Monday, May 25, 2009

I'm not Spartacus

After the alleged Telegraph take-down of her blog, a number of people are doing the "I'm Spartacus" bit in solidarity with Nadine Dorries.

Your humble Devil is afraid that he isn't particularly sympathetic. Mad Nad is pretty much the personification of the stereotypical blogger: self-serving and self-obsessed, stupid, pointless, vacuous and prone to throwing out wild—and demonstrably false—allegations that would already have landed most people put in court.

Her behaviour throughout the last few months has been, frankly, pathetic and concisely documented by Bookdrunk, as he points out that Nadine Dorries might like to admit the fact that she has happily smeared people, that she also seems to have been economical with the truth (whilst believing that she has cleared herself), that she seems to spend little time in the country, that she has failed to answer pertinent questions, that Dorries is a massive fan of hyperbole, and that maybe she should have seen what was coming and that she seems to have no sense of proportion and that even ConservativeHome readers appear to have realised that she is a mendacious little shit. True, Bookdrunk also expresses disquiet about the take-down of her blog but, given how quick Nadine was to wheel out the lawyers over Smeargate, perhaps the poor dear might have taken a crash course in defamation?

As many have noticed, Mad Nad really is the gift that keeps on giving. Which is why Bloggerheads is able to publish a long article detailing why Nadine has broken the ACA rules. Oh, and again. Oh, and maybe Nadine should update her Register of Members' Interests entry: surely it must be kept up to date under "the system"?

Tim also asserts that Nadine Dorries is "no blogger, and no blogging hero" and I am inclined to agree.

I have written this post to show solidarity with those who believe that the libel laws in this country are a fucking joke, and that they should be reformed as soon as possible. I have written this post in order to point out that I do not agree with those who pull down blogs at the slightest provocation.

I have not written this post in order to show solidarity with Nadine Dorries. Not only is she a vacuous moron, but she brings the whole blogosphere into disrepute; and not even because of what she says—there are plenty of bloggers with whom I disagree (including Bloggerheads and Bookdrunk, much of the time).

However, there is a code of blogging—netiquette, if you like. These rules include technical aspects such as having proper permalinks, but they also include taking comments and replying to them. They also include linking to your sources when you make allegations or cite data.

So, I stand here to defend blogging, but I couldn't give two shits about Nadine Dorries or her fucking "blog". She's a fucking disgrace, frankly.

17 comments:

Dr John Crippen said...

Your humble Devil is afraid that he isn't particularly sympathetic. Mad Nad is pretty much the personification of the stereotypical blogger: self-serving and self-obsessed, stupid, pointless, vacuous and prone to throwing out wild—and demonstrably false—allegations that would already have landed most people put in court.

+++

Oh but DK, that's not right, is it. It's the principle, not the content. Closing the woman down was ridiculous...and, mad though she may be, she is still an MP.

Do you like the idea of a daily newspaper taking out a blogger (of sorts) because they don't like what she says?

The will come for you one day!



John

Mark Wadsworth said...

"Netiquette", good word.

I never actually bothered reading her 'blog', if it was anything like as bad as you have pointed out, then it wasn't worth reading anyway.

Devil's Kitchen said...

John,

I think that I have made it clear that I do care about the principle. I do not, however, give two craps about her: she gave good bloggers a bad name.

DK

Rob said...

It isn't a "witch-hunt", Nadine, its a thief-hunt.

wonderfulforhisage said...

Not at our most logical today DK?

Play the ball, not the woman. The ball is called censorship and should be booted far, far into touch.

First they come for Nadine, and DK banged on about netiquette, then they came for......?

HT Dr C above.

cabalamat said...

I don't particularly agree with her politics, buyt it is totally wrong for Nadine Dorries to be censored in this way.

The libel laws need to be reformed.

Richard Allen said...

Lets not forget that this silly bitch is one of 646 very lucky people who can say what they like in parliament and be totally safe from libel laws.

Longrider said...

I'm with Dr Crippen on this one. You and I may be able to differentiate with such subtleties as links to references and such. Most people probably don't give a damn.

However, no matter how daft, how wild her assertions, the principle is more important. I deeply dislike Dorries' comments, but I'll stand on the barricades to defend her right to say it - Dorries today, you and I tomorrow.

