In responding to my little game of ‘Have I Got Praguetory For You’ our eponymous whining Tory has this to say on the subject of the missing words round, while desperately trying to cover his arse…

Praguetory said:

I know exactly what happened re the Piper episode. In fact I’ve written a book about it. Show your readers the link to where I posted this comment on my blog. Come on googlecache, political opinions, you must have it somewhere?

Well, major kudos to Justin, for providing the links which provided this run of screenshots - do enjoy…

And yes, a name has been blacked out - you don’t think I’m stupid enough to shit in my own nest now do you?

At least two or three times, of late, I’ve made the point that if the Tories are serious about shaking off their reputation as the ‘Nasty Party’ when it comes to their approach to race and ethnicity then they have to be given room to clean up their own little messes without us going over the top and demanding a public hanging every time one of them drops a boner in public.

So, with that in mind, would someone from the Tory side like to ask Barnet councillor, Lisa Rutter, exactly what she’s alluding to is this particular remark, which, according to Recess Monkey, appears in an article attacking ID cards (source unknown at present as RM’s PDF of the original is currently screwed).

With the demographics of the country constantly changing as a result of immigration, we might one day have a government that is not benign. If this ever happens, we do not want the infrastructure in place to allow a police state to come into existence.

Now, there seem to me to be two possible interpretations one can put on this statement:

Interpretation 1.

We may one day have a less benign government because hyperventilated and overblown public fears about immigration could, hypothetically, result in the election of members of a far-right nationalist party to the House of Commons in sufficient numbers to push Britain down the road to fascism.

And…

Interpretation 2.

There are too many Muslims entering the country as it is, and if its not stopped soon, we may find them taking over completely and imposing Sharia law in Britain.

Interpretation 1 is stretching credibility, even as a piece of political rhetoric, but is otherwise a fairly benign interpretation.

Interpretation 2, on the other hand, has rather nasty undertones and takes us in directions that I’m not entirely sure that Cameron’s new model Tories are going to be particularly keen on.

Now, unlike RM, who’s made his mind up already, I’m prepared to take a more non-committal view for the time being and simply suggest that someone on the Tory side might like to have a bit of a chat with Ms Rutter and ascertain precisely which of the two interpretations she was thinking of in putting together her remarks and then, if necessary, pointing her in the direction of the correct interpretation.

From a couple of events over the weekend it seems that one of Guido’s hangers’ on has sunk to a new fucking low.

Here’s the story.

On Saturday - a comment was posted here that ‘appeared’ to have come from Rachel North but which actually linked, instead, to a spoofed blogger site full of uberChristian fundie crap, the url for which was ‘rachAelnorthlondon.blogspot.com’.

That site has now, unsurprisingly, vanished into the electronic aether - but more on that in a moment.

My reponse to this, as ever, was to put out an alert that ID’d the spammer, including their IP address, to ensure that they didn’t succeed in leeching hits off the back of both spamming blogs and climbing on the back of Rachel’s excellent reputation.

I also e-mailed Rachel - just in case the fake url turned out to be nothing more than a typo - and posted an update to the effect that the IP address cited should be taken under advisement until Rachel has replied to me after receiving two further comments about the spam comment  - both which were picked up by Spam Karma, both came from obviously spoofed IP addresses and both claimed that the spam comment has used Rachel’s real IP address.
Later on Saturday, a reply came in from Rachel, indicating that she was visiting family over the weekend and hadn’t posted here.

At this point I was harbouring a particular suspicion, the nature of which will become clear in a moment, but on the information I had at the time, I had to go with the alert and leave the IP address is situ - as Rachel was away from home, she couldn’t confirm whether the IP address cited belonged to her or not and without that confirmation the call was between the possibility of other bloggers getting hit with same spam or going with the IP address I had in the knowledge that if it did turn out to be Rachel’s it could be quickly removed and a correction posted.

Today - a number of things have happened. Rachel has posted a comment here and between that comment and a private e-mail conversation its been established that the scabby cunt who posted the comment on Saturday did use an IP spoofing tool to make it appear that comment has been posted by Rachel.

