Monday, 26 December 2011

Dear Readers...


There has been heated debate regarding Cllr John Worrow in the past handful of days here on Ville Views. As Ive reported and as was updated by him, the threat of legal action hangs over this blog with regard to the “Mucho Worrow” blog entry and the comments after. I published a housekeeping post to make it clear what I would and would not allow and I am thankful to those who have supported my stance.

I have tried, away from the blog, to discuss with him the situation in an effort to avoid the threat and to improve relations. I have been reasonable with him and tried to find common ground. I thought this had been found until I asked him to withdraw his threat of legal action against me. He responded with an implied claim of harassment against him.

I must make it absolutely clear to everyone reading this that there is no basis to this claim as I have made no threats towards him or acted in any way which would be seen as harassing him.

It’s possible that legal action will be taken, though I don’t believe it to be the case. I defend my right to hold politicians to account, whether it be comfortable for them or not. I have stayed within the law while doing so and I have not done anything which could reasonably be seen as improper.

I still believe that despite this the tension can be resolved and better relations can be built. The housekeeping rules remain as they are and I ask those commenting to be respectful of others whatever their argument. Calling people “bigots”, while not offensive, is something I’d like to see less of. Prove it through the argument itself not the name calling, please.

89 comments:

DrM. said...

James.. this kind of thing is an expensive and complicated dance, which is not for those without deep pockets.

Normally, you would first expect an aggrieved person to exercise notice with a request that offensive and or defamatory material be removed.

The blog owner is responsible for comments that might appear on his or her blog and if he takes appropriate remedial action then the law is unlikely to be a concern.

However, as I said and beyond what is termed a notice and takedown request, the complainant would need to realistically start with £500 for a letter of notice and around £3,000 to deal with the correspondence backand forth when solicitors are involved.

By all means call me if you want a broader understanding of blogging and the law.

Peter Checksfield said...

Well done (again) James! Some people need to man-up... & no, that's not a reference to anyone's sexuality!

Peter Checksfield said...

Incidentally, I've had similar legal threats (though not from John) ...

Tom Clarke said...

James, with you on this issue and fail to see anywhere within the comments on the subject post that could give rise to a winnable legal challenge. That is not to say those that practice law will not take his money to go through the motions.

John Worrow said...

A number of progressive Conservatives, from outside of the area, are becoming very concerned about the way that I am being treated.

Its interesting that North Thanet councillor, Simon Moores (DrM), is very quick to poke his nose into this issue, yet he has so far said nothing regarding the following comment made by one his close colleagues.

"we have j worrow now on our side backs to the wall you know what i mean"

James, those that truly know me, are aware that I am a fair minded person, and that I welcome criticism regarding my policies.

For example the motion that I won for half hour free parking; my anti-fox hunting views, or my call for women to be allowed on to Thanet's shadow cabinet.

But what I object to, is that you have refused to remove the comment on your blog,which speaks of a possible relationship between two Councillors, of which I am one.

Are you ignoring my request, in order to take attention away from the offensive comment above?
... After all, like DrM, you are a card-carring member of North Thanet's unique version of the Conservatives.

Peter Checksfield said...

I think it has been explained what the "backs to the wall" comment probably meant. Can't you at least see that this is a possibility?

But if you're so sure that someone has shown discrimination against you then why can't you "name & shame"???

John Worrow said...

Peter

Watch your back, and "backs to the wall you know what i mean" mean two different things. You have not seen the rest of the paragraph yet.

Peter Checksfield said...

I repeat, why not name & shame, as well as show the whole paragraph instead of just one part, possibly shown out of context?

I stick by my comment that you're a drama queen!

Anonymous said...

Its just game to Peter!

Anonymous said...

Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

Peter Checksfield said...

I don't think that's true at all 14:38. This isn't the USA southern "bible belt". I'm sure the vast majority of people would feel far more disturbed if they saw men with guns on Margate seafront.

DrM. said...

I find all this rather bizarre. John appears to be coming-up with new crusading items on a regular basis now and these have little or nothing with the challenge of running Thanet in difficult times but to many observers, seems nothing more than self-indulgent attention seeking.

John appears to be referring to an email or a Facebook comment from an unknown Councillor but declines to say who and the context is open to rather broad interpretation. To use this as a basis to threaten a blogger with legal action appears more than a little ill-judged and hasty in the circumstances.

I'm assuming John is using my name consistently now in his blog posts as a means of attracting traffic but to be honest, I suspect that visitors will find more sense and entertainment on David Icke's website.

