I can’t help but be amused by the sight of Iain Dale scuttling headlong for what he thinks is the moral high-ground…
Over the last few weeks a huge amount of damage has been done to the British blogosphere.
Okay, Iain - some of what’s happened could be construed as potentially ‘damaging’ - whether we agree on exactly what the ‘damaging’ aspects of this are remain to be seen. So, do go on…
Blogwars have broken out between various parties which have made us all appear like obsessive schoolschildren who have nothing better to do with our time than flame each other.
Mmm… perhaps - although as flame wars go, and speaking as someone who cut their teeth on Usenet and in US political forums, this has all been a bit tame by those standards.
It’s developed into a pitch battle between left and right and emerged out of the investigations into the Smith Institute.
Not exactly, Iain.
The exact position here is that you and Paul Staines have been running a series of stories about the Smith Institute with the aim of smearing Gordon Brown with allegations of sleaze, only for little old me and a few other to do a bit of digging around another charitable think-tank that professes ‘independence’ - Policy Exchange - which looks to be at least as close to the Conservative Party and its leadership as you allege the Smith Institute is to Gordon Brown.
Without raking over that whole issue in-depth, the basic contention is one of ‘pots and kettles’ - the Smith Institute may possibly have pushed the envelope in terms of its some of its activities, but then its looks very much as if the same contention could be made in respect of some of the activities of Policy Exchange and one or two of its more high-profile employees.
How that will resolve itself remains to be seen, so I’ll leave it there for the moment - but this is not a one-sided thing and of everyone who has been digging around Policy Exchange, I’m the only one who’s a member of the Labour Party.
Policy Exchange only caught my attention because while looking through the Charity Register for something else I spotted the name and remembered the connection to Nick Boles from the last general election campaign. I didn’t pick out Policy Exchange because I was aware that you were a trustee - I happened across it, decided to take a closer look and then found out you were a trustee from the documents filed with the Charity Commission. Call it synchronicity…
It’s time to call a halt to this before it all gets out of hand and writs are issued. The latest spat over the weekend where a group of bloggers accused another one of wanting in the past to aide the BNP was a spat too far.
Okay, this is something that is ongoing, in the sense that there is more to come, but I can’t say precisely what as yet.
What I can say, having seen all the extant documentation relating to this matter is there is considerably more to this matter than Iain suggests and things will, I’m sure, be more than adequately clarified in due course - however, contrary to some of the rumours that are flying around, this is not about a blogger trying to aid the BNP but a matter of a blogger who took a very ill-conceived and ill-judged course of action a good few years ago, and who responded to the reemergence of newspaper article about those actions by threatening to sue other bloggers rather than by simply explaining the circumstances behind his actions.
And so far as I can tell, the explanation is all rather mundane and seems likely to fall within the general category of ‘young, idealistic, arrogant and rather stupid’.
What I will say for the record, categorically, is that I do not believe at all that the blogger in question intended to assist the BNP in any way, or that that blogger is or ever has been either a racist or a BNP sympathiser - and as I have no great regard for the individual in question, you can take that as read that I would not be saying that if I genuinely didn’t believe it.
I have been repeatedly accused of lying. I have not responded to these accusations because I have felt that if I do it will merely exacerbate the situation and prolong the torture. At times over the past fortnight I have felt what it is like to be the victim of stalking. Believe me, it is not pleasant.
Oh please, Iain. Look in my opinion some of your own behaviour has been less than exemplary, not least in the matter of your treatment of individuals whose only ‘offence’ has been to openly ask you awkward question that you’d rather not answer - questions, I might add that were posed by people who did identify themselves.
I’m not going to say that there hasn’t been an element of anonymous trolling as well and that that’s not a tad unpleasant to have to deal with, but what has got a few people’s backs up is the glib manner in which you’re tried to tar everyone with the same troll-brush and created the impression in some of your posts that its only been trolls who’ve pushing certain issues.
Some will say that by sticking my head above the parapet on certain issues I have only myself to blame. Maybe they’re right, but what a sad situation we have got ourselves into. Others say that being attacked by left wing blogs on an issue where they feel vulnerable is an accolade. I do not share that view.