I have not taken the stance that I have in solidarity with Nadine Dorries, I have taken it in solidarity with the principle of freedom of speech - even stupid, ill-advised speech.

I don't much Like Nadine Dorries, but she is, at least, answerable to her constituents come election time. The Barclay brothers are answerable to no one and demonstrate again their willingness to bully people who take agin them. I detest bullies rather more than I detest MPs who take the piss with their expenses.

So, yes. I am Spartacus.

Dick Puddlecote said...

I wouldn't defend the blog being taken down, but DK makes a valid point about there being certain unwritten rules wtr blogging which Dorries seems to have missed or forgotten.

For balance, here is a Labour MEP throwing racist allegations about without so much as a pretence of substantiation.

MP and MEP bloggers seem to think they can do as they do in Westminster/Brussels and lie without anyone picking them up on it.

It's bad enough in parliament, but their presence in the blogosphere is deeply offensive to writers who do research, do double-check sources, and do attempt to always present opinions which they can back up if asked.

FFS, I thought we should have all learned this for English Literature GCE.

Devil's Kitchen said...

I fear that far too many people are focusing on the title of this post, and not the substance.

I did actually write: "I have written this post to show solidarity with those who believe that the libel laws in this country are a fucking joke, and that they should be reformed as soon as possible. I have written this post in order to point out that I do not agree with those who pull down blogs at the slightest provocation."However, Nadine was not a good example of a blogger. Those of us who do blog properly try to safeguard ourselves by ensuring that we link to sources to back up our assertions.

I hold no brief for the Barclay brothers -- most people feel that they bollocksed up The Scotsman and now are buggering up The Telegraph -- but they do have the right to resort to the law.

Thus, once again, it is our disgustingly lazy lawmakers who are to blame, for they have refused to reform the fucking stupid libel laws in this country, despite pressure being brought to bear by blogs and, more importantly, Private Eye.

Why have they refused to reform the law? Because the laws suit their rich, party donors.

Just to make this absolutely clear -- I deplore the libel laws. I deplore the stance of the politicos who have refused to reform them.

But that doesn't alter the fact that I deplore Nadine Dorries and her vacuous idiocy.

DK

Gareth said...

You seem very prissy about what a blog must have. A blog is whatever we want it to be - from propaganda to an open discussion and anything inbetween. The exalted notion of a 'blogging code' is bollocks.

What is a 'proper permalink'? All Nadine's posts on her old blog were arranged in as sensible a fashion as any other.(Url for the day and an anchor for each post that day.) Her new blog is different.

Chalcedon said...

If these twats can do it to her they can find ways to do it to you or anyone else. She was way OTT of course and often is. Her Blog is more like a facebook diary than a blog and Cameroon told her to shut up as she was frightening the horses. It's more about the principle of being able to shut a blog down like this. I'm not a lawyer, thank Gawd, and her comments were ridiculous. But the Telegraph was wrong to do what it orchestrated IMO.

Longrider said...

The problem with unwritten rules is that being unwritten, they ain't rules - much like a verbal contract; not worth the paper they are written on...

Henry Crun said...

Despite all that DK, I'd still do her.

Junius said...

If you don't like Nadine's blog, (she's a terrible blogger and gives others a bad name) - what do you think a blog should be like?

And what in your 'humble' opinion is a 'good' blogger?

And what are you going to do if I disagree entirely with what you say?

And what happens if I chose to single you out as an example of what I think a dreadful blogger is?

And who made you Lord of the Blogs.

Begone! said...

Remember that Nadine wrote on her blog that most MPs "live a normal, frugal existence and struggle to pay the bills".

That shouldn't be taken down. It should be saved, to be hung round her neck when we string her up.

The Nameless Libertarian said...

The Barclay Brothers against Dorries does make me want to invoke the old Kissinger comment about it being a shame that they can't both lose.

Yep, it is wrong to censor her. Yep, she doesn't really say anything worth hearing. So I'm inclined to agree with you - I'm anti-censorship, but also think it is worth noting that Nadine comes across on her "blog" as mad as a box of rabid badgers.