I've resisted the urge to respond if only to deny John the attention he apparently craves so badly.

So while the rest of us get on with the more 'hum drum' task of being ward councillors, he is welcome to crusade as much as he likes but I suspect the people who voted for him on a Conservative ticket, will start to wonder what on earth he is up to.

James Maskell said...

John, I'm past concerning myself with your threats. I've stated my position more than once. Take action, dont take action. You have my details.

I ask though that you name me in your blog entry for today and provide a link to the "Mucho Worrow" blog entry here, so that your readers are able to make up their own minds. Ive nothing to hide.

Tom Clarke said...

Seems to me John Worrow is either taking some peverse pleasure from his alleged victimisation or has some other, yet to be revealed, agenda.

Tories from outside North Thanet are concerned at his treatment yet he would, at other times, have us believe that Tories collectively are unsympathetic to his life choices,

Weirder and weirder and as Dr. M has pointed out, what must the Tories in Birchington who elected him think of all this pathetic posturing.

Peter Checksfield said...

He's just making a total fool out himself. Certainly he'll no longer have my support in anything he does.

What are "mogs" anyway?

DrM. said...

As if to underline what I wrote earlier, yet another weblog entry, now accusing me of insulting him!

As one who helped John through a difficult time, as have several others I know I really have to express my personal disappointment and would hope that as an elected politician he exercises a little more discretion in his choice of words and issues.

John Worrow said...

Simon, you have done nothing for me. I know what you stand for!

Anonymous said...

A good friend, and ex Councillor of many years told me once that he never responded to the letters in the newspapers

this was because as soon as you do, people expect answers every week, then the moment you dont respond, people assume you are in the wrong.

Converting this over to the blog world makes sense. Dr Moores is one of the good eggs who actually makes time to generally explain the goings on, even if its not what people want to hear.

John, you are on the Council with him would it not be simpler to just talk to him rather than try to publicaly demean him, and instead making yourself look foolish? You ask for respect from your fellow Councillors and yet you are happy to not duly give it in return.

Tom Clarke said...

When John Worrow first 'crossed the floor' as it were, he had several messages of support, mainly from Labour members, in the comments on his website. Also one good lady from Birchington seemed to be running a 'love John's bravery' campaign around the blogs and local papers.

As time has gone on, however, and with his increasingly pathetic victimisation stance, it is noticeable how that support has drained away. His recent whining posts on his site have attracted no supporting comments, the only ones he publishes, and his claims of concerned progressive Conservatives (a strange contradiction in terms if ever there was one) seem to be without evidence.

Looks like he may be on a very lonely campaign trail.

Anonymous said...

Tom Clarke, I am sure it suits you - for all the worst of reasons - that Worrow should be in that position. By the way, is Moores paying you to paraphrase his contributions?

Tom Clarke said...

Do you know something, Anon, you really must stop jumping to conclusions. I do not even know Simon Moores, other than via his blog, and if you really knew me you would realise I am in no ones pay.

You seem to be the master of assumption and snide remark.

Peter Checksfield said...

No-one's paying me either, but I'm with Tom all the way regarding his comment at 11:05. The lack of comments on John's blog says it all. Maybe if he stopped beating around the bush & named his alledged accuser, as well as actually did something for the gay community (such as promoting venues & events) then he'd get a bit more respect & support.

Tom Clarke said...

Thank you, Peter, for reading what I said rather than our anonymous friend who tends to read his own version into others comments. You do illustrate the point I was trying to make, that JW has lost all the support he once had by his unsubstantiated allegations.

Retired said...

Taking offence is in fashion. But surely it is not an iterative process ("Oooh I haven't even told you the juicy offensive bits yet" as Kenneth Williams might have said)

Seems to me that elements of North Thanet tories know how to press the man's buttons and, like a reliable engine, he fires up first time every time.

I think it was about Phil Bennett the great Wales fly half. An English voice from the crowd shouted out to encourage an England player to tackle Phil "Worry him worry him".

And a load of Welsh voices shouted back "Yeah ... You could try telling him his mother's ill".

Substance and rhetoric.

John Worrow said...

Not one person on here, has asked me about my policy on half hour free parking or my views on animal welfare or anything else come to that.

Because I dared to object to being called 'a queen' and being accused of having a relationship with a straight male councillor, who chose to laugh it off rather than be subjected to the same kind of abuse as me, James has allowed these nasty personal attacks.

I asked James, who is a member of that same political association as councillor Simon Moores to remove the remarks. He refused.

