The Right Dishonourable Iain Dale

The "C word" I feel that Iain Dale of Iain Dale's Diary ought to be more concerned with is not the slang term for the female genitalia, rather it is "cyber-bullying". Yesterday, Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads has posted on a similar theme.

I believe that my argument with Iain Dale is a valid one. It goes back to his making an announcement on his blog and on 18doughtystreet.com that he intended inviting me on to 18doughtystreet.com to join a debate on the prisoners votes case. Even though I accepted the offer, I heard no more about it. Naturally, I wondered why I heard no more about it from Iain Dale. I felt that, at the very least, he owed me an explanation as I had a legitimate expectation he would honour his promise.

No explanation was forthcoming from Iain Dale until both Unity and Tim Ireland posted about this issue. Then I decided that I would raise the issue with Iain Dale and ask for a honest explanation. However, rather than offer a believable explanation Iain Dale chose instead to offer a pathetic excuse which did not stand up to scrutiny. All Iain Dale achieved was to add insult to injury. He then sought to appease me with a revised offer to appear on 18DS, a few words within a 10-15 minute item. This would not have done justice to the cause of prisoners human rights to vote, and on that basis alone I would have rejected the few crumbs off his table. What narked me most about this revised offer, was that it came with strings attached. That is, it was conditional upon me removing the link in my sidebar to Tim Ireland's Iain Dale's Dairy. Just who the fuck does he think he is to dictate terms like this to me? Given that he claimed that his argument against Tim Ireland is that he claims Tim Ireland is trying to police the blogosphere, here was a prime example of a hypocrite.

Now, Iain Dale is claiming that I am insulting him by calling him both a liar and a hypocrite. According to my dictionary "insult - to affront; outrage; offend". When Unity posted Honest John, I did not deem this post to be an insult, nor an affront, nor was I outraged nor offended by it, because it spoke the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts. Just because Iain Dale feels hurt about the truth does not make it an insult.

I had cause to email Iain Dale to draw his attention to the insults and lies that had been launched against me on his post about Rachel North London and her cyber-stalker Felicity Jane Lowde who had been arrested by police. Here follows the emails:

From: John Hirst [mailto:john.hirst@myhaven.karoo.co.uk]
Sent: 07 June 2007 21:14
To: iain@iaindale.com
Subject: the hitch



I see he has been busy again on the Rachel/FJL post.

From: Iain Dale

To: 'John Hirst'

Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 12:13 AM

Subject: RE: the hitch



Despite the fact that you continually insult me on your blog by calling me a liar and a hypocrite I have deleted the personal comments about you on the Rachel North thread tonight.

From: John Hirst [mailto:john.hirst@myhaven.karoo.co.uk]
Sent: 08 June 2007 23:53
To: Iain Dale
Subject: Re: the hitch



"Without prejudice"



Letter before action.



Iain



You stated that you would remove the offending posts. They are still there as of today. I am getting fed up of your antics. Now you know of my past you cannot claim that you do not know the legal difference between a murderer and manslaughterer. Whilst I do not claim that these cyber-bullies are doing your work for you, it is your blog and you are allowing it to happen. Therefore, you cannot deny legal liability. Please remove the offending posts forthwith.



John



The Hitch said...

For once I will support the axe murderer,
At least he is open about his failings (insanity) and recognises them.
I consider him to be morally Superior to both Blair and Cameron and certainly more intelligent than Blair.
Two people who have caused far more misery in this world whilst supposedly sane.

June 08, 2007 2:31 AM

not very verity said...

verity said...

How faintly amusing that a real life axe murderer, who made himself a relaxing cup of tea after he murdered an old lady in her own home, where he was a trusted lodger, and tried to joke around about the murder with the police, is spewing out dainty platitudes about a cyber stalker.

You have posted this or similar on many occasions.It has become boring much like you.

June 08, 2007 11:04 AM

Iain Dale's response "Don’t threaten me. It won’t get you anywhere. For the record I have had about 500 emails today. Yours got overlooked. You have the cheek to threaten me with libel. In order to win a libel action you need to have a reputation to defend. You do not. If anyone should be launching a libel action against anyone it is me against you. I will be removing those posts but not as a result of your ridiculous threats- and for the record, I made no prior agreement to delete them. My previous emails referred to posts from last night which I did remove as soon as I got home.



If you had any humanity about you, you would also remove your deeply libellous posts about me from your blog, but I know better than to expect that from you, of course".

My response - An open letter to Iain Dale:

Dear Iain Dale,

Please do not confuse a legal threat with any other kind of threat because the former is perfectly legal whereas what you are suggesting is that I have made an illegal threat.

As for it won't get me anywhere, I think I will let a judge decide where it gets me. Your being a judge in your own cause falls foul of natural justice in the sense that you display a bias in your favour.

Congratulations on the amount of emails you have received today. No prizes though for the oversight in relation to mine. Do I detect a contempt for me in this? If so, let us hope that you do not show contempt for the law. I understand that judges do not take kindly to people who adopt this kind of attitude.

I have a cheek both sides of my face. However, this does not make me two-faced. I will leave this accolade to you. For your information, it is a legal requirement before beginning or contemplating any legal proceeding to send the other party a letter before action. It provides the claimant with the opportunity to air any grievances, and also provides the defendant with the opportunity to settle the matter out of court by seeking to address the grievances. As it happens, I did not refer to libel. Although this is one area of law that I would have considered. I am more concerned with the harassment aspect. If I was you, I would change my lawyer if this is the kind of advice that you have received: "In order to win a libel action you need to have a reputation to defend. You do not". This smacks of arrogance rather than the legal position. In legal circles and in the media I have a very good reputation.

I will be more than happy to see you and your lawyers in court trying to claim that you are neither a liar and a hypocrite. I accept your challenge and pick up your gauntlet. You can pick up your own dummy that you have spat out.

I have got humanity. However, I fail to see what it has got to do with removing the truth and genuine freedom of expression from my blog to placate your apparently "I prefer to live in a lie world" mentality.

I look forward to your response,

Yours sincerely

John Hirst aka jailhouselawyer.