The British blogosphere has always been a community where people with different views and agendas have a common interest. I happily link to people on the left and they happily link to me - not just in sidebars but on real stories. Over the last few weeks this has changed. We’re now in a situation where people who I have always regarded as sensible people, even friends, have decided that certain bloggers on the Right are their mortal enemies who must be destroyed. This must stop. If bloggers turn on each other we merely give fuel to the arguments put forward by Yasmin Alibhai Brown yesterday.
Iain, this is the way things are - and I really don’t much care whether you like what I have to say or not.
I happily read and link to a number of blogs on both the left and the right, several of which I consider to be ‘must reads’, blogger that I hold in high regard and have a considerable amount of respect for, much I disagree with many of their opinions and political views.
And despite everything that happened in the last few weeks, that situation has not materially changed - I have a standard list of blogs on my RSS reader that I visit pretty much everyday, a list that includes Bloggerhead, Chicken Yoghurt and Pickled Politics, certainly, but also Devil’s Kitchen, Mr Eugenides and Tim Worstall, amongst others.
Nothing that has happened in the last few weeks has altered my regard for any of those bloggers.
What has changed is that I have consciously drawn a line between those bloggers who I consider to be honest and authentic in their approach to blogging and a small number of others whose attitude and approach I really do not like and where that line is drawn is not in terms of politics or left and right but in terms of online behaviour and attitude.
I’ll happily dispute and debate matters of policy with bloggers from all parts of the political spectrum. I will also quite happily take the piss out of another blogger if they post something that’s particularly dumb and I happen across it and I’ll do so in pretty uncompromising terms when the occasion call for it.
What I don’t do, is take the view that other bloggers exist as a resource for acquiring potentially embarrassing stories about ‘the opposition’, I don’t keep a watch on certain bloggers who I know are prone to making embarrassing gaffs and expressing dissent against their own party and I don’t set out to exploit such things for either my own of the Labour Party’s political advantage - in fact, as any regular reader he knows full well, I’m no less harsh on my own side when someone over here drops a bollock than I am in dealing with the opposition.
I call things how I see them and I think for myself - that’s my way of blogging, that’s what I respect in other bloggers and its with bloggers who have that same attitude that I can happily debate matters in a adult manner.
Sadly, of late, a number of new bloggers have emerged who don’t have that attitude - one of whom is Praguetory, and that explains why I’ve been shredding him whenever the opportunity presents itself. Some of that does stem from the incident with the Cameron image, much of it doesn’t - I’m as much down on him for what I’ve seen of his attitude toward Susanne Lamido and comments like this:
Party discipline can only go so far. If you want to see what I mean, check this extraordinary comment at Coming Out From Under (good blog) which was taken from a post at Iain Dale’s. Now ex-Lib Dem Susanne Lamido (pictured) from Islington describes herself on her site as a “tough, blonde cookie having her say”. So for the full story as it develops, go to Suz’s blog. It simply has to be a daily read. Good on you Suz for speaking your mind. Dearie me Lib Dems.
And this…
Blogwatch…
Susanne[Lamido], I have mentioned yesterday in a post about Lib Dems. Remember the Conservative councillor(s) who got sacked for racist emails. Sounds like an Islamic councillor has been sending even more extreme mails. It smells like the Libs have attempted to sweep this under the carpet. Susanne is ready to tell it like it is.
As I am for anything else that he’s been getting up to elsewhere.
I am certainly aware of what’s gone on with Susanne and the Lib Dems in her area, and that she has a number of grievances to air, but whatever her issues they are matters for her and her local party to sort out and what I dislike intensely in Praguetory’s comments is the clear sense in which he is recommending that others follow her blog solely because he expects her to ‘dish the dirt’ on her local party and what he sees in that is nothing more than the possibility of obtaining material that could be used for political gain.
Sorry, but that kind of attitude I consider to be fucking despicable, especially when its directed toward someone who is not a public figure in any real sense, but merely an ordinary blogger.
This kind of crap, more than anything else, is corrosive and is likely to fuck up the blogosphere - one of the most important benefits of the mutual respect that exists between many established bloggers is it makes it possible for those of us who are party members to express dissenting opinions about our own party’s without the fear that such opinions will be leapt on by political opponents.
