Showing posts with label political idiocy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political idiocy. Show all posts
Wednesday, 5 December 2012
OK, as you were
Allegations have been made, unsubstantiated and untrue, about the provenance of recent posts on this blog. Access is now unlimited again, as before, and I shall continue to post whatever I like here. I do not post about my workplace, never have, and have no intention of ever doing so. I may however muse on any topic of my choice, and my polite suggestion to anyone who does not like it is, as always - go away and read something else.
Thursday, 8 November 2012
James Walsh says Reading Labour is biased!
For those who have better things to do than pore over the comments on my blog, I give you the following comment, posted earlier today by someone purporting to be James Walsh, who is RATHER CROSS. I am starting to have lots of fun with this.
ps I am not taking the post down, and will SEE YOU IN COURT if you are so minded. The original has already been on Facebook and Twitter, and this will be too. love and kisses jg.
ps I am not taking the post down, and will SEE YOU IN COURT if you are so minded. The original has already been on Facebook and Twitter, and this will be too. love and kisses jg.
Dear Jane,
Some serious allegations you make here – I trust you are able to substantiate one or two of them in a Court of Law?
I happen to be the James Walsh you refer to as a “nasty piece of work….who goes in for dog-whistle homophobic campaigns elsewhere” and this description of my character and previous activities came as a most unpleasant surprise to me.
I’m no lawyer but, in this one sentence, I believe you have both defamed my good character and damaged my chances of receiving an unbiased hearing at the forthcoming Labour Party Parliamentary hustings. Pretty serious stuff, I’m sure you would agree.
The recent addition of a comment by “Anonymous” is further evidence that your libel has damaged my reputation.
I take this matter extremely seriously and, as such, will be seeking legal advice on how best to proceed this morning. In the meantime, I suggest you think carefully before you post your scribblings on this blog in future and consider the effect your postings have on innocent people. I am by no means a wallflower, but your description of me and my work is extremely upsetting and completely unjust.
In the meantime, you might like to consider the following two actions:
1) Substantiate your claim that I am a “nasty piece of work” publicly with evidence. You may wish to contact Slough Borough Council, Runnymede and Weybridge Labour Party, Hammersmith Labour Party, Westminster North Labour Party, Bracknell Labour Party or Slough Labour Party during your research. I can also point you toward three or four of your former Parliamentary colleagues, including two former Ministers. If you need more sources should the evidence prove thin, I can point you to others from across the public and private sectors.
2) Substantiate your claim that I “go infor dogwhistle homophobic campaigns” with evidence. Again, please contact the above organisations for your evidence. I have also worked for a gay London-based candidate as his election Campaign Manager and I’m sure he will also be able to help - though perhaps not in the way that you now need.
As I said, I will be taking legal advice regarding this extremely damaging libel. I have taken screen-grabs of the offending piece and these shall be submitted as evidence.
Regards,
James Walsh
Some serious allegations you make here – I trust you are able to substantiate one or two of them in a Court of Law?
I happen to be the James Walsh you refer to as a “nasty piece of work….who goes in for dog-whistle homophobic campaigns elsewhere” and this description of my character and previous activities came as a most unpleasant surprise to me.
I’m no lawyer but, in this one sentence, I believe you have both defamed my good character and damaged my chances of receiving an unbiased hearing at the forthcoming Labour Party Parliamentary hustings. Pretty serious stuff, I’m sure you would agree.
The recent addition of a comment by “Anonymous” is further evidence that your libel has damaged my reputation.
I take this matter extremely seriously and, as such, will be seeking legal advice on how best to proceed this morning. In the meantime, I suggest you think carefully before you post your scribblings on this blog in future and consider the effect your postings have on innocent people. I am by no means a wallflower, but your description of me and my work is extremely upsetting and completely unjust.
In the meantime, you might like to consider the following two actions:
1) Substantiate your claim that I am a “nasty piece of work” publicly with evidence. You may wish to contact Slough Borough Council, Runnymede and Weybridge Labour Party, Hammersmith Labour Party, Westminster North Labour Party, Bracknell Labour Party or Slough Labour Party during your research. I can also point you toward three or four of your former Parliamentary colleagues, including two former Ministers. If you need more sources should the evidence prove thin, I can point you to others from across the public and private sectors.