When Conservative central office read this blog, they will see that Simon and friends have chosen to ignore the evidence of abuse that we have on his colleague, and to add isult to injury by engaging in their own form of cyber abuse.

I actually have a lot of support from many fair minded people. Readers are not daft, they aware that the abuse is coming from a few people with an outdated agenda - as well as people like peter, that seem to think that objecting to affensive comments is going against his free speech.

Peter Checksfield said...

"Not one person on here, has asked me about my policy on half hour free parking or my views on animal welfare or anything else come to that."

Actually I commented on your (rather patronising) "I SUPPORT GREY PRIDE" blog piece, pointing out that no-one seems to care about the rights of under 21's (who still legally get paid a lower rate for doing the same work as others) because there's no votes in it, but as you didn't have the decency to reply I deleted my comment yesterday after waiting 10 days.

"Because I dared to object to being called 'a queen' and being accused of having a relationship with a straight male councillor, who chose to laugh it off rather than be subjected to the same kind of abuse as me, James has allowed these nasty personal attacks."

I'm sure the person who made the comment had no idea whether or not Will was straight or gay, neither did they know whether or not you were in a relationship, as none of these "facts" were prior public knowledge... & anyway Will certainly didn't see it as a "nasty personal attack", as I'm sure most of us wouldn't in the same circumstances. In addition, many people are bi-sexual (like myself), something that rarely gets aknowledged by either straights or gays. As for my "Drama Queen" comment, thanks for proving me right yet again.

"I asked James, who is a member of that same political association as councillor Simon Moores to remove the remarks. He refused."

Good.

"When Conservative central office read this blog, they will see that Simon and friends have chosen to ignore the evidence of abuse that we have on his colleague, and to add isult to injury by engaging in their own form of cyber abuse."

Where is this "evidence of abuse"??? You won't even name he (or she), & as I & others have pointed out the odds are that the comment wasn't even about your homosexuality. Perhaps if you show some "evidence" you might be taken a bit more seriously.

"I actually have a lot of support from many fair minded people."

Why aren't any of them on any of the blogs (even your own) then?

"Readers are not daft, they aware that the abuse is coming from a few people with an outdated agenda - as well as people like peter, that seem to think that objecting to affensive comments is going against his free speech."

If I thought I'd said anything untrue or libelous then I'd be the first to admit it.

The trouble is with a very small percentage of minorities is that they tend to see / hear things that aren't really there. I've no idea what "mogs" means (explanation?), but if you were black then you'd probably think it was a mispelling for an outdated racial word!

I've tried to be reasonable on here, as well as asking you (politely) to name your alledged accuser, requesting that you can tell us some goo gay pubs / venues (are there any left in Margate?), but instead you just want to play the victim.

Peter Checksfield said...

*good* (not goo!) gay pubs!

DrM. said...

I'm afraid this is getting a little wearing. If John has evidence of collective bias, then present it but to label 'All' Thanet Conservatives as prejudiced on the basis of an apparent throw-away and possibly inappropriate remark by an unknown person, is pushing readers' credulity a little too far.

Readers might wish to remind themselves that Cllr Nottingham wrote far worse about John Worrow a year ago and local politicians need a thick skin.

Let's remember, that he stood as a successful candidate and that until recently, he was a member of the local Conservative Group.

Individually, members of any political group have their own opinions but Conservative, Labour or Liberal, normally agree on a common policy position and resist the urge to throw themselves overboard on a single issue, such as Animal Rights.

Last week, I was somewhat amused to see the new Leader of the council interviewed on BBC SE News and admit that there was absolutely nothing TDC could do to prevent animal exports through the port of Ramsgate - and possibly even less now as it's quite unlikely that like Bob Bayford, he will be invited to meet the Minister.

That said, tremendous progress has been made in recent months and there is now a chance that sufficient pressure will be bought to bear on Europe to prevent this vile trade in animal suffering that goes through our port.

I really don't think that people, if asked, are that interested in John's personal crusade and would prefer him to get on with the job for which he was elected.

Anonymous said...

Councillor Worrow, I have, through a number of contributions on this blog, been arguing the case on LGBT equality and rights. My main "exchanges" have been with "Tom Clarke". I am not pursuing your campaign, which is essentially personal, but have been addressing some of the issues that properly arise from it.

I have also posted comments on your blog, offering qualified support, but certainly arguing that you should resign your seat and present yourself for election again. There is a moral imperative to do so, but the Tory Party have no right whatsoever to press you on that, since, like Labour and the Liberal Democrats, they will only press for a by-election when they are the "victims" of cross-flooring rather than the beneficiaries. The party political position generally is a disgrace on the subject.

