This entry was posted on
Thursday, July 12th, 2007 at
10:44 am and is filed
under The Political Weblog Movement.
While we’re waiting, here’s a special treat for ‘N’ of Southall, who appears to want to take this to the wire…
Our mystery webmaster should be reminded at this stage that they still maintain some level of control over their credibility and that – until midday – they still have several options open to them; the primary ones being to come clean or to cut and run… BUT he/she should be warned that if they choose the latter option, there is a very good chance that someone other than me will decide to go poking around anyway.
UPDATE (11:40am) – Our mystery webmaster has included the following in very small text on the ‘contact’ page of both websites; “This website is maintained by a Labour party member resident in the borough. The site is unofficial, and the Labour supporter is not a muppet of either the local or national party.”
I don’t think it’s prominent enough, myself:
a) I think it should at least be on every page
b) but at least it’s there somewhere
c) and his/her tone is really pissing me off, so…
What kind of mood will I be in at midday? Tune in and find out!
UPDATE (12:00pm) – Ding! Well, as noted above, there’s now a teeny-tiny message on one page of both websites… but I’m not sure that’s quite enough. There is also no indication on either site that the author just happens to be equally outraged with both opposition parties in her constituency. So I’m going to start poking around while I make up my mind about how much I’m going to reveal…
UPDATE (12:11pm) – Oh, this is far too easy! I’m almost wishing our mystery webmaster didn’t get in touch last night revealing her first name, now… it’s sucked most of the fun out of it! Tell you what, just to be sporting (and perhaps milk this a bit) I’ll stop and eat lunch first.
UPDATE (12:19pm) – Oh, did I mention that I already have her first name, last name, a photo and compelling evidence showing that these two websites are her work? (Just so she knows this, I’ve dropped her a line at her work* address. Time to eat.)
UPDATE (12:39pm) – Mmmmmm… Mediterranean style vegetable quiche….
UPDATE (12:55pm) [burp] – *This should be clarified; our mystery webmaster appears to have a job and a consultancy interest; I emailed her via the latter. I’ll let TISM finish this entry.
UPDATE (1:05pm) – Our mystery webmaster can be seen somewhere in this photo. The notes from this meeting suggest that she has an interest in getting young people to participate in politics, so I’m hoping that she’ll understand the importance of transparency and trust… at least enough to put her teeny-tiny declaration on every page of both sites.
UPDATE (1:48pm) – Tut. Either she doesn’t care about being outed, or she doesn’t think I hit girls with e-sticks. I can’t see it being the former, or she would have been a little more generous with her (eventual) transparency. Hey, maybe (prepare your ‘1234’ gullibility hat) all of her email and internets are down for the day or something…
UPDATE (2:30pm) – This is a tricky situation… slim as the possibility is, it *is* possible that she’s not able to communicate or update at the moment. (Of course, if I find out it’s because she’s been handing out Labour leaflets all day, I shall be very upset indeed.) Because an outing can’t be undone, and because her first name alone can lead even an amateur right to her, she earns a few hours of grace.
UPDATE (3:33pm) – Oh dear… a development. I’m ready to stand corrected, but I’m looking at something right now that suggests that our mystery webmaster hasn’t been entirely honest with Labour supporters, either.
(reaches for stick)
UPDATE (13 July) – Declaration is now on every page on both sites. I’m content. Matter closed.
By Sim-O July 12, 2007 - 1:59 pm
Ooh, you tease, Mr Ireland.I reckon it's the woman nearest us on the right, black hair.Also:"This website is maintained by a Labour party member…the Labour supporter is not a muppet of either the local or national party."Skuze my ignorance, but is there another Labour pary or is she just asserting that she is not a muppet?
By Manic July 12, 2007 - 2:04 pm
1. I refuse to allow you to identify the back of her head via the process of elimination, so I shan't be playing this game.;o)2. Muppets: I read that as a snarky message for me… i.e. relating to my describing her activities as 'sock-puppeting'. I'm not entirely sure if she understands the term.
By balders July 12, 2007 - 2:16 pm
I'm going for lilac cardy and white blouse on the left. But, more importantly, do you have a stash of TISM recordings hidden away somewhere? Only my old cassette of Great Truckin' Songs has long since departed this mortal coil.