2) Substantiate your claim that I “go infor dogwhistle homophobic campaigns” with evidence. Again, please contact the above organisations for your evidence. I have also worked for a gay London-based candidate as his election Campaign Manager and I’m sure he will also be able to help - though perhaps not in the way that you now need.
As I said, I will be taking legal advice regarding this extremely damaging libel. I have taken screen-grabs of the offending piece and these shall be submitted as evidence.
Regards,
James Walsh
Friday, 20 April 2012
to add to the dog-whistle
this is what the Labour boys think about their candidate in Church ward
is it me, or are we missing some content here?
Tuesday, 10 April 2012
No, Councillor
Welll, Ms Hacker shares a surname with the Yes, Minister character. Flashing Blade has this to say on Reading Labour's twentieth-century broadcast-not-receive mode. She has forgotten to let through my comment on her post from yesterday, so here it is:
Hello Sarah. it wasn't the Tories who first mentioned the atrocious despicable dog-whistle racist Labour leaflet for Church ward, it was me. It was picked up by others afterwards. How shameful that you lend yourself to such tactics. I hope your constituents can forgive you for it.
and here is her reply by email:
I know. I saw your tweet. It's a nonsense. I am not shamed, my post is not shameful. Your opinion means nothing to me.
and here is my reply to that:
Oh yes it is. Shameful. You have lent yourself to lies. And racist
lies at that. Go talk to the Bajans and other ethnic minorities you
represent. You do talk to them don't you? I REALLY hope so. And
just a small question - you say "I know" i.e. you know that you lied
when you said it was the Tories who first mentioned the atrocious
dog-whistle racist Reading Labour leaflet - so how do you justify
saying you are rebutting the Tories when it was not their line in the
first place? Just asking.
>
Hello Sarah. it wasn't the Tories who first mentioned the atrocious despicable dog-whistle racist Labour leaflet for Church ward, it was me. It was picked up by others afterwards. How shameful that you lend yourself to such tactics. I hope your constituents can forgive you for it.
and here is her reply by email:
I know. I saw your tweet. It's a nonsense. I am not shamed, my post is not shameful. Your opinion means nothing to me.
and here is my reply to that:
Oh yes it is. Shameful. You have lent yourself to lies. And racist
lies at that. Go talk to the Bajans and other ethnic minorities you
represent. You do talk to them don't you? I REALLY hope so. And
just a small question - you say "I know" i.e. you know that you lied
when you said it was the Tories who first mentioned the atrocious
dog-whistle racist Reading Labour leaflet - so how do you justify
saying you are rebutting the Tories when it was not their line in the
first place? Just asking.
>
Sunday, 1 April 2012
couldn't resist
Saturday, 31 March 2012
the crassness of Reading Labour
who stood up in the council chamber and cheered a Tory councillor who was making his last speech before leaving the council, having been deselected last autumn. Local dead-tree reporting of this immediately brought out the following: Labour cannot comment on this after the shameful way they treated Jane Griffiths and why this lot - and Labour, and the Lib Dems and the Greens cannot just GET ON WITH THE WORK FOR WHICH THEY WERE VOTED IN FOR. START BE HAVING LIKE ADULTS. Oh, Silly me, they are politicians, aren’t they?
and that was over seven years ago! Reading Labour should have learned from that experience, but it seems they have not. If a retiring councillor wants to have a public score-settling - and it would not be the first time this has happened - then surely this comes under the heading of private grief for that councillor's party. And as such should be listened to in silence. And then everyone should move on. Undoubtedly Reading Labour had the text of the councillor's retiring speech beforehand, and had decided what they would do. I can just imagine the cackling at the group meeting beforehand. So when Josephine Lovelock was heaving her vast wine-fed bulk off the chair she might have done well to reflect on the wisdom or otherwise of her group's actions. People have long memories. I don't know the councillor concerned and have no idea whether the reported accusations against him are true. That's not the point here. The point is that members of the public, as the comments showed, know a crass hypocritical gesture when they see it, and they don't like it. And there is an election coming up. Reading Labour are confident of cementing their control of the council in May. Maybe that is just what they will do. But shouldn't they think of what they actually want to DO with that control? As historic Reading buildings like the Kings Meadow Baths crumble away with the connivance of the council, and as Reading Labour continue to fail to provide decent schools for Reading children, and as parts of south Reading look increasingly like the crappier suburbs of Belgrade, where is the vision? Think about that.
