Big Sticks and Small Carrots

I had originally intended to add further thoughts to this post once the conversation I’d started with Iain had come to an end but given the length of time that has elapsed and the results of the conversation, it’s probably better to put this in a new post.

I would ask you to bear in mind that Iain’s parting shot was that “people can form their own judgements on what I write”. As such, I’m sure he can have no complaints if I draw attention to what he has written. Likewise, if others choose to share this conversation.

Somehow, however, I doubt he’ll be doing the same.

The conversation took place under this post on Iain Dale’s Diary. In the post, Iain warned readers that they could not “say anything they like on a blog and get away with it”. This seemed like the perfect place to raise certain issues about the way the author of that warning conducts himself on blogs. I do always try my best to stay on topic.

Feel free to read through the whole thing if you have the time. It starts with this comment (I’ll also post it in it’s entirety below the fold for easy reading).

To be strictly accurate, the conversation didn’t quite start with the comment linked above. I started by submitting a comment with a link to this Bloggerheads post which discusses the way Iain behaves on blogs. Iain had participated in a comment exchange with Tim Ireland on IDD. In the exchange, Tim had asked Iain (again) to remove his images from IDD and the linked Flickr pages. These comments were visible for a short time but Iain then decided to delete the exchange without explanation. I set out to see whether Iain would explain the reason for this deletion.

To start with, I did borrow the journalistic technique of attempting to phrase my comment in a way which was likely to elicit a response. Iain has a busy blog which means that he can often avoid being challenged by simply posting and ignoring comments he’d rather not respond to. Here’s my first go:

Moderation on again? How tedious.

Still, I’m sure the reintroduction of comment moderation is entirely because Iain is feeling jumpy about this exchange which he subsequently deleted.

Nothing at all to do with that. At all. Move along. Nothing to see here.

A nice juicy carrot there just begging to be bitten, I though. And it did elicit a response; it got squashed in the moderation queue. This wasn’t entirely unexpected but I had thought it’d probably go through. I may have misjudged the extent to which Iain didn’t want his readers to read Tim’s post (this was back when Iain’s post was still high up his front page).

I complained about the deletion of my comment and asked why it wasn’t allowed and that comments did appear on the thread. I waited a while for a response and then tried to submit the original comment again, adding that in the absence of an explanation, it was possible that my comment might have been lost.

That comment didn’t get through either but it did elicit a reply from Iain. Our conversation had begun.

Here’s a summary of the result of that conversation.

1. Iain’s first reply is inconsistent with an earlier claim he made on the same thread. He then falsely implied that I that I had called him names. A “bitchfest”, he called it.

2. When I tried to discuss the deleted comment exchange detailed in the Bloggerheads post, Iain falsely suggested that it hadn’t happened. He said he had made it clear that Tim Ireland had been banned from IDD for “several weeks if not months” and that “he will never get a reply”.

3. In that comment, he also suggested that scrutiny of the activities of other bloggers was somehow unacceptable - “People visit the blogs they like and ignore the ones they don’t” - and that I was off topic. Neither of these claims stand up. He’s a high profile political actor who claims to have political influence and therefore a legitimate target for scrutiny. He’d written a post about standards of behaviour on blogs and that’s what I was writing about too. He then attempted to shut down the conversation.

4. When pressed to explain the inconsistencies of his previous response, he misconstrued one of my comments in such a way as to take great offence at something I hadn’t said and attempted to use that to shut down the conversation. The point I was actually making was that others who had attempted to press him to answer questions on certain issues had been labelled obsessive. Bear this in mind for later.

5. In his misconstrued outrage, he said “You people never know when to stoop low enough”. When I explained that he was mistaken in his interpretation of what I’d said, Iain felt no need to offer an apology.

6. Pressed again to explain his “he will never get a reply from me” claim, he then said that he’d meant he’d never reply to an email. This, despite the fact that he’d written “…and leave as many comments on this site as he likes, but he will never get a reply”.

7. When this inconsistency was pointed out, he changed his story again. The comments had been deleted because of the “vitriol” directed against him, he claimed. Having read the deleted comments, I knew that wasn’t true either. In that same comment, Iain again tried to shut down the conversation.