What they obviously didn’t count on, was that I’d check things out with Rachel by e-mail and keep her appraised of developments.

A few quick check also demonstrated that not only has the spoof blogger site miraculously vanished into the thin air, but also that it wasn’t around long enough for Google to either cache or index the site. In other words, it had been specifically set up to try and pull off this spoofing stunt.

NOW, what does this tell us.

First, whoever the cunt behind this is, they’re packing a reasonable amount of technical knowledge - enough to know what an IP spoofer is, where to get one and how to use it.

Second, whoever it was knows Rachel’s real IP address… and that’s not the easiest piece of information to come by unless, the scumbag in question is a blogger or has been fed the information by a blogger, one who’s website Rachel has previously posted a comment, which would leave behind a record of her IP address in the blog’s stats.

In other words, this is ‘one of our own’ trying to pull off this skanky piece of fuckery, and given the events of this that week and the fact that only real common ground between myself and Rachel of late is that we’ve both, to very different degrees, come down on Tim Ireland’s side in his spat with Guido and his sock puppets, this is a clear indicatation that the cunt behind all this is in some way connected with Guido - probably not Guido himself, as if he’s having to appeal for help in tarting up the HTML on his site then its unlikely he has the technical nous to pull off a spoofing attack, but amost certainly one of his personal coterie of sock puppets, intellectual malingers and general hangers on.

Now, where does this take us.

Well, from a personal standpoint, if one of Guido’s sock puppets wants to play tech wars with me, then bring it on, fuckwit.

I’m no novice at this game, nor is ‘Unity’ the only online name I’ve ever run by; its the one I’ve stuck with for a good few years and represents what could be called my ‘white hat’ persona - there’s also a ‘black hat’ persona of mine that’s been in ‘retirement’ for quite some time and if needs be I’ve no problem with them making a comeback, if this shit carries on.

(If all that means nothing to you, btw, don’t worry about it - you don’t need to know, but any techies out there will know what I’m talking about and what I mean).

No, what really fucks me off here is that this particular cunt chose to drag Rachel into it, and Rachel, by her own admission, is a long way from being a techie.

That, in no uncertain terms, is completely fucking out of order and the behaviour of a little cunt of a script-kiddie, not a genuine techie or even a halfway decent ‘netizen’
Its not unknown, on occasions, for a couple of techies to go at it and to make full use of their technical knowledge in the process, but even these rare confrontations have their unspoken rules, one of which is that you leave the non-techs out of it - call it ‘honour amongst thieves’ is you like but unless you’re a complete and utter cunt, you don’t use your superior technical knowledge to fuck over newbies, no matter who they are or how much you might think they’re asking for it.

This is where Paul Linford has made the wrong call in thinking that the ’split’ over Tim’s spat with Guido is simply a matter of people dividing down political lines - it isn’t, because if Tim had made the wrong call and was out of order in taking a shot a Guido, I’d be amongst the first to tell him, and tell him up front.

This isn’t about politics, its about basic standards of behaviour and what’s long been called netiquette. Tim’s standing up for that, Guido couldn’t give a fuck and at least one of his shithead hangers on wouldn’t know what it was if you engraved the word into a baseball bat and fucked them round the head with it under you could read it in the welts on their forehead.

So, to make it absolutely clear, I’ve removed Rachel’s IP address from my post about the spammer - and if you did add it to your blog’s spam blacklist, the please remove it… and if you’ve added it and then forgotten what it is then email me at talkpoliticsukATgmailDOTcom and I’ll refresh your memory.

Beyond that, all I’m going to do is ask that you reflect on the information I’ve laid out above and what that has to say both about what Tim’s been doing in calling out Guido, and what it says about the character of at least one of his scutters, the cunt behind this spoofing attack.

Let’s be honest here. I think most of us know Rachel from her blog, know what she’s been through and especially how she’s one of those bloggers who’s writing brings real credit to the British blogosphere - so even if someone does want to take a shot at me, what possible fucking justification can they have for trying to bring her into it and stitch her up at the same fucking time?