So far you have failed to publish those contributions and you have clearly ignored many others also. Until you start to be more transparent and honest - including being specific about the allegations you are dangling - few will feel entirely supportive towards you.

I disagree with Peter Checksfield that you should offer information about gay bars and the like - I don't think that is relevant at all. But you have not, before now, identified yourself with any LGBT campaigning organisation and so cannot automatically rely on the LGBT community to align itself with you.

What you have done - and this is the key reason why many will be slow to come to your side - is stand as a Tory candidate in an area where there is known to be at best an antipathy towards the LGBT community and at worst something far more negative. This is especially evident at Parliamentary level. In your pursuit of office, you aligned yourself closely with the more virulent of Tory positions and the more virulent of Tory arguments. That is fine, but did not endear you to many who hold a deep suspicion of the Tory Party because of its homophobic past.

Please think carefully before you issue more threats and claims.

Anonymous said...

Anon, every political party once had a homophobic past if failing to repeal the laws against homosexual behavour constitutes homophobia.

Even today, within every political party's supporter ranks there are those who are homophobic. There are individuals ranging from supportive of the LGBT community to those uncomfortable with or outright hostile towards it. It will take time to achieve the level of universal acceptance you rightly seek.

However, you seem to perpetuate some notion that Tories are more homophobic than Labour. Why, because of Clause 28 or because a local MP is uncomfortable with what he regards as an open display of sexuality. There is probably far more prejudice towards you amongst the working than middle classes yet you persist with this masty Tories myth.

Peter Checksfield said...

Anon 19:01, if your comment (quoted below) is true, then how do you explain the Tory-led TDC sponsoring & promoting 'Thanet Pride' (& more than once)? I've met & chatted to quite a few local cllrs, & I really don't believe any party overall locally are any different from the others, with the possible exception of the Tories being more chatty & polite.

"What you have done - and this is the key reason why many will be slow to come to your side - is stand as a Tory candidate in an area where there is known to be at best an antipathy towards the LGBT community and at worst something far more negative."

DrM. said...

May I just add here that for the first Pride event in Thanet, I flew a 'Margate Welcomes Pride' banner at my own expense and would be grateful if John and indeed others did not challenge my own committment to equality diversity and tolerance within our society.

Tom Clarke said...

Matters not, Dr M, to Anon 19:01, better known as The Naked Civil Servant, what you did to advertise the Margate Pride, for he persists with his homophobic Tories story and has done around the Thanet blogs for as long as I recall.

See he now suggests John Worrow can expect no support from the LGBT community because he aligned himself with the nasty party in the first place.

And he accuses others of prejudice!

James Maskell said...

Its been a long six days. Im more than ready to move on and tomorrow should hopefully bring a new post.

John, referring to Conservative Central Office is a desperate stunt and you know it, as were the legal threats and anything you might be thinking of using to scare me with.

I suggest you just get on with what you were elected to do, serving the people of Birchington South.

Anonymous said...

I thought John had moved on too last night when he published a post on live animal exports, but this has now been deleted & he's added yet more to his rant, encouraging people to phone Conservative Central Office...

Anonymous said...

Tom Clarke (or Will Lambert, or Guy Lacoste, whichever you prefer), I am sorry that you have chosen to twist what I had thought was a measured and constructive contribution on my part. And choosing to refer to me by the title of a book by an openly gay man is pathetic and unfunny. It isn't offensive - before you jump back on that bandwagon - just very lame. It says much about you and your opinions.

I have not said that Worrow cannot count on support from the LGBT community. I am not even in a position to say such a thing. But of course you know that is not what I am saying; it just suits you to misrepresent others' contributions. Something of a forte for you, then going on to accuse others of doing the same to you.

Nor have I commented on TDC's role in relation to Pride, and certainly not on Moores's personal role; so your intervention after Moores is entirely misplaced and misguided.

What I have set out, clearly, is the undisputed record of MP Gale on LGBT issues and rights. It is far more significant than your reference to his being "uncomfortable". Of course, it suits you to ignore the rest and to continue to deal in half-truths or open misrepresentation. Again, it says much about you and your views.

I don't think it's unreasonable to refer to the Tory Party's homophobic past, which was a nationally not locally based comment, given the - again undisputed - history of the past three decades. Again, I realise this doesn't suit you. Of course there are people in all political parties who are at least negative about LGBT equality. The distinction, as I have pointed out before, is that those negative views (and worse) have informed and determined Tory Party policy and actions in Government. That is where they differ from the other main parties.