8. When pressed again to explain why he won’t discuss his own behaviour on his blog despite writing about how others should behave, he claimed that “it is not me who is lecturing others on how to behave on the internet”. The first two lines of the post these comments are under reads “Just a warning to those ‘anonymous’ commenters who think they can say anything they like on a blog and get away with it. Well you can’t.”

9. In the same comment, he claimed that the images Tim asked him to remove from his site several months ago were not easily identifiable. I visited his Flickr pages and found several images clearly marked with Tim’s Backing Blair logo in the space of a few seconds. I pointed this out. Three day later as I write this, they are still there.

10. He also claimed that Tim has “obsessions” and attempted to suggest that my questions had no validity because I read Bloggerheads and am “a close friend/ally”. This may be some new strain of McCarthyism I’ve not yet heard of. He attempted to use this bizarre argument to again shut down the conversation.

11. Pressed again to explain his use of the word “vitriol”, he had a sudden memory loss and forgot what it was we were talking about.

12. Iain then posted five blog posts over the course of that evening the next morning but no further reply to the question I’d left at 6.29 pm on the 24th. Starting at lunchtime of the 25th, I submitted one comment every five hours or so, three in total, pressing for an answer. Iain then claimed that he hadn’t replied because he hadn’t “posted on the blog since this morning”. This would have made more sense if the question hadn’t been asked at 6.29 pm the previous day. He also implied that I was being impatient. More than 48 hours had passed since I first started trying to discover the reason for the deletion.

13. In that comment, he again had an attack of memory loss and failed to address the question I’d been asking.

14. Twelve hours after my next polite reminder of the question, Iain replied. He accused me of acting as a sock puppet for Tim Ireland and said “If you want to lower yourself to that level that’s your decision.” Charmed, I’m sure. The truth is that I read Bloggerheads and IDD and make up my own mind. No-one prompted me bring this up with Iain. I just thought that it was relevant to the post he’d written.

15. In the same reply, he said that he’d written a long explanation but deleted it without posting. He then deployed a textbook “I can’t win” gambit saying that “whatever I say will never satisfy you”. Well, yes and no. I have to agree that dealing with someone who provides demonstrably untrue answers and refuses to provide an explanation or withdraw the untrue claims is not a hugely satisfying experience. Whether Iain could have supplied a satisfactory answer if he’d wanted to is another question. It’s not possible to come to a definitive conclusion on that as it didn’t happen.

16. Also in the same reply, he claimed that questioning the behaviour of political figures was not an appropriate topic of conversation for a political blog saying that “Political blogs are supposed to discuss politics.” He wrote this less than two hours after he’d blogged a post called Ashcroft accuses Labour minister of being “cowardly”.

18. Again in that same reply, he accused me of focusing on “email exchnages which are of no interest to anyone beyond three or four people who seem to obsess about such things”. This despite the fact that I’d repeatedly made it clear that I wasn’t asking about email exchanges. Now he had called me obsessive too. Who could possibly have predicted that? He then tried again to close down the conversation.
19. I politely asked him to withdraw his unfounded accusations and this elicited his final reply. He conceded that I had dealt with him politely but refused to withdraw the spurious accusation that I’d acted as Tim’s sockpuppet. He also refused to withdraw his claim that I was acting obsessively.

20. And, of course, he refused to answer the question. Again.

At that point, I had to admit that there was no chance that Iain was actually going to explain the reason why he deleted the exchange or apologise for the numerous snide implications and underhand insults he’d directed my way over the course of the conversation so I left the building.

As I said at the start, Iain himself wrote that “people can form their own judgements on what I write” so do feel free to take him up on this offer and read the whole thing. I’ve done my very best to not misrepresent any of what was said in my summary but you are perfectly entitled to judge that for yourself.

Moving On

Iain will now either ignore this post or flatly contradict his own words yet again and complain about the fact that I’ve highlighted what he’s written. He might even suggest that this post is further evidence of my “obsession”. If that was true, every decent journalist in the country would also be suffering from a personality disorder and Iain would prefer every political interview to be conducted in the style of Andrew Marr. Somehow, I doubt he really thinks that. It seems more likely that there is another explanation for his behaviour.