In semi-related news, this week the loathsome Ed Balls was in Reading. Local reporting does not say why he was there, other than that he visited Alfred Sutton School in east Reading. Yesterday on the Chronicle website he was pictured with a youngish person of drippy appearance with a Labour rosette on, who was not named. Today her name has been added to the picture, perhaps after representations from Reading Labour. Too late. She is the candidate for Park ward, which Reading Labour are not fighting this year. Their best offer previously was Basher McKenzie, and when the voters showed their disgust with the likes of him they couldn't think of anything else, so they put in a GIRL and then kept her safely out of the way. They put a picture on their Facebook page later in the day, which has Gumdrops Gavin in the foreground (who should stay out of direct sunlight, or get a skin peel), the loathsome Balls next to her, and shadowed, so you can't see her face, some GIRL or other with a rosette on. Also, getting your picture taken does not constitute "campaigning", chaps. Issues you're tackling in Park ward, anyone? Anyone? (sound of tumbleweed)
After Bradford West, is this really all there is? Still, Reading Labour "strongly supported" Ed Miliband for leader, we were told. So that's all right then.
Doomed.
and that was over seven years ago! Reading Labour should have learned from that experience, but it seems they have not. If a retiring councillor wants to have a public score-settling - and it would not be the first time this has happened - then surely this comes under the heading of private grief for that councillor's party. And as such should be listened to in silence. And then everyone should move on. Undoubtedly Reading Labour had the text of the councillor's retiring speech beforehand, and had decided what they would do. I can just imagine the cackling at the group meeting beforehand. So when Josephine Lovelock was heaving her vast wine-fed bulk off the chair she might have done well to reflect on the wisdom or otherwise of her group's actions. People have long memories. I don't know the councillor concerned and have no idea whether the reported accusations against him are true. That's not the point here. The point is that members of the public, as the comments showed, know a crass hypocritical gesture when they see it, and they don't like it. And there is an election coming up. Reading Labour are confident of cementing their control of the council in May. Maybe that is just what they will do. But shouldn't they think of what they actually want to DO with that control? As historic Reading buildings like the Kings Meadow Baths crumble away with the connivance of the council, and as Reading Labour continue to fail to provide decent schools for Reading children, and as parts of south Reading look increasingly like the crappier suburbs of Belgrade, where is the vision? Think about that.
In semi-related news, this week the loathsome Ed Balls was in Reading. Local reporting does not say why he was there, other than that he visited Alfred Sutton School in east Reading. Yesterday on the Chronicle website he was pictured with a youngish person of drippy appearance with a Labour rosette on, who was not named. Today her name has been added to the picture, perhaps after representations from Reading Labour. Too late. She is the candidate for Park ward, which Reading Labour are not fighting this year. Their best offer previously was Basher McKenzie, and when the voters showed their disgust with the likes of him they couldn't think of anything else, so they put in a GIRL and then kept her safely out of the way. They put a picture on their Facebook page later in the day, which has Gumdrops Gavin in the foreground (who should stay out of direct sunlight, or get a skin peel), the loathsome Balls next to her, and shadowed, so you can't see her face, some GIRL or other with a rosette on. Also, getting your picture taken does not constitute "campaigning", chaps. Issues you're tackling in Park ward, anyone? Anyone? (sound of tumbleweed)
After Bradford West, is this really all there is? Still, Reading Labour "strongly supported" Ed Miliband for leader, we were told. So that's all right then.
Doomed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)