You may hate the thought, but the vast majority of LGBT people I know do not trust the Party of which you are so enamoured. Fact, not opinion.

Tom Clarke said...

Anon, still as devious and comment selective as ever. May I remind you that you accused John Worrow as standing as a Conservative candidate in an area best known to have at least an antipathy towards the LGBT community. That, it would seem, in your view alienates him from the sympathies at least of that community.

Dr M pointed out that it was a Conservative council that supported Margate's Gay Pride event and he flew his aircraft with banner to proclaim the first one.

It follows that is is not unreasonable to respond to you correcting your suggestion that Tories are more anti-LGBT than Labour. That evidently does not suit you and so you flip.

Out of the pram come your toys in some petulant, big girl's blouse outburst and I am denied the right to opinions of my own. You say what kind of person I am, with clarifiucation of what you mean, as previously you have claimed to know my background and credentials without ever saying what they are.

That is not debate, anon, but you dictating and accusing without actually stating the alleged crime.

Anonymous said...

Actually I believe it was Peter who pointed out that Conservative council supported Margate's Gay Pride event.

Tom Clarke said...

Anon 11:43, you are indeed right that Peter pointed out that the Conservative Council supported Margate's Pride event and Dr. M said he flew a banner in welcome. Nonetheless, Anon 10:02, ignores these statements and persists with his allegations of Conservative hostility towards the LGBT community.

Sadly, some people get a bigotted viewpoint and the blinkers never come off no matter what the evidence to the contrary.

Anonymous said...

Tom Clarke (or Will Lambert if you prefer), be happy living in your blue-stained world, ignoring facts and pursuing a style of debate based on twists, turns and misrepresentation. You accuse others of what you practice so proficiently yourself, and think that scores points. Among those who support your views, it may, but among others...

And you just can't help your itchy little fingers giving light to your real feelings about LGBT rights and issues, can you?

James Maskell said...

Play nicely...

Ian Driver said...

Blimey! This is getting heated.

Lets get things straight there is no place in modern politics for hompohobes, sexists, racists or people who treat those with disabilites as second class citizens. Whenever and wherever these prejudices appear they must be exposed and challenged. There is no doubt that many people, including councillors and MPs, in the Labour Party, the Tory Party and the Liddems subscribed to these views. Thats why there are so few women, LGBT, and BME politicians. There is no no doubt in my mind also that John Worrow was homophobically abused. However, its entirely up to John how he deals with it.

I for one will challenge any politician for making offensive comments oor innuendos of the nature described above. As the Jam said this is a modern world so lets all fight bigotory together.

Anonymous said...

You're right to give a gentle wag of the finger, James. I don't think "Tom Clarke" and I have much respect - now - for each other's opinions and comments, so it is arguably best not to continue a mostly unproductive exchange on your blog. The respective issues and positions are clear and in a democracy each can make up his/her own mind.

John Worrow said...

Thank you Councillor Driver. I think any sensible person can see whats been allowed to go on in this blog, regardless of their politic; they will also be aware why the unpleasent personal attacks have been used as a smoke screen. Maybe Nick Griffin could use this as a training blog?

Peter Checksfield said...

I agree 100% Ian, they SHOULD be exposed & challenged. However for some reason John is more than happy to keep the identity of his (alledged) accuser a public secret.

James Maskell said...

I should probably delete the comment referencing Nick Griffin but given Ive just spent the last few minutes laughing at it, it can stay.

Peter Checksfield said...

Haha, me too! : )

One other point Ian, how do you KNOW that there are so few LGBT politicians? They may just choose to keep their personal life private, as your new friend John did until recently.

Tom Clarke said...

My dear Anon, 14:45, your vivid imagination is running away with you. I would be the first to admit that I enjoy a good debate, but scoring points does not enter the frame.

Yet again you rely on inuendo and suggestion, like my real feelings on LGBT rights and issues, with out spelling it out. If you want to call me homophobic, which actually I am not, be a man and spit it out, don't just hint to impress others.

Likewise the business of linking me with other posters. Bit of a cheek really from someone who does not use a name at all.

Whilst I agree there is no point in us continuing our dialogue, I would suggest positions are far from clear, leastways mine seem to be what you perceive them to be. I don't have rights to opinions of my own in your book.

John Worrow said...

Peter

Although you seem to think you know more about my private life than I do. You are wrong, as you have been about a number of other things; the way you said to Ian "your new friend John" says everything. I have known Ian for quite a while.

