This morning I posted the following on Conservative Home.
On the subject of blogs.
Tory A List candidate Iain Dale who has a blog called Iain Dale's Diary, yesterday spat his dummy out and threw it out of his pram. On his blog he operates a system called comment moderation, which allows the blog author the opportunity to read comments submitted before deciding whether to publish or not publish any comment.
Rachel North London, a survivor of the 7/7 bomb attack, also runs a blog. And she questioned Iain Dale's judgment on allowing a comment to be published on his blog which not only attacked me but was off topic. I read this comment by someone claiming to be Peter Hitchins, and posted a moderate response to this rabid attack, which Iain Dale also published.
Oddly, Iain Dale then proceeded to throw out the baby with the bath water in a tantrum one would not and should not expect from someone who wants us to elect him to become a MP. That is, he punished the innocent along with the guilty by banning me from posting further comments. I fought a case and won the right for prisoners to speak to the media. Only to face unfair censorship by Iain Dale. If he behaves like this now, what can we expect if he ever came into real power?
Iain Dale is guilty of publishing a libel on his blog. The least he should do now is apologise to the injured party, and set the record straight. He has allowed his blog to degenerate to the gutter level of that other Tory blog operated by Guido. Unless the Tory Party cleans up its act, it can forget about winning over the electorate. Sleaze is just as dirty in opposition. Perhaps, it is for the best that it is going down the drain.
Posted by: John Hirst | 20 December 2006 at 13:20
I await Iain Dale's response.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
10 comments:
Fuck off.
My blog is for amusement, you and Hitch got boring. So you got deleted. End of story.
And don't call me a Tory.
I am honoured that guido fawkes esq. decided to grace my blog (I would be doubly honoured if Iain Dale also paid me a visit?).
However, I am afraid I will not accede to your request. Even though you put it so strongly. And the reason for this is because I have decided that I am here to stay, and although I may be the new kid on the block, I am fast making my mark. And, this includes marking out my terriority. Just like my dog Rocky did when I brought him home.
I am intelligent, and as such discovered that your blog is for amusement. It amused me to read your post about the Home Office employing ten people to read blogs, and your response to this. It influenced me to the extent, that if the Home Office was interested enough to read what is said about it on blogs, then I would set up a blog which featured the Home Office (see the link, it is proving popular). Thank you for the inspiration.
I don't feel that I am boring. But this boils down to opinion. You have your's and I have mine. I thought it was out of order firstly that this "Peter Hitchins" decided to launch a unprovoked public attack upon me, secondly that he did so using your space which added insult to injury. I did not find him boring either, had I done so I would have simply ignored him. His mistake was to play amateur mind games with a grand master. I will deal with him in my own way later. I find him entertaining in the same way that a small boy might enjoy pulling an insect to pieces. I am a hard hitter. By the time this dawns upon him it will be too late for him to recover. But, that is his problem.
I was not aware that I "got deleted". I certainly have not felt any damage as a result of it. Too thick skinned for this.
"End of story". I don't think so. It's too early to write me off. I have posted somewhere, "Move over Guido and Iain Dale". I meant what I said in the jest. The balance of power has a tendency to shift. My track record shows that I have defeated the State on two occasions, and my belt is littered with various scalps that I have collected along the way. Watch this space.
I dont know what your shade your politics takes (in the same way you do not know mine). I was tickled to see you in Iain's list of Tory Blogs, and posted my comment. I was also tickled by the hayek's grandad comment in response to mine. I have a good sense of humour.
The real Guy Fawkes is a hero of mine. It is a shame that the Gun Powder Plot did not succeed. I understand that he was tortured mercilessly. My foster father knew one of his family line. He lived at Otley, where I once lived for awhile.
I hold no animosity towards you. I hope we can become better acqainted in the future. Hold your friends close, and your enemies even closer springs to mind. I take time to get to know. You might find that I grow on you like roses.
TTFN.