I think it’s unlikely that I’ll attempt any further conversations with Iain on his blog. In my experience, the suggestion that Iain can be held to account for what he writes in the comments to his blog is a fiction. And, as I’ve said, trying to nail jelly to butterflies is a time consuming activity.

I will continue to write posts about Iain just as I will with various other political actors. As and when the opportunity arises, I will continue to write posts like this one when Iain has made himself look particularly foolish. As you might appreciate if you’ve got this far, these posts may well be written in a mocking tone.

It is, after all, my blog.

— Fold —

This is the exchange in full. Two of the comment were not published by Iain.

Garry said…

Moderation on again? How tedious.

Still, I’m sure the reintroduction of moderation is entirely because Iain is feeling jumpy about the judge’s ruling. and nothing at all to do with this exchange which was subsequently deleted.

Nothing to do with that. At all. Move along. Nothing to see here.

UNPUBLISHED

Garry said…

What happened to my last comment?

It’s almost as if is there’s a legitimate debate about the lack of legitimate political debate on your blog and that your reaction in the comments demonstrates that you’re afraid of having it. I wonder why that would be then?

October 23, 2007 2:35 PM

Garry said…

Oh goody, that one made it. Since you hasn’t provided an explanation, I’ll try posting my vanished comment again. Maybe it just got lost or something.

Moderation on again? How tedious.

Still, I’m sure the reintroduction of moderation is entirely because Iain is feeling jumpy about the judge’s ruling. and nothing at all to do with this exchange which was subsequently deleted.

Nothing to do with that. At all. Move along. Nothing to see here.

I’m not sure if there you had some issue with it last time round but if you did, it’d help if I knew what it was. It wasn’t anonymous and I didn’t even call you any childish names. Maybe, unlike the obviously relevant discussion on the important issue of whether it’s OK to call Gordon Brown a vagina, you thought it was off-topic?

UNPUBLISHED

Iain Dale said…

As you well know, Tim Ireland is banned on this blog. And I am certainly not going to allow comments through which provide links to his blog which slag me off. If you all want to have bitchfest about me, you ain’t doing it here. Quite simple.

October 23, 2007 4:26 PM

Garry said…

Ah, the famous ban.

It’s not consistent though, is it? Tim Ireland wasn’t banned the other day. The conversation between the two of you was deleted only after you’d had second thoughts about leaving it in place for all to see.

If you all want to have bitchfest about me, you ain’t doing it here

Well, that’s inconsistent with your previous contribution to this thread (”call me what you like”) but that’s not important right now. I’m not here to make cheap jokes about Richard Gere or anything like that.

There’s a serious issue here about the way you engage with your critics (or don’t as the case may be). In this case, I thought your readers deserved to be given the facts of the deleted conversation and be allowed to make up their own minds. In light of the deletion of the comments, it might have been foolish of me to imagine that you might share this view.

Anyway, just to clarify, is it a blanket ban on links to all posts which criticise any aspect of Iain Dale’s Diary or is it Bloggerheads specific?

October 23, 2007 5:20 PM

Iain Dale said…

Garry, Tim Ireland has been banned from leaving comments here for several weeks if not months. Sometimes he leaves comments when I don’t have moderation on. When I notice them I delete them. It’s my blog. It’s my prerogative. I don;t need to rehearse the history of this. Regular readers know it and it is incredibly tedious.

You write: “There’s a serious issue here about the way you engage with your critics (or don’t as the case may be). In this case, I thought your readers deserved to be given the facts of the deleted conversation and be allowed to make up their own minds. In light of the deletion of the comments, it might have been foolish of me to imagine that you might share this view.”

If people wish to go to Bloggerheads they’re very welcome, but I don’t see why I should provide a link (even in comments) to a site which persistently slags me off. And frankly, the subject matter had F all to do with Ireland.

You wrote…

“Anyway, just to clarify, is it a blanket ban on links to all posts which criticise any aspect of Iain Dale’s Diary or is it Bloggerheads specific?”