As for the name of the person that made the original comments on facbook; I am still waiting to discuss the matter with Simon Moores, who is a NTCA executive officer, but all he appears to have done so far, is joined in with this blog, and avoided the serious allegation made against his follow Margate Trustee.

Peter Checksfield said...

Oh, so you're NOT gay? I'm not sure who's the most confused, you or me!

John Worrow said...

Peter,

I believe you to be a decent chap. But you miss the point by asking someone their sexuality; there are people with hidden far-right views, who jump to joy when a person such as you, calls someone a 'Queen' when an alleged crime may have been committed, it gives them cover. We are not in Winter Gardens, having a laugh with mates, we are in a public forum.

You appeared to be taking the allegation serious, up until the point that I objected to your remark. If you wish to take issue with me over something political, I welcome that.. Anyway I have the Gazette to read! Happy New Year!

DrM. said...

Let's be very clear here.

John Worrow has not contacted me at anytime to discuss anything in regard to the NTCA and one might sensibly think that the person he might first approach would be Jim Nock, the Chairman.

I understand that his 'complaint' was addressed by Bob Bayford in correspondence before Xmas

Like many people here, my patience with Cllr Worrow is quite exhausted.

Peter Checksfield said...

I'm not asking anyone their sexuality as unless I want to shag them (certainly not the case with you!) then I don't give a damn, but if YOU were offended by an alledged homosexual comment, them surely it's fairly safe to assume you're a homosexual...

And please do NOT misquote me, I said you're a DRAMA QUEEN! Misquote me again & I'll seek legal advice... ok?

James Maskell said...

John, on your blog the threat of the Tory HQ reference is obvious and genuine. Agree to your demands or else a complaint will go to Central Office which might lead to my expulsion from the Conservatives. Out of curiosity, where did that idea come from?

What comes next? Where does this end? What realistically do you see as a solution to this?

DrM. said...

I think it would be appropriate now for anonymous to share his name as they mirror quite closely an individual whose strong opinions and lengthy written correspondence with his MP has been a subject for discussion in the past.

In any event, the argument looks tired and the public have more important issues to worry about than Cllr Worrow's personal interpretation of his role as a district councillor

Anonymous said...

See John Worrow is now scraping the barrel for new friends as he congratulates the new Hart administration on the Thanet Lab site and praises them on his own. Meantime even Thanet Star writes him off.

What ever induced the North Thanet Conservatives to adopt this guy as a candidate in the first place or were they trying to be more 'inclusive?' That certainly backfired spectacularly.

Ah, well, we've lost our fireworks over here in Broadstairs and are all pleased to read it is not TDC's fault. Apparently the organiser cancelled them when it got too late to do otherwise following them being turned down on H & S grounds by, yes you guessed it, TDC. Though, of course, it's not their fault.

You wanted the hot seat Clive, so the flack comes with it. Happy New Year to all.

Anonymous said...

How do you know, Councillor Moores, about anyone's "lengthy written correspondence with his (or her) MP". Do MPs share details of private correspondence with you?

Tim Clark said...

2342, if Cllr Moores is referring to the person I think he is then this person has made no secret of his correspondence with MPs, Home Secretaries and many others.
A totally pointless spat and overdosing on name calling between "Anonymous" and Tom Clark, with equally pointless interjections by Cllr Worrows. Never thought I'd ever agree with the spawn of Scargill but have to say that Ian Driver is about right and I agree totally with everything James has said and done over this matter.

Anonymous said...

It's strange, Councillor Moores, that you should be urging an anonymous contributor to reveal himself/herself in this particular debate/strand - especially given the backdrop of (heated) suggestions/allegations of "homophobic abuse".

Of course, you can only cross-match authoritatively if the contributor has previously provided details of his or her identity, as you are suggesting, or they have been provided by a third party. Could you enlighten us as to precisely when and where and how, on the blogs, this happened?

Failing that, your intervention can only mean that an MP (Gale, Sandys, or perhaps Ladyman (formerly MP)?) has shared with you details of correspondence they have had with the contributor. That raises grave concerns about confidentiality and trust which I am sure you will wish to allay thoroughly.

As an aside, I don't personally see the particular relevance to this debate of the identity of any anonymous contributor - either one styled as "anonymous" or one choosing a fictitious name, such as "Tom Clarke"

Tom Clarke said...

No, it does not have to mean that some MP has breached the confidence of his constituent as anyone who follows the Thanet blogs will know.