Its not boring - its very boring
. His mistake was to play amateur mind games with a grand master. I will deal with him in my own way later. I find him entertaining in the same way that a small boy might enjoy pulling an insect to pieces. I am a hard hitter. By the time this dawns upon him it will be too late for him to recover. But, that is his problem.
Oh a threat?
just what exactly have you got planned for me?
Not just a threat. A legal threat, it carries more weight.
Surprise!
not with me sweety (+:
Hirst
I am going to do something I shouldn't,
Im going engage in a dialogue with you.
let me set out my stall..
I genuinely believe you to be a very dangerous man, don't take that as a compliment as in you are "hard" because you aint, I (and others) see you as a man who really does not see the difference between right and wrong.
I don't hate you, however, I think you should be on a secure ward somewhere, for the benefit of others, not to punish you.
there you go, react as you will.
I dont see you as evil , from what i and others have noted ,you dont understand the concept.
If you wish to respond great , if not ditto.
You can start by addressing me properly, politeness costs nothing. Dialogue is a two way street. What you believe, does not matter in the grand scheme of things. A compliment from you, do you know what one is? It's not for you to say whether I am hard or not. Again it does not matter whether you, and anonymous others, do not think I know the difference between right and wrong. Whether you hate me or not is of no consequence to me. It is not for you to judge whether or not I should be on a secure ward. There's my reaction. I would agree with you that I am not evil. Therefore, it follows that I do understand the concept, and you and the anonymous others have noted incorrectly.
Sorry to intrude here.
But Jailhouse; Sort it out!
In your seriously long reply to the GuidoMeister (which i didn't finish btw), you must have used the word 'I' about a thousand times. Experience tells me this is a sign of crippling self doubt.
And when you keep talking about how thick skinned you are and how adept at mind games; one can't help but feel it is all self assurance.
Secondly. When you respond to hitchens, you dismiss everything he says as of no interest to you.
Fair enough.
But then why ask for comments on your blog? Also if something doesn't interest you and you have no concern for their views. Why bother reading it? Especially as your point by point refutal suggests that you read each point he made and thus showed interest in what he had to say on each point.
For a supposed 'Grandmaster' of psycology I think you have schoolboyed a bit here.
Don't take this the wrong way. I don't know what you got locked up for and I have little interest in reforming the prison system (on that note - I just think if the govt makes a law it should keep to it - and if that means building more prisons then budget for it and do it - and likewise if that means giving prisoners proper rehab and education - budget for it and do it - and if the sums don't add up - redraw the policy till they do - that's what we in business have to do, or we go out of business!). But I digress.
Jailhouse: Say more with less. That is why Guido is the no.1 - he hardly says anything.
p.s.
It is another observance of mine that people who defend themselves (or their pet causes) in court are on the nuttier side of things. If anyone here is unfamiliar with the name 'Sam Slone' then feel free to google him. or why not read on from here (the openign line of his wikipedia entry):
Samuel Howard Sloan (b. September 7, 1944), also known as M. Ismail Sloan, is an American author, chess player, and former securities trader whose license was revoked by the SEC. While having no formal legal training, he once orally argued and won a case in front of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.[1] In July 2006, he was elected to the Executive Board of the United States Chess Federation. There is an on going recall petition to remove him from the office.
He has been married five times and has eight children. He does not have a job at the moment.
big andy: No need to apologise, you are not intruding at all. I have sorted it out old chap. I find it odd that you reply to something, and yet claim that you did not read it all. I would suggest that it is better to read all of an argument so as better to knock it down. Here endeth the first lesson.
Actually, I did not use the word I anywhere near about a thousand times, a word count shows that I used I a mere thirty nine times. Your experience is very limited, the use of the word I is what any author employs when writing in the first person.
I dismiss hitchens as not hurting me.
You say say more with less, perhaps you should practice what you preach? You have a log winded way of saying nothing. Sometimes I feel that one liners are all that is needed, and sometimes I feel that it needs more by way of explanation. I cannot understand why Guido's blog is deemed by some to be number one, I find it rather lacks intellectual content.
Post a Comment