Absolutely fucking none - so just ask yourself just exactly what kind of scumbag cunt would even try.

The story I ran last week about the closure of The Lagoon public house in Tipton and its links with the BNP, which include it having been run for the last couple of years by Councillor James Lloyd, the leader of the BNP group on Sandwell Council, appears to have ‘legs’, as they say in the newspaper business, having found its way into the Sunday Mercury, yesterday (not online as yet) and poped up briefly on the this morning’s local news BBC news report (and, so I’m told, on Radio WM).

To make matters even more interesting, the Mercury has managed to add a little more depth to the story and, in doing do, offered an explanation for Tom Watson’s obvious puzzlement as to why it was that he wasn’t aware that an ‘assassination attempt’ had been mounted on a parliamentary candidate in the constitutency next door.

He didn’t know because neither the machete attack or the shooting that took place in the pub were actually reported to the Police by the pub’s licencee (Councillor James Lloyd) - the Police only found out about these attacks through what the Mercury describes as local ‘gossip’.

The Mercury also alleges that, despite apparently being the target of both attacks, Councillor Lloyd not only failed to report them to the Police but was also rather uncooperative when the Police did start to take an interest in these incidents, in the first instance by stalling when the Police requested CCTV footage of the incidents from the pub’s security camera and, a little later on, by refusing outright to assist the police with their inquiries.

Now, while I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to the existence of a school of thought amongst some Tipton locals that takes the view that if the BNP want to go around shooting each other then far be it for us to intervene, so far as one can tell from the media pick-up since I flagged up the BNP’s connection to this particular pub, it would seem as though the two individuals who tried to shoot Councillor Lloyd are still at large in the local area and still, one would think, in possession of the illegal firearm used in the attack - and Councillor Lloyd appears to be entirely unwilling to offer the police any support or assistance, whatsoever, in their efforts to apprehend his assailants and,, therefore, protect the local community from the possibilty that this firearm could be used in further criminal activity…

…and yet the BNP’s claim is that they are ‘Tough on the causes of crime - Criminals’

Not in Tipton, they’re not…

[UPDATE]

One quick correction to make, now that the Mercury article has appeared online - it seems that despite Councillor Lloyd’s lack of cooperation - he refused even to give the Police a statement - the Police did successfully manage to charge two brothers with affray after gun attack.

However, although the Police caught the individual responsible for the machete attack, they were unable to bring charges due to Lloyd’s refusal to cooperate:

The final straw for West Midlands Police came in November when they were tipped off that a man had threatened people in the pub with a machete.

The attacker was caught but no charges were brought because Mr Lloyd again refused to make a statement or hand over CCTV footage.

Police officers claim that he made numerous excuses about being unable to download the evidence - before refusing to release it at all.

And as is also revealed in the article, the Police had some choice things to say about Councillor Lloyd in their report to the licencing committee.

In a report to the licensing committee of Sandwell Council last week, the force stated: “West Midlands Police are seeking revocation of the premises licence.

“Jamie Lloyd, being both the licence holder and designated premises supervisor, has repeatedly failed to meet licensing objectives in relation to crime and disorder and public safety by not reporting incidents of serious crime and disorder as they occur and not supporting prosecutions by refusing to provide witness statements or supply available CCTV evidence.

“He appears to have little or no concern for the safety of his customers in general.”

Or, indeed, the local community whom he, ostensibly, serves as a councillor - remember the pub is (or rather was) in the same ward for which Lloyd was elected to Sandwell Council.

In light of this information, one cannot but agree with the assessment given by another local councillor, Derek Rowley, who hold overall responsibility for community safety:

“He has not only failed as a councillor but simply as a decent member of the public,” said Coun Rowley.

“The police had every right to object to his licence and the brewery had no option but to sack him.

“It was his duty as a licensee to provide police with the CCTV footage they required and he should have behaved as any other responsible citizen would.

“His behaviour has been outrageous and I think he should do the honourable thing and resign from the council.

“The people of Tipton will be glad to see the back of the place.”

Amen to that…