If you are a regular reader of this blog you know full well that every day on every post I am subject to intense criticism. I have a very liberal approach to deleting comments, and if I said I deleted one per day that would prbably be an exaggeration. Sometimes criticism is valid, and sometimes it isn’t. Even when it isn’t I recognise that people have very different views to me and they have every right to express them. But if someone calls me a liar, says I am corrupt or worse, then don;t expect me to allow it on this site, or to allow a link to another site which accuses me of those things. Bloggerheads and Jailhouselawyer are sites which delight in doing that. I now ignore them because you cannot enter rational discussions with them. Believe me, I have learnt that lesson over the course of this year. I have told Ireland directly that he can email me as much as he likes (and believe me, he likes), and leave as many comments on this site as he likes, but he will never get a reply. What I write on this site is to do with me, not anyone else.If people don’t like what i do they will not return. There is a free market in blogs. People visit the blogs they like and ignore the ones they don’t. However, there are some people who do the opposite and spend their time visiting blogs they hate. What a waste of their time.

The fact is that I must be doing something right or the number of visitors to my blog would not be increasing. It would be declining. Even today we have had a number of people comment on the blog saying “it’s rubbish”, “not what it was” etc etc. Isn’t it funny though how traffic has increased by 30% this month compared to last month and also 35% year on year. I am sure you will find an argument to say that this must indicate a failure , or a tabloidisation, but the figures speak for themselves.

I think that’s enough!

October 23, 2007 7:15 PM

Garry said…

Iain, your stats are very impressive I’m sure but could we stick to the point?

This is a post about standards of behaviour on blogs and the internet. As such, it seems like a perfectly reasonable place to discuss your own standards. Can’t see the problem there unless you don’t want people participating in an informed discussion of your own behaviour.

You say “I have told Ireland directly that he can email me as much as he likes (and believe me, he likes), and leave as many comments on this site as he likes, but he will never get a reply.”

That’s an illustration of the problem I was trying to highlight. Contrary to your suggestion, you did reply just the other day and then deleted the exchange afterwards with no explanation. I would link to the relevant post but I’m apparently not allowed to.

I’m going to have to tread on thin ice with this but you’re being economic with the actuality in your reply. In fact, this seems to be a central theme of your responses to some of your critics.

October 23, 2007 9:05 PM

Garry said…

I’m guessing the “I think that’s enough” bit means I won’t be getting any more replies.

Shame. I’d have been interested to see whether you’d try to justify the demonstrably untrue claim that “he will never get a reply”. It’s not demonstrably untrue on this blog of course but that doesn’t change the reality of the situation.

It is your blog as you say. Unfortunately, it appears that you believe that misleading your readers is part of your prerogative. What concerns me is the fact that what you do has a wider influence (as you never fail to point out when it suits you).

So I’ll ask again. Why did you write “he’ll never get a reply” when you had replied just a few short days ago? Unless there’s some part of the picture I’m missing, it wasn’t an entirely honest description of the situation.

(Of course, attempts to conduct honest debate on a blog which claims to allow it is a clear indicator of obsessive behaviour and probably also a sign of serious mentally illness…)

October 24, 2007 12:18 AM

Iain Dale said…

Garry, so I am now mentally ill. You people never know when to stoop low enough do you. Debate over.

October 24, 2007 12:22 AM

Garry said…

Ha ha. You know that’s not what I meant but I’ll spell it out anyway.

I did not at any point suggest that you are mentally ill. I don’t stoop so low. Never have.

The comment is a sarcastically framed paraphrased version of what has been written in the comments on this site about Tim Ireland. It’s what I’m half expecting will happen to me too if I keep trying to press you to answer the question.

October 24, 2007 12:32 AM

Iain Dale said…

Well that’s how it read to me. If you meant it sarcastically it was lost on me.

I said “he’ll never get a reply” because I meant it. I meant it in relation to emails. In a moment of weakness I responded to one of his comments on here. All it did was produce yet more vitriol. As usual, I should have known better. If you don’t know the history to this you can’t possibly understand the sequence, and I am not going to catalogue it here because even I am bored by it. It’s entirely up to you who you believe. I try to do my best on this blog. If my best os not good enough for you, Garry, there are plenty of other blogs out there.

