Big Sticks and Small Carrots

So, what conclusions can be reached about attempts to have an honest debate with Donal Blaney?

My own efforts have been hampered by the fact that the two comments I’ve submitted have not been published. Would I be paranoid to believe that Blaney is aware of this but has no intention of doing anything about it? Well, about an hour after I submitted the second comment, Blaney wrote:

I’m trying to get a venue for quarterly debates between leftists and rightists. The debates would be held according to traditional British debating rules. I’d really welcome the chance for Unity, Garry et al to come and take part. I’m sure a true forum for debate - which we could maybe film too - would do more for advancing ideas on all sides of the argument than anonymous blogging.

There is no other Garry in the thread. As such, there seem to be two realistic explanations. The first is that Blaney has read my comments but not allowed them through moderation. The second is that he has read my post linked above. Either way, the evidence strongly suggests that Blaney has consciously decided not to engage with me on t’interwebs.

It could be argued that Blaney’s decision is due to his distaste for “anonymous blogging”. Well, it could be if I blogged anonymously. But I don’t.

It could be that he thinks I “cower behind the written word”. My first comment started with an attempt to question the thinking behind this baffling concept and we know that that wasn’t hugely productive. Personally, I believe the written word can be a very pure form of debate and countless philosophers and scientists throughout history seem to have held similar views. Blaney, however, appears to have an aversion to debating in written words. Strange considering that Iain Dale dropped by to assure me that Blaney is a much better writer than I am. Willy waving isn’t really my thing so I can’t say that bothers me one way or the other.

I do feel confident that I have a basic level of ability to explain and debate in written words. In the absence of any sort of explanation from Donal, I can only presume that he is not confident in his own ability to do the same.

And that brings us on to the kind of debate he does want to have. I have no qualms about admitting that I’d be hopeless in a filmed public debate. I’ve not had the training for it and am not naturally good at it either. It’s part of the reason why I blog.

As chief executive the Young Britons’ Foundation, an organisation which “provides unique one-day training workshops around Britain that focus on developing activists’ public speaking, debating…”, Blaney is undoubtedly aware of the importance of training in these skills. The sort of debate he wants would put me at a huge disadvantage against someone with his background and experience. Maybe its my paranoia but I have a feeling he understands this all to well.

Interestingly, the YBF also do training in “internet activism”. At first glance, this makes Blaney’s reluctance to participate in honest debate in written words even more puzzling. On reflection however, “internet activism” doesn’t necessarily involve engaging with those who want to challenge your views in an honest and transparent manner. For some, indeed, training in “internet activism” might well include the teaching of methods to avoid this sometimes awkward predicament. It would, however, be speculative to suggest that such techniques are taught by the YBF.

In any event, it’s fair to say that my attempt to conduct an honest debate with Donal Blaney has been spectacularly unsuccessful. While acknowledging that an attempt was made, he has refused to participate and has provided no explanation for this refusal.

Quinn, of The Obscurer (who, for the benefit of conspiracy theorists I have never met or communicated with in any way), did have a tiny bit more success. His first comment was not published but his second attempt was. He said of his first effort that “I left a comment on this post yesterday that appears to have got lost, so I will try again”. That is the sum total of Quinn’s expressed opinion as to the missing comment

Blaney’s reply:

Quinn: your paranoia as to the fact that your supposed original comment wasn’t posted is rather disturbing. As are the threats that I have received from some people in the past 48 hours (which I have been left with no alternative but to report to the police). I’m happy to debate people on here in a civil manner but when it comes to threatening me and my family, that sums up quite how unpleasant blogging can get.

Regular readers here or of Bloggerheads will recognise this type of response immediately.

Undeterred and calm in the face of this provocative reply, Quinn responded:

No paranoia required; my previous comments didn’t appear, that is a statement of fact. I’m truly sorry that you have received threats, that is disgraceful, but from the off I have conducted myself in a polite manner and asked reasonable, straightforward questions directly pertaining to things you have personally said; in response you said that I “clearly fall into the group of people who wish to attribute different motives to me”, a group you previously wondered about as being onanists, intellectually weak, deeply unhappy, insecure, lonely, bitter and “better off ending it all”. I didn’t much appreciate being lumped in with such a bunch, and now you accuse me personally of paranoia; and this from someone who charges others with using terms that close down debate?