Whilst none of us can be sure we can differentiate between anonymous contributors, some do have distintive style, arguments or repetetive contributions. One of these, as Tim points out, has told the world how he/she has written to MP, leader of the KCC, Chief Constable and Home Secretary to no avail thus implicating all of them in the plot, whatever it may be.

Another, of different style, has told us how letters to one of our local MPs have produced no result in order to make allegations about that MP's opinions on an issue.

Whether anything is achieved by such contribuors revealing themselves is questionable. Other than councillors and the odd Thanet character, most names mean nothing to us anyway and, as one anon loves to point out, some of us might be using fictious names. Like, wow, but, if so, at least one can follow the thread better.

Anonymous said...

Not when different fictitious names are used by the same person, "Tom Clarke".

Good though it is to hear from you, as I said a while back, our exchanges are unproductive and we shouldn't persist with them and use up James's blog space - a sentiment echoed by "Tim Clark". By the way, is he any relation (spawn of Scargill, indeed...)?

Anyway, as it was Councillor Moores who raised this "outing" question, I think it is really for him to answer, not you.

Tom Clarke said...

No, anon, Tim Clark is no relation though we seem to share the spawn of Scargill view, a reference to Ian Driver's previous parliamentary candidate outing for Scargill's Real Labour Party in Wandsworth. Surprised you did not spot that Tim is Clark without an 'e' on the end.

As to our exchanges and using up space, I am sure James does not mind, as long as it is clean and relevant.

Anonymous said...

Actually "Tom Clarke", returning to the substance of your comment, I think you're wrong. Sorry to complicate matters!

Councillor Moores referred to "naming". Now I took this to mean the person's real-life identity - I guess we all have one - rather than a previously used blogging identity. I say this because Moores has previously argued - long and hard - that assumed identities are entirely hollow; they have no status whatsoever. He's even pointed out that no matter what dirt is thrown at a person with an assumed identity, there can be no question of slander because the character doesn't really exist. He can't, therefore, be interested in a past assumed identity...can he?

Like I said, best for the Councillor to answer for himself, if he is really that interested.

Tom Clarke said...

Sorry, anon, but you have totally lost me. Perhaps you understand your comment, but I think we must be on different tracks.

By the way, how do you tell a real name from an assumed one. We all know who Engelbert Humperdink is, don't we?

Matt B (Thanet Star) said...

I wouldn't say it was time to write the guy off exactly but I would suggest that a waking up and smelling of the coffee is in order somewhere.

James Maskell said...

I've no problems with you carrying on with your chats. Go ahead.

As far as I'm concerned, the issue with Cllr Worrow is over. Looking at Worrow's World though, perhaps its not. We will see...

Peter Checksfield said...

I was hoping he'd give an intelligent reply to your comment yesterday James, but I suspect he's just going to keep his little drama going a while longer yet...

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess he will all the time the vindictive and wholly unfunny little snipes are being churned out on Thanet Life by the jilted Councillor Moores.

Peter Checksfield said...

I find them quite amusing myself... ; )

Happy New Year Everybody!

Anonymous said...

You should get out more, Peter. Then again...

Peter Checksfield said...

Some of us are already "out" anon! ; )

Tom Clarke said...

9:01 Interesting turn of phrase describing Cllr. Moores as jilted. I think that would only be the case if (a) his wife had kicked him out, or (b) his ward electorate had rejected him. Since neither of these things have happened I would suggest he is far from jilted.

If you are referring to the change of leadership of the TDC, that did not come about at the wishes of the electorate, but because some councillor on an ego trip decided to rat on those who elected him. Again no one has been jilted however much it may please you to think so.

With a delicatgely hung administration, and with those in charge dependent on the ongoing support of a changeling, do not be surprised if it is not all musical chairs again in a few months. Will you then describe Cllr Hart as jilted!

Anyway, enjoy your moment of triumph and have a good new year. Shit is probably just around the corner.

Anonymous said...

Tom Clarke, I wonder if you have a sense of humour, or if your own pedantic nature is what makes you smile?

I have argued strongly that Worrow should resign and fight a by-election, so there is no triumph for me in a) his defection, and b) the consequences that have resulted from it. Moores is stoking the fire of his switch when others - though perhaps not Worrow himself - are moving on. His spiteful, unfunny posts are just keeping nastiness alive. But then that is his forte.

By jilted, I was referring to Worrow leaving the Tories and causing their break from power. Nothing more. Call it irony if you like.

Tom Clarke said...

Anon, I think you will find Dr. M has moved on and is now playing a dead bat to anti-Worrow comments on his blog.