October 24, 2007 12:38 AM

Garry said…

I know the history Iain which is precisely why I assumed the sarcasm wouldn’t be lost on you. It’s a reference to stuff like this. Or this. Remember?

As for your “reply”:

…he can email me as much as he likes (and believe me, he likes), and leave as many comments on this site as he likes, but he will never get a reply…

…I meant it in relation to emails…

Sigh.

I’m going to explain in the simplest terms I can why “there are plenty of other blogs out there” doesn’t do it for me.

You are compiling a book called “100 People Who Are Screwing Up Britain”. If I was to say “if these people are not good enough for you, there are plenty of other people out there” or “why don’t you pay attention to the people you like and ignore the ones you don’t” it’d be very silly indeed. Scrutiny is an essential part of the democratic process, you’d rightly point out.

You are one of the UK’s highest profile political bloggers. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that you’ll be subjected to a reasonable level of scrutiny by other bloggers.

The fact that you seem very keen to discourage people from doing so - “what a waste of their time” - tells a story all on its own.

October 24, 2007 1:35 AM

Garry said…

Iain, your responses here demonstrate exactly why I started posting on this thread about standards of behaviour on the internet. Let’s go back to the original exchange which you deleted and which you won’t let me link to.

You say “All it did was produce yet more vitriol…”

You have to bear in mind that I, unlike many of your readers, have actually read the exchange. As such, I, unlike many of your readers, know that there was no “vitriol” in Tim Ireland’s comment, just statements of fact and a slightly exasperated tone due to your months long failure to remove Tim’s images from your Flickr collection as requested.

Again, I could link to it to prove that your use of the word “vitriol” was entirely unjustified but you won’t let me. I could quote the exchange but since you’ve already deleted it once, I don’t fancy my chances of getting that past Mr Moderator either.

No, your rules ensure that your false claim cannot be challenged with the actual facts of the case.

It’s your blog and you can do that if that’s the way you want to play it but if you do, you’re going to continue to be called on it, especially when you’re lecturing others on standards of behaviour on the internet.

October 24, 2007 12:46 PM

Iain Dale said…

Garry, first of all, it is not me who is lecturing others on how to behave on the internet. I make clear how I expect people to behave on my blog, as I am sure you agree, is my right. Tim Ireland is the one who expects us all to bow and scrape to his own particualr code.

On the Flickr page, I have asked Tim Ireland to tell me which images are his. There are no watermarks on them so it is impossible to tell. I have deleted several featuring Tim Yeo, but unless he tells me which ones they are there’s nothing I can do. And he knows that, which is why it suits him not to tell me.

If you really think Ireland doesn’t display vitriol when he wrotes about me we’re obviously reading different blogs. First he went for Ann Milton, then he went for Guido, now he goes for me. Fair enough. If that’s what floats his boat.

But please don’t expect me to feed his obsessions. For that is what they are. Look at his blog in the last 2 days. Is it 3 or 4 posts about me? That’s almost more than Chris Paul manages. I would have thought his readers must be fed up to the back teeth with it. Judging by the few comments people bother to leave, that would indeed appear to be the case.

Bearing in mind you are obivously a friend/close ally of Ireland I think I have been more than candid with you. If you do not agree, well that’s up to you. it’s your right.

October 24, 2007 12:59 PM

Garry said…

Garry, first of all, it is not me who is lecturing others on how to behave on the internet…

Just a warning to those ‘anonymous’ commenters who think they can say anything they like on a blog and get away with it…

Sigh again.

Replace “lecturing” with “discussing” if it makes you feel better. Either way, it doesn’t change the point I was making.

I was just looking at the Flickr page and easily identified several “Backing Blair” watermarked images which obviously belong to Tim. Took about five seconds. The suggestion that Tim should be the one who has to identify his clearly marked images is baffling. I’m assuming it was you and not Tim who loaded them up to your Flickr page. I thought Conservatives believed in personal responsibility.