There is an acceptance amongst established bloggers that many of us are natural dissenters and that its ‘bad form’ to make too much of it or try to turn twist such dissent into a means of political attack in ways that might seriously embarrass another blogger - if we lose that culture, then some of us are going to be left with a choice of censoring our own opinions to avoid them being used against us, and sticking to official party lines, or forgetting about blogging altogether, in which case the blogosphere cease to be about adult debate and turns into just another anodyne tribal cesspit in which the signal to noise ratio is so poor that its not worth bothering with.
Underpinning all this is a clear sense amongst a number of established bloggers and ‘old hands’ that what we don’t want to see is the emergence of organised US-style ‘attack-blogging’ and seeing as how you’re directly involved in a project that aims to introduce precisely that kind of thing into the UK - 18 Doughty Street, of Fox News Lite, as some of us have come to call it - then you’re in rather an invidious position.
If you want to take a political message from any of that then that message is don’t think you can pull any of that kind of crap here and get away with it without taking some fire in return- me, Tim and others are quite happy to carry on with the same mature approach that’s been the hallmark of most British blogging over the last few year, but if you think you can rely on that to hold up while some of your side sneak in tactics learned from the Republicans then forget it.
If you want to play nice, then we can play nice - but if you want to play rough then we can meet you head on and hold our own. So give that a little thought and maybe reflect on what needs to be done to reign in some of your own side if you want to retain the nice, chummy atmosphere that we’ve had to date.
Guido has this morning ‘outed’ himself for the first time and confirmed the identity which anyone with a remote knowledge of how to use Google could have done for themselves months ago.
In the spirit of reaching out to those who seem to have developed an unhealthy obsession with me I say this. I refuse to get dragged in to a war with you. You can keep sending over the missiles but I’m not firing back.
Fine - It’s not what you say that matters, its what you and others on your side do.
You want a rather more friendly set of rules of engagement, then fine. I’m game - let’s agree something and stick to it.
Look, Iain - it’s not going to be possible for either side to police everything that goes on out here, so I don’t expect this is the last we’ll see of rogue elements playing anonymous silly buggers, but those of us who do have a reputation and a bit of standing in the community can try to set standards by the way we conduct ourselves and how we react to when people from whatever side start acting up.
And that means being honest about where we’re coming from.
I don’t particularly advertise the fact that I’m a member of the Labour Party, I mention it in passing if it seems relevant to whatever it is I’m writing about, but I don’t put up the pretense that I’m not a Party member or claim to be something I’m not and my party allegiance, such as it is, is pretty common knowledge amongst other bloggers, which means that people know where I’m coming from when I write, because I’m not in the habit of pretending to be something I’m not.
You’re a Tory politician, and as for Paul Staines - well he’s an old Thatcherite/Libertarian ideologue - we know that and as long as you’re both reasonably about such things then there’s no problem.
What is a problem is when you start up with the all the anti-establishment schtick and try to pass it off as kosher.
Staines doesn’t try and shit on the government because he’s really anti-government, he does that because he’s an old-school lefty-basher and there’s a centre-left government in power and any claims to the contrary are a facade, a complete crock of shit. He may not be Cameron’s biggest fan, but he’s not realistically going to try an shit in the Tory Party’s nest because where he’s coming from even a wet, liberal, Tory Party in power is preferable to centre-left (or many would argue centre-right) Labour government - so all we’re expecting from Staines is that he drops the ‘happy anarchist’ act and stops pretending that he’s something he’s not.
The same goes for you and your mates at Fox News Lite - its a semi-detached Tory ‘front operation’ that’s trying to worm its way round Britain’s rules on political broadcasting and its ridiculous to try and pretend otherwise or claim independence - that’s nothing but complete bollocks and an insult to people’s intelligence, so don’t do it - it just makes you look fucking ridiculous and ensures that you’re going to be constantly called for being biased until you flat out admit it and get on with things.
To Tim Ireland - and this is the first and last time I will be addressing him - I say this. You accuse me of calling you a ‘nihilist’. I emphatically did not. The tape shows that someone else called Guido Fawkes a ‘nihilist’ in a discussion about your spat with him and I asked the question ‘isn’t Tim Ireland one too’? Until I looked back at the tape I couldn’t even remember saying it. Now, I accept that you could draw the implication from that that I believed you to be one too but as I have said before, I actually had to look up what the word meant. If you really take offence at the question then I am happy to say sorry. But I am sure you have been called worse, as have I. I do not normally demand apologies or go to the lengths you have to get one.