So, I am glad you are happy to debate with people in a civil manner, as that is all I have done. Now, is there any chance of you responding to my previous questions?

That was posted the evening before last but Blaney has not responded. The answer to Quinn’s question would appear to be “no”.

Conclusions? Given that the post that both Quinn and I attempted to engage with was an attack on those who Blaney said refused to participate in honest debate, it’s not looking good for him.

If he’s not confident of his ability to defend his views in written words he may want to consider publicly admitting to the fact. As is, it appears that Blaney is the one who refuses to participate in honest debate on a level playing field. Unless it involves a method of debate which is likely to give him a substantial advantage over his opponents, he doesn’t want to play.

What this says about the “robust” nature of his views, I leave to the reader to decide.

PS. Having switched off comments for a couple of days, comments are back on in his most recent posts. I wouldn’t be “paranoid” enough to suggest that he was playing silly buggers in the hope of provoking a certain type of response. Instead, given the absence of an explanation, all we can do is guess as to the reason.

On Saturday, Donal Blaney, “Guido’s” legal muscle, wrote an extraordinary post in response to Unity writing at Liberal Conspiracy. Iain Dale thought Blaney’s post was worth including in his “Daley Dozen” and I agree that it should be read as widely as possible. Probably not for the same reasons as Iain though.

Here’s a, er, highlight:

It says a lot about these people that they are desperate to import negative motives into the actions of those with whom they disagree. Not only does it show intellectual weakness on their part but it suggests they are deeply unhappy, insecure and lonely people. Their bitterness at life radiates from every sentence they write. You wonder whether they’d be better off ending it all so as to avoid the further trials and tribulations of life.

Remarkable, isn’t it? And in a post bemoaning the “venom and vitriol” of his critics.

Blaney central, er, argument is that his critics “will not engage in honest debate”.

I submitted a comment to his post yesterday afternoon. Blogger told me that my comment would be visible after approval by the blog owner. Blaney has published three posts since then, one last night and two this morning. No sign of my comment yet though.

I was going to write this post after my attempt to conduct an honest debate with Blaney but it isn’t going very well so far. Perhaps he thinks I’m “cowering behind the written word”.

(Possibly more later this afternoon when I’ve got more time . A veritable smorgasbord of possibilities are contained within Blaney’s post.)

Update

Still no sign of Blaney actually wanting to participate in honest debate. Rather the opposite, in fact. Checking his blog to see whether anything else was happening (it wasn’t), I’ve just noticed that the three posts referred to above all have something in common.

I’ll save you the bother: the comment feature has been disabled. Without wishing to leap to conclusions, this does rather suggest that Donal has taken another* leaf out of the Nadine Dorries’ book of blogging (foreword by Iain “I taught her all she knows”Dale).

* He’s already done the whole “I’m under personal attack from evil bastards” bit.

Perhaps an explanation for the apparent removal of the comment facility will be forthcoming in due course but in the meantime, it is not possible to express an opinion on Blaney’s new posts. Admittedly, I wasn’t able to express my opinion on his old post either so this might not be a hugely significant turn of events…

Update 2 (9.30pm)

My second attempt to leave a comment (around 7pm this evening) has not been published either but there has been movement in the thread.  A comment by Quinn was also not published but a second attempt was. Quinn merely mentioning this has resulted in Blaney accusing him of paranoia.  Absolutely textbook. Quinn appears to be well able to defend himself though. And then there’s the threats…

Blaney does at least acknowledge that I’m trying to communicate with him in his latest addition to the thread (at 8.18pm).

I’d really welcome the chance for Unity, Garry et al to come and take part. I’m sure a true forum for debate - which we could maybe film too - would do more for advancing ideas on all sides of the argument than anonymous blogging.

Progress, ladies and gentlemen, progress.

No explanation has been given as to how someone “cowers behind words”. Perhaps, Blaney doesn’t want to have an honest debate in just words.

So, on to the sort of invitation. Blaney is a trained solicitor, one time 18 Doughty Street co-presenter and chief executive of an organisation which runs media and public speaking training. I’m a blogger who has never appeared on TV or radi and have had no media or public speaking training whatsoever. I feel slightly uncomfortable when a family member breaks out the camcorder.