And it is interesting that you have indeed broken out the “obsessive” tag. What were you saying about stooping? Somehow, I doubt you’d say the same about Tim Worstall, a blogger I respect who has very different political views from my own. And yet, there’s hardly a day goes by that TW doesn’t have a pop at Polly Toynbee. He’s been doing it for years…

Anyway, as you’ve skirted round the issue again, can I just ask whether you are withdrawing the claim that the exchange you deleted contained “vitriol”?

(By the way, I make no secret of who I am, whose blogs I like, or what my views are. I did, perhaps mistakenly, assume that at some point you’d have clicked through to the link to my blog which is attached to each comment I’ve made here. I also highlighted the Richard Gere incident early on in an attempt to make sure you knew who I was. To be fair, I suppose you might not remember the time you told me to “go play with Richard Gere” when I was posting as CuriousHamster. It sticks in my mind because it seemed a very odd response to a perfectly legitimate question.)

October 24, 2007 2:00 PM

Garry said…

To borrow a phrase, I’m not a huge admirer of people “who think they can say anything they like on a blog and get away with it”.

Let’s just stick to one example from this thread. Here’s the question again. Are you or are you not going to withdraw the claim that the exchange you deleted contained “vitriol” directed against you?

It demonstrably isn’t true (not here, of course but we’ve covered that) so it’s clearly relevant to the wider point of this post.

October 24, 2007 5:53 PM

Iain Dale said…

Garry, There are so many blogposts on his blog featuring me I’ve rather lost track of which one you are referring to, but if it is the one regarding the Kerron Cross photo, which started it all off again, no I don’t withdraw. He calls me an ‘outright liar’. if that isn’t vitriolic I don’t know what is.

October 24, 2007 6:01 PM

Garry said…

Heh. Earlier today, I tried nailing jelly to butterflies. It was relatively easy…

The comments in question have been at the heart of this whole conversation. I asked why you deleted a recent exchange between the two of you on your own blog. After initially attempting to deny it - “he will never get a response from me” - you then said:

In a moment of weakness I responded to one of his comments on here. All it did was produce yet more vitriol.

It’s all already on this thread.

Bearing in mind that I have read the exchange, unlike many of your readers who didn’t get to see it because you deleted it, do you want to withdraw this claim?

October 24, 2007 6:29 PM

Garry said…

Hello?

October 25, 2007 12:41 PM

Garry said…

What are we to make of your sudden lack of interest in addressing this perfectly straightforward question?

October 25, 2007 4:56 PM

Garry said…

In the absence of the retraction of your claim or any other response, I can only conclude that you think you can say anything you like on your blog and get away with it.

I wonder if I’m allowed to use the “H” word. Perhaps that’d be considered “vitriolic” too, despite the fact that I’ve patiently tried to discuss this stuff with you over the course of a couple of days and been repeatedly fobbed off.

October 25, 2007 10:18 PM

Iain Dale said…

Gaerry, as you may or may not have noticed, I haven’t posted on the blog since this morning. This is because I have been in back to back meetings all day. I have just got home.

I withdraw nothing. I have the emails from Ireland. You do not. Unlike him, I do not publicise the contents of other people’s emails.

October 25, 2007 11:09 PM

Garry said…

Iain, as you may or may not have noticed, I posted the question at 6.29pm yesterday. In the intervening period, before your latest reply, you’ve posted this, this, this, this and this. As is your right, of course. It is, as you say, your blog.

Anyway, back to the point. You say “I withdraw nothing. I have the emails from Ireland” but I’m not asking about emails so this isn’t much of an answer.

I’ve made it perfectly clear what I’m asking about. When you forgot the last time, I politely reminded you. I can’t see how I could make it any clearer but I’ll give it a go.

First of all, we’re talking here about comments between the two of you on your blog which were publicly visible for a short time on the morning of October 22nd in the year 2007. After the exchange had occurred, you subsequently deleted it with no explanation.

I would like to know why you did this. After first attempting to suggest that it hadn’t happened - “he will never get a reply from me” - you then said:

In a moment of weakness I responded to one of his comments on here. All it did was produce yet more vitriol.

Now, this isn’t very convincing to me because, unlike many of your readers who didn’t have the opportunity to read the comments before you deleted them, I have read the exchange. I can’t see any vitriol in it. I’ve even looked up the definition of vitriol to make sure I knew what I was looking for.