Tim Ireland has also accused me of lying about my Wikipedia entry. He says I have written that I was not aware of the page until last week and provide a screenshot of edits on the page. When I wrote “I was not aware of this page until today” I was referring to the DISCUSSION page, linked to from my entry on which I wrote those words. Of course I was aware of the main page. I am not demanding an apology from him. It’s an easy mistake to make. All I ask is that he accepts he was wrong. If he does indeed accept that, he will then presumably agree to remove the entry from his blog.
This is between you and Tim, but what your remarks suggest is that you really don’t get quite how much reputation matters out here in the blogosphere or you wouldn’t quite so taken aback by his reaction - take that as lesson learned and at least try to settle your differences with Tim behind the scenes and agree a ceasefire there.
As for removing the blog entry about the Wikipedia article, you still haven’t quite got how this all works, Iain?
Fine, you still pretty new to all this and will make mistakes, but for the record the one thing I would not expect Tim to do is remove that blog entry entirely - rather the correct response, if he accepts your point, is to post a correction on the original article accepting that a mistake was made, if he does indeed accept your point.
Blogging isn’t like the press, Iain, and mistakes don’t just disappear into the electronic aether never to seen again because what the ‘code of honour’ that Tim, myself and others espouse demands - what we call netiquette - is that mistakes are openly and honestly acknowledged and corrected.
In fact, Iain, it precisely that kind of open ethical behaviour that matters to many of us and plays a big part in how we assess the reputation of other bloggers, and your own failure to appreciate that, even when its pointed out to you, that has played a considerable part in some of the recent ‘unpleasantness’.
Still, in the circumstances, I’m certainly happy to take this as evidence of you having misunderstood the social mores of blogging, as its understood by us old hands, and take the view that some of what looked very much like ‘panic under fire’ over the last couple of weeks can be traced back to a genuine lack of understanding of the finer points of netiquette, and will let this pass having noted your error.
I can’t say fairer than that, can I?
I have said all I have to say on this now. I won’t entering any dialogue about it. Either this is accepted at face value or it isn’t. If it is to be the latter. the feuding will continue to be very one sided, because I won’t be playing. The reaction of my accusers will go a long way to demonstrating whether the British blogosphere moves beyond its tendency to self-obsess or not. As Tim Ireland might put it. Iain has spoken. End communication!
Okay, Iain - you’ve had your say and now I’ve had mine - and if you’ve read this then maybe you’ll re-evaluate some of your remarks in the light of what I’ve had to say and maybe you won’t.
As things stands, some of what you’ve said looks to be still in the general vein of ‘playing the victim’ - that may be what you genuinely feel and you may not have quite ‘got’ where some of us have been coming from, at least until now, so I’ll let that pass on this occasion as being no more than a bit more evidence of a cultural misunderstanding between my internet generation and yours.
Look, honest call here - I could quite easily interpret those last remarks as nothing more than fairly cynical attempt by a politician to close down further debate by making an effort to appear magnanimous and then setting up a scenario in which any further contention is pre-labelled as being self-obsessive but as there’s enough in your comments to suggest that they may be a real olive branch in there I’m not going to go that road and I’m going take it that your are trying to be sincerely in your desire to calm things down.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and see how thing go from here and whether you have taken any lessons from any of this - either you have or you haven’t and only time will tell for sure which it is.
So, I’ll call it a ceasefire for the time being, and we’ll see how thing go and whether life does revert back to a more civilised tone of debate - but make no mistake here Iain, if things do kick off again then it isn’t go to be because anyone is self-obsessing but because something new has happened that suggests that nothing has been learned from this whole episode.
The ball here, is as much in your court as it is anyone elses and it up to you to decide whether you accept that or not.
Oh, an if you do want to discuss any of this, the comments boxes are open and I don’t censor anything so you can be assured that anything you have to say will appear below - just so we understand each other.
Res Ipsa Loquiteur.
