/
All: Still no confirmation that’s really Iain, so you may be wasting your time. (It certainly sounds like His Royal Highness, but I wouldn’t want to make a decision based purely on perception.)
44 Iain Dale // Feb 9, 2008 at 7:24 pm
You really are deranged aren’t you? So you seriously believe I should confirm to you every time I post a comment on a blog that it is really me. Well do you? Fruitier than a fruit cake.
45 Pete Connolly // Feb 9, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I’m late to the discussion, as per usual, but it seems that the core problem isn’t bullying or ’stalking’, but credibility. Tim has been around on the internet for a long time, he knows how it works, and the man is capable of analysing an email header (no mean feat!). Iain runs a blog that accepts comments from anyone without verification, a model that was used on usenet, forums, BBS sites etc. in the past. All of these suffered from abuse, with roving bands of trolls posting anonymously, under pseudonyms, faking identities of other posters and so on - you get the picture. Conversations were destroyed, attacks were plentiful, and slanderous accusation and shit throwing were the norm. Fast forward to the blogging era, and now we see people like Iain using the same failed model for political discourse - despite the fact that it just can’t work. I don’t know if the Iain posting comments here is really Iain Dale, maybe I’m the same poster trying to stir things. Maybe it’s Tim himself - who knows?! Maybe Tim is an idealist, in that he’s seen how badly things can go without control over comments, so when the poster boy (ahem) for UK political blogging can’t get the basics right, and allows many anonymous commenters to attack him without properly debating a single point, he get the hump.
I know I do, which is why I don’t bother with a lot of political blogs. If your commenters can’t be arse to identify themselves, why should I listen to them?
46 Tim Ireland // Feb 10, 2008 at 10:28 am
*sigh*
The first comment in this thread made in the name of Iain Dale (#15) is out of character for him and has serious implications. AFAICR, previously, Iain Dale has only ever allowed* sock-puppets on his site to use the ‘axe killer’ label in this way.
If a comment appears on a weblog in someone’s name and that comment appears to be out of character or in some way suspicious, the wisest course of action is to contact that person directly and ask them if they really left that comment.
Unless, of course, the person is question is so childish that they will refuse to answer any email requesting that they do so, in which case that person will only have themselves to blame when assumptions are made in future.
[*Please note that this position gives Iain the benefit of the doubt, by assuming that he is not making anonymous comments on his own site.]
47 Carl Eve // Feb 11, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Ian - if you create rules, do us a favour luv, fucking stick to them yourself.
At present you make up the rules, break them yourself as often as you like, then bullshit like mad that other people will be banned for breaking your rules.
In laymans terms, it can be described thus.
- You’re so full of shit your eyes are brown -
There now, was THAT sarky enough for you…?
48 Pete Connolly // Feb 11, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Now now Carl, I’ve got brown eyes and I’m not full of..
Actually, there might be some truth to what you say
49 Carl Eve // Feb 12, 2008 at 10:33 am
Pete - there’s no shame in having brown eyes.
It’s only when the whites of them are turning brown you need to worry.
Leave a Comment