So, are you going to withdraw this claim and provide an alternative explanation? Or are you going to stick to an explanation which I know isn’t accurate?

October 26, 2007 12:28 AM

Iain Dale said…

Garry, it is clear that Ireland is using you and Scotch as his sock puppets. If you want to lower yourself to that level that’s your decision.

I had just written a long explanation of everything. But I have deleted it, because it will just set Ireland off again, and you know, life is too short. I’m drawing this exchange to a close because whatever I say will never satisfy you and you will just keep coming back for more. I learnt that error many months ago.

If you, Scotch and Ireland wish to continue your little campaign against me feel free to do so. But unless you are capable of discussing real issues rather than email exchanges which are of no interest to anyone else, I ain’t playing.

Political blogs are supposed to discuss politics. Perhaps it’s about time some people reminded themselves of that fact, rather than writing essays about email exchnages which are of no interest to anyone beyond three or four people who seem to obsess about such things.

Bye bye.

October 27, 2007 12:14 PM

Garry said…

Iain, you say:

Garry, it is clear that Ireland is using you and Scotch as his sock puppets. If you want to lower yourself to that level that’s your decision.

No-one is pulling my strings. I read Bloggerheads and IDD, come to my own conclusions and take action accordingly. I object to your unjustified characterisation of me and politely request that you withdraw it.

I’m drawing this exchange to a close because whatever I say will never satisfy you and you will just keep coming back for more.

Well, it appears that there is an element of truth in that. You certainly can’t provide a satisfactory answer by making demonstrably untrue claims or refusing to supply any answer at all. I agree that this does not provide a great deal of satisfaction.

Political blogs are supposed to discuss politics.

How far back through your archives do I have to go to find you posting about the behaviour of political actors rather than politics? Not far. At All. A couple of hours before you posted the above reply, you posted this:

Ashcroft accuses Labour Minister of being “cowardly”

And, of, course. there’s the post I’m actually commenting on here. I could ask you to explain this extraordinary inconsistency but would I get any sort of answer? Past experiences would suggest not.

three or four people who seem to obsess about such things.

You’re now accusing me of obsessive behaviour because I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to examine the behaviour of one of the UK’s highest profile political bloggers. We’ve been over this already. You have not provided any sort of counter to that but have instead resorted to calling me obsessive.

I politely request that you withdraw that unjustified claim.

I would conclude by again requesting that you answer the question I’ve asked which, for the upmteenth time, had nothing to do with emails, but as you say, it’s not likely to be a satisfactory experience.

October 27, 2007 2:38 PM

Iain Dale said…

Garry, at least you are far more polite than certain others. I will give you that.

You do indeed have a right to ask questions, just as I have a right to answer them in my own way, or indeed not at all.

I also have a right to form a view as to the motivation for those questions and I have a right to express that view.

It’s my view that you and Scotch are in communication with Ireland, as evidenced by his latest round of posts and the comments contained therein. I may of course be barking up the wrong tree, but I am free to voice my suspicions, just as you are free to deny them.

I have allowed all your comments through moderation, except ones linking to Ireland, just as I have with Scotch. I have responded politely in each case. You don’t like what I have said. Fair enough, but that really is it, I’m afraid. I am not accountable to you, Ireland or anyone else. I am accountable to myself. People can form their own judgements on what I write and if they don’t like it they will presumably not visit again.

So, you may well have asked three questions and asked for two withdrawals, but I have said all I have to say.

October 27, 2007 3:14 PM

Garry said…

It’s my view that you and Scotch are in communication with Ireland…

Heh! Infamy, infamy, they’ve all got it infamy…

For the record, I have not at any point denied that I’ve had email conversations with Tim. I didn’t realise it was illegal…

And it doesn’t negate the fact that I’m a rational human being able to examine the evidence of both blogs, make up my own mind and act accordingly. There was no secret conspiracy which prompted me to start commenting on this thread

Anyway, you’ll be pleased to here that I’m off now. I have to say that although I have not received answers to my questions, I have found this whole conversation most illuminating.

October 27, 2007 4:08 PM