By Manic July 12, 2007 - 2:39 pm
I have a copy of that very album on CD, and also a copy of Machiavelli and the Four Seasons (featuring 'I Love You baby' and 9 other songs). I will happily lend either or both.:o)Here, have a nugget:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hSTm9aititM
By mikkimoose July 12, 2007 - 5:18 pm
Chris Paul is being rather naughty.Having 'stumbled' onto the Lit Con Watch and posted on his blog on Tuesday http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/0…I commented"Speaking of astroturf, how about a site with no indication of who's made it and which party they support, pretending to be a watchdog site, and claiming that Lit (described as Chelsea resident, strangely), living 1 mile from constituency, has never been to Sothall.Looks like Lib Dem work, but hard to say."He replied, rather laughably suggesting the Green party might have done it:"Think it's probably a bit edgy for the Libs don't you? And didn't you spot that there's one about the Libs too here. There's probably an Ealing Labour Watch one too I suppose – but I've not made a priority of finding that one.Perhaps the Greens or Respect are behind it?"I then pointed out:"Thanks for the Lib Watch site. Both sites have same contact details, making this the work of a Labour astroturfer."To which Chris Paul replied (yesterday):"Well done! Perhaps you could renounce them – if you are quite sure – somewhere for this appalling skullduggery? Try Dale – he's up for blogging anything the Tories tell him."Strangely, despite having acknowledged that both Tory and Lib Dem sites were by the same person, he posts this post today:http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2007/0…claiming that Tony Lit actually lives in Chelsea:"So the presumably Libdemologist site Lit Con Watch is claiming. Not only doesn't Mr Twit live in the constituency … but wherever he may be registered to vote – under some other name entirely – these Lit Con Watchers are saying he lives (as his fortune allows) in Chelsea."This is very naughty indeed, indeed it's highly likely that having originated BOTH the attack sites on his blog, that he knows exactly who 'Lit Con Watchers' are, and not only that but given that he knows they are running the Lib Dem Watch site, they are NOT Libdemologists.This is classic sockpuppetry – somebody makes a false claim, viz. that Lit lives in Chelsea (he lives in Osterley, approx. 1 mile from SOuthall), this is given credibility by a fake 'watch' site that is actually partisan propaganda, repeated on a blog that claims the site to be "Libdemologists", despite the fact that the poster knows now, and probably knew originally, that it is Labour party sockpuppetry.By such means, the repetition of anonymous and never substantiated rumour throughout an echochamber, becomes The Truth, and need never be validated, because it has become common 'knowledge'.
By mikkimoose July 12, 2007 - 8:44 pm
do we think this is the same person?http://www.youtube.com/user/ealingsouthall07Only reason being the rather poor video "Who is Tony Lit" is posted on the Tony Lit Watch site, and it's really not very good.
By CPLOL July 12, 2007 - 10:44 pm
All good clean fun? Yes, I had an idea these things were coming from a Labour source. And?I have a commentator I've never heard of on, sock puppeting one might say, and blaming the Libs. I take a chance to put them down by suggesting its too edgy. Matey decides it's Labour (or pretends to, there are 9 other campaigns, though two have folded in). I encourage this. But I revert to their first guess for Lit Con the next time I mention it. So what? This is a sock puppet remember, why should I treat them nice?As to Lit and this Chelsea address. That's what the Lit Con site claims. Are they wrong? If Lit is a multi-millionaire and he doesn't have an address in Chelsea or the like – why not? That's not to say he doesn't have one in Osterley too. Is a man with half a dozen directorships, a dad worth £75M, his own fortune, and a flash lifestyle really supposed to do with one house?Lots of these wannabe politicians seem to have more then one address on them!And a question for Mr Cameron:"What was it about the multimillionaire Tony Lit that attracted you?" (With apologies to Debbie Magee and her bloke.)
By Manic July 12, 2007 - 11:18 pm
Chris and MM, have you both considered how much nicer life would be with fewer sock puppets?:o)
By mikkimoose July 13, 2007 - 9:39 am
I am not sure why Chris is calling me a sockpuppet, simply for posting on his site.He also still seems keen on spreading unsubstantiated rumour, in this case that Tony Lit is a multimillionaire.
By Manic July 13, 2007 - 9:47 am
On the former, Chris had every reason to suspect that the comment was left by a sock-puppeter, as it was made anonymously.On the latter, I'm not a fan of that kind of thing at all (Paul Staines in particular hosts a running series of anonymous claims about Gordon Brown's sexual preferences which, as you say above, quickly evolve from baseless rumour to 'open secret'). However, you might want to take this particular issue up with The Times:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/ar…
By mikkimoose July 13, 2007 - 11:05 am
I don't see that it follows that a comment is a 'sockpuppet' simply because it is anonymous. This to me seems rather ridiculous.Perhaps if there were any possible motivation or advantage in doing so, then this would be a logical conclusion. But just some comments on somebody's blog, from a single anonymous poster clearly identified as the same person throughout the course of the discussion hardly gains credibility compared to any possible sockpupeteer using his true identity.