I just don’t understand why Blaney prefers the one method of debate over the other…

I don’t often write about my own life here but the most extraordinary thing happened to me yesterday afternoon and I want to share it with you. It was a lovely crisp sunny day, the sort of day which reminds you that spring is on the way, so I went for a stroll around town. With the light twinkling off the granite buildings, Aberdeen city centre looks good in the sunlight.

Passing by HMV, I decided to pop in and pick up some Blackadder DVDs. I’d been meaning to get the full set for a while now so I was pleased to see that they were all available. They also had the Planet Earth DVD box set so I got that too. All things considered, it was turning out to be a thoroughly enjoyable afternoon. (It’s the small things in life…)

Unfortunately, my good mood wasn’t to last long. As I attempted to leave HMV, I appeared to trigger their security alarms. As the  beeping and flashing continued, two rather burly security guards hurried over and blocked my path. With forced politeness, one asked whether I’d paid for the DVDs I was carrying. “Yes, of course” I replied, “now if you don’t mind…”

That didn’t satisfy the security guards though; they demanded that I produce a receipt for the DVDs. A receipt? Why on earth would I have a receipt? Are the BBC going to charge us twice for watching their programmes now? First the license fee and then again for the DVD?

When I told the security guards that I didn’t have a receipt but could go home and then return with my TV licence if it was absolutely necessary, they laughed in my face. When I argued that Iain Dale said I shouldn’t have to pay again for something I’d already paid for, they said they didn’t know who Iain Dale was and didn’t care either. They accused me of shoplifting and called the police. I was arrested. Arrested! All because I didn’t want to pay for the same thing twice. I can think of nothing more outrageous!

If there was ever any doubt that the BBC is run by Stalinists, Leninists and Trots, this travesty of justice surely proves the point! These leftists are destroying our way of life and must be resisted at every turn. Next thing you know, there’ll be a tax on totally spurious blog posts. I remember when this country used to be great, you know…

PS, Iain really was caught stealing from the BBC. Maybe if he understood that bandwidth costs money, he’d be on his way to answering the question in his update*. He might even spare himself further embarrassment instead of causing even more.

* A I understand it, there are other reasons why iPlayer programmes are only available for seven days. As well as bandwith costs, there are storage costs to consider. Without the limit, what would soon become an essentially infinite archive would have to be stored in a format which would allow for streaming; the costs would soon mount up.

There is also the issue of licensing and repeat fees (or rather the avoidance of repeat fees). Similar fees are certainly an issue when the BBC sells permanent copies of programmes. When content is made available to download from the interwebs, the introduction of a small charge might help to cover these costs…

One of the criticisms levelled against the “biased” BBC is that they tend to approach problems with the implicit assumption that there needs to be more state spending.

This always makes me laugh.

An article in the Times about Tory spending plans illustrates the problem:

[M]ost criticisms by Tory spokesmen about the Government’s record on defence and law and order carry the implicit message that higher spending is required on the armed services, the police and prisons.

Leftists!!!!

Bloggerheads: The half-time match report (with Nick and Elroy)

Top stuff.

Now, read it or be bullied mercilessly!

(For the avoidance of doubt, the actual bullies in this story are easy to spot. Tim Ireland most certainly is not one of them. Oh, just read the post. It’s well worth it.)

Jailhouselawyer has started a new blog (via) and his first post, Iain Daily’s Rules of Engagement, is very good.

Over the last few days, there has been much said about Dean Godson, Policy Exchange’s “Research Director”. His appearance on Newsnight to defend P.E.’s report into extremist literature was quite extraordinary. Here are some interesting facts about Mr Godson.

Most notably, he holds the extraordinary distinction of having lost his position at the Daily Telegraph because of his political views. Back in 2004, Martin Newland, former Telegraph editor, explained to the Guardian:

It’s OK to be pro-Israel, but not to be unbelievably pro-Likud Israel, it’s OK to be pro-American but not look as if you’re taking instructions from Washington. Dean Godson and Barbara Amiel were key departures.

Dean Godson was too pro-Likud and too subservient to the US government for the Telegraph. Given the writers they happily still employ, you’ve got to wonder just how extreme his own views must be.