Worrow meantime seems eaten up with wallowing in self pity because his public have not all applauded his actions. Whatever did he expect in one of the strongest Conservative wards in Thanet.

As to my sense of humour, it is alive and kicking. It has to be in our modern world else I might top myself. If I want cheering up I just play a Youtube clip of Ed Milliband or Balls in full rant.

Wonder what the likes of Nye Bevan or even John Smith would make of today's Labour front bench. Mind you, what would some of the great speakers of the past make of the poison dwarf and his loud missus.

Standards generally have disappeared along with the Empire.

Anonymous said...

A prominent member of the Conservative Party’s youth wing has finally apologised for a racist blog post after being slammed by a charity

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/08/racist-blog-steven-george-hilley/

Anonymous said...

Worrow has a lot of support in his ward. Bigots and racists never win in this day and age

Peter Checksfield said...

People have been racist to John too? What did they say?

James Maskell said...

Nice try. The guy's a moron and apologised for it back in August.

On your second point, racists get exposed for who they are and bigots have their arguments defeated in public. As they should.

Tom Clarke said...

"You nasty little white faced sneak" I believe Peter. Or maybe it was "Whoops a daisy, honkey."

Some folk just love their labels.

Anonymous said...

Tom Clarke, you are mistaken about Moores, or more likely misrepresenting the truth to suit your bias, again. His latest post continues his allusion to Worrow wearing a superhero costume. It is pathetic and childish and reveals just how sour his grapes are. He will stoke this fire as long as it suits him and the NTCA. Good to see they are "conserving" their image as the nasty party.

Tom Clarke said...

I think you will find that the Caped Crusader reference was by a contributor on Thanet Life and Dr. M dismissed it as fantasy.

Your evident hatred of the Conservative party in general and Simon Moores in particular shines through in your comment. Frankly, from past exchanges, I would have thought you were capable of churning out better arguments than just recycling worn out Labour chants like the nasty party.

Every party has the odd nasty from time to time and no one has a monopoly. Live with reality and try to raise your standards of debate in 2012.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Moores is a very "odd nasty". His posts are increasingly hysterical and his continuing campaign against Worrow - which I agree Worrow is himself doing nothing to end - is beginning to make him look like a "wilderness politician".

The "nasty party" label assigned to your beloved Tory Party may be old-hat, but it remains true, so why not use it?

Tom Clarke said...

Well I just thought you were capable of thinking up something a little more original. Evidently not!

In case you had not noticed though, there seem to be at the moment, rather more of us who think Labour have made a pretty nasty mess of our country when they have got their hands on it.

Don't usually trade names, but how about the 'Useless Party.'

Anonymous said...

Jeff Dudgeon, whose 1982 legal challenge led to the decriminalisation of homosexual acts between men in Northern Ireland, will be honoured with an MBE for services to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community.

Anonymous said...

Tom Clarke, you appear to be a master of the very careful selection of the points you wish to address and those you wish to ignore - a characteristic which you nonetheless lambast in others.

The issue here is you, your waspish associate in Westgate, and one or two others, placing infantile but at the same time vicious and snide posts about Worrow on different blogs. At the same time you have laughably said that Moores is not keeping this fire stoked. Clearly that is completely untrue.

That behaviour, plus the typically visceral responses and contributions from one or two other obvious Tory sympathisers, is the justification for my remark about the Tory Party losing absolutely none of its inherent nastiness. The title sticks.

I have said before that Worrow should resign and fight a by-election, but your Party has no moral basis for asking him to do so. The electorate do.. Given the dirty campaign now being waged against him I cannot imagine what his next step might be.

Tom Clarke said...

I was merely responding to your oft repeated nasty party label. You raised it, I responded and in the context of your comment and my reply, no other issues came into the frame.

The Worrow issue I feel has been flogged to death. I agree with you he should stand for re-election and also that the NTCA have no right to demand it. Somehow I doubt that he will.

What is far more likely is that sooner or later he will become disenchanted with his new Labour friends and throw his toys out of the pram again.

See you again refer to obvious Tory sympathisers. Are you not an obvious Labour sympathiser or doesn't that count.

By the way, you never did say whether you are still on a sickie.

Anonymous said...

I find all this in and out of the closet talk bewildering. I enter my closet, do what is necessary and come out again. Have I missed something here or is this some kind of coded speak?

Anonymous said...

I see JW has finally named the alledged bigot. Now why couldn't he have done this from the beginning?

James Maskell said...

Anon 20:45, Ive seen this too and will blog about it tomorrow.