Mr Godson has also been reasonably open about the need for the US and UK government’s to deploy covert propaganda techniques. In an article for the Times in 2006, he wrote that:

During the Cold War, organisations such as the Information Research Department of the Foreign Office would assert the superiority of the West over its totalitarian rivals. And magazines such as Encounter did hand-to-hand combat with Soviet fellow travellers. For any kind of truly moderate Islam to flourish, we need first to recapture our own self-confidence. At the moment, the extremists largely have the field to themselves.

The Information Research Department was a secret Foreign Office propaganda organisation which operated mostly in the developing world during the Cold War. It’s practices were modelled on psychological warfare operations. Typically, it covertly spoon fed “slanted” anti-communist stories to journalists to achieve the desired effect

Encounter magazine, on the other hand, was funded by the CIA. Based in London and initially edited by Irving Kristol, it too was a covert Cold War propaganda tool. It’s primary function seems to have been to attempt to steer European left wing intellectuals down the “right” path (no pun intended). The “right” path was the path deemed most acceptable by right wingers in the CIA. The CIA funding was kept secret in order that readers wouldn’t know that attempts were being made to manipulate their views from across the pond.

Neither of the government funded organisations operated in a transparent manner. Quite the opposite in fact. Mr Godson, who worked for the Reagan administration, will almost certainly be aware of the covert nature of these organisations. In true neo-conservative style, this does not seem to bother him in the slightest.

This suggests rather strongly that Mr Godson is a believer in the idea of the political noble lie as a means to achieve social cohesion and national security.

And he is the “Research Director” of Policy Exchange, an organisation which purports to be “an independent think tank… committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development”.

Right…

I’m no expert but I’m not sure that Dean Godson is the best man for the job.

Given what I wrote about the Policy Exchange report into extremist literature in Mosques when it was published, I can’t say I was at all surprised to see Newsnight’s report on the subject last night. It appears that there are serious questions over the “evidence” used to construct the report. Osama Saeed has more on the Newsnight broadcast and on the implications of what was discovered.

I don’t think I’ll be having any second thoughts about my original post title on the subject.

Dean Godson, the Policy Exchange shouter sent to defend the report on Newsnight, adopted an all too familiar strategy to deal with criticisms of this so called academic report. He played the man, not the ball, accusing Newsnight’s editor of “disastrous editorial misjudgement” and of “appalling stewardship of Newsnight”. Textbook.

You might like to compare and contrast Godson’s approach to another response to criticisms of the report. Back in November, over the course of three posts, Dr Marranci of the University of Aberdeen raised a number of serious concerns regarding the methodology and ethics of the P.E. report. The report’s author, Dr MacEoin, responded. Here are the two quotations which illustrate the central theme of his response:

“I’ll read your remarks in more detail later. But I already see denial writ large on what is there.”

“As it is, you all seem to think this sort of thing is OK. You bring nothing but shame on yourselves by giving it even tacit approval. The materials are all entirely genuine, they are all available.”

In reality, anyone reading the posts on Dr Marranci’s blog can clearly see that these stock accusations are entirely without foundation. Dr Marranci’s primary concern, as an academic himself, is the fact that his study was being presented as an academic work when it is clearly nothing of the sort.

To conclude, I’ll repeat what I wrote last time round:

None of the above is to deny that there is extremist literature to be found in some British Mosques, of course. Nor is it to deny that the Saudi government actively seeks to promote its intolerant version of Islam in other countries including the UK. The point is merely that headlines generated by flawed reports masquerading as academic surveys should not be taken at face value.

Unlike almost all of the rest of the British media which reported the P.E. headline grabber unquestioningly, Newsnight actually investigated the veracity of what they were being asked to report. Like, you know, journalists. And the Policy Exchange study, unsurprisingly, came up short.

Respect to Peter Barron and Newsnight. Can we have more journalism like that please?

As Tim has already noted, Dizzy has written about the selective deletion and removal of comments on Ellee Seymour’s blog.

Tim has addressed many of the points it raises already but it is, I have to say, a remarkable thing.

Before going on, I’d just like to ask if anyone has any suggestions as to why Dizzy included a misleading summary of a recent court judgement? He has left half of it out as part of his selective presentation but most bloggers are going to know that. What’s the point?

Anyway, Dizzy doesn’t explicitly challenge Tim’s version of what happened but does question the “veracity” of the available evidence. This amuses me because I saw all three versions of the jiggled thread myself. But that undoubtedly wouldn’t be enough to convince Dizzy.

I’ve also got some screenshots I took myself and there are plenty of monkey’s with better photoshopping skills than mine. But that undoubtedly wouldn’t be enough to convince Dizzy.

I could email him the original screenshot files, I suppose, but that undoubtedly wouldn’t be enough to convince Dizzy.

I could point out that my own first comment on the thread in question clearly references Tim’s earlier comment, a comment which is plainly no longer there. But that undoubtedly wouldn’t be enough to convince Dizzy.

I could point out that the abusive comment targeting Tim’s first comment now appears before he does in the edited thread. But that undoubtedly wouldn’t convince Dizzy.

I could even highlight the other thread where other bloggers pointed out that Ellee has obviously replied to a comment which is no longer visible. They asked for but did not receive an explanation for Ellee’s denial that any comments had been removed. But that undoubtedly wouldn’t be enough to convince Dizzy.

In fact, while he’s been very careful not to explicitly say that Tim’s description of events isn’t true, it may very well be impossible to convince Dizzy that it is. Call it a hunch.

Dizzy then moves on to his central argument that the truth is irrelevant in any case because Ellee owns the website so she has the right to “maintain” it in any way she likes. Nice one Worzel.

In a comment, Gracchi very politely raises the rather obvious flaw in Dizzy’s attitude:

Dizzy in your judgement is there a distinction between something that is illegal and something that is immoral. I can see that I should never be banned from putting stuff up on my website or dealing with it the way I want to (within limits to do with paedophilia incitement etc) but that doesn’t mean it isn’t immoral for me to put certain content up does it.

It was a very civilised way to set fire to a strawman.

Dizzy’s answer is:

Gracci, whether it can be immoral to put certain content up is a bit of moot question because that refers to the act of upload (adding new content) rather the specific in my post about the act of deletion (maintenance).

Some people might say that this was a deliberate refusal to answer the question but Dizzy may be suffering from over-exposure to politicians so it could be involuntary.

The sort of half an answer he does give, however, suggests that to Dizzy, deletion and comment moderation are always issues of maintenance with no moral implications.

So, if a Labour MP has been caught bang to rights making an unfounded accusation and if they switch off their blog comments when attempts are made to present evidence proving that it was an unfounded allegation, Dizzy thinks there’d be no moral implications to that. This method of attempting to sustain an unfounded allegation in the face of the evidence would merely be “maintenance” apparently.

And if a Labour party activist then wrote in defence of the MPs decision to switch off comments and further attempts were made to highlight the evidence and point out that a retraction of the unfounded allegation might be a better option, Dizzy thinks there’d be no moral implications if comments were then selectively deleted and a denail of the same issued in an attempt to weaken the position of those wishing to present demonstrable fact. This too would be an entirely ethical activity, it seems.

How odd.

No-one is denying that the hypothetical Labour MP and the activist have the right to behave in this way on their own blog. It does not follow from that, however, that their actions have no moral implications. Not unless you can think like Dizzy, at any rate.

It has now been more than two days since I emailed Ellee to request an explanation for my lost comment and ask if I was still able to comment on her posts but there’s been no reply as yet. I still don’t know whether my comment was lost or moderated out of existence. And I still don’t really know whether Ellee thinks Nadine Dorries should retract the provably unfounded allegation or whether she continues to maintain that “I admire Nadine and respect her judgement on this”.

I’m not demanding a reply, of course. I’m merely making a note of the fact that I haven’t received one.

Before getting to the point, you simply must see this brilliantly insightful yet scrupulously polite comment from the UK’s number one political blogger. (via)

Fantastic, isn’t it?

Anyway, it’s Nadine Dorries today. These are the two posts you need if you’re coming in late.

Nadine has been using other people’s comment facility to defend her decision to close her own comment facility. Can you guess whether she mentioned that she was desperately trying to suppress evidence which she didn’t want her readers to see?

Tim is right. It’s not irony, it’s hypocrisy.