History here: http://ibanda.blogs.com/panchromatica/adam_smith_institute/index.html

They have also been know to edit posts retrospectively, without acknowledging that they have done so.

I’m most concerned about certain rightist bloggers because they claim to be leading British political bloggers and do indeed have very large readerships.

If we’re going to protest when bloggers refuse to participate in honest debate while pretending that they do, it seems only sensible that we should deal with high profile examples first and foremost.

So what, if anything, can be done?

I don’t think it is right to dictate how other bloggers conduct themselves on their own blogs. If they want to deny the ability to debate legitimate points fairly while pretending that they allow it, that’s their right. But I do not believe that it is a good idea to continually allow people to gain advantage through dishonest conduct. For those of us who care about honest debate, I believe the correct response is to highlight these behaviours and make sure that the reality of the situation is widely known.

As such, I’m interested in sanbikinoraion’s suggestion above for a list of worst offenders. For it to work, however, there’d need to be a judging panel comprised of honest bloggers from all sides of the political spectrum.

And I didn’t smear Neil, I just said that I didn’t want him to win because of what he wrote about the Iraqi interpreters.

I don’t agree with the argument that this is a rightist phenomenon, as in my opinion it is something that a lot of leftist blogs are guilty of as well. The aim seems to be to smear and run, without leaving the victim any chance to reply. I don’t mind the smears, it is the failure to link that gets my goat. People can say want they like about me, for instance, as I have my own platform to reply on. However, if the attack comes without a link then that reply is obviously muted.

Let me give you two examples of this tactic in action. This chancer decided to run in the recent Best UK Blog contest. If you read his posting you will see that he lists every candidate except one, Neil Clark, the eventual winner. Sure, people could find Neil’s site via Google, but that is not the point. It is an example of the smear, run and don’t link attitude that far too many blogs have.

A better example would be this smear that was directed at both Neil and myself from Harry’s Place. Do you see a link anywhere? Neither do I. My reply was probably read by quite a few people, but not all. That’s the point.

So, attack by all means, we are the lineal descendants of the old pamphleteers, but link to the people you attack and let folk get both sides of the story.

Ummm, Sunny – the article was written by Bobbie Johnson. Blogger since the year dot, and long-term writer about blogs for the Guardian.

I’m sure you approve of the rest of the selections though.

Back on-topic, I’m afraid I’m pessimistic (although sympathetic) about the concept of ‘fighting back’. The general public know very well that the News of the World’s methods are sometimes Not Cricket. But they don’t care enough not to buy or read it. I can’t believe they’d be more discerning about blogs.

Hell, I didn’t even swear.

This:

http://spiritof1976.livejournal.com/2006/12/16/

this:

http://spiritof1976.livejournal.com/2006/12/21/

and this:

http://pubphilosopher.blogs.com/pub_philosopher/2006/12/when_bloggers_f.html

should give some idea of Will’s methods.

And I agree with Garry on the deletion of comments like this.

Also, deleting links to nasty personal attacks is absolutely not the same as having legitimate questions deleted because they’re political awkward. To suggest otherwise would be downright bizarre.

The only outfit currently handling *libel* cases on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis is Carter Ruck. I am not likely to be using their services in the near future.

Rob Knight:

I’ve made it clear repeatedly that not all Tories are involved in this… but most of this activity appears to be coming from that end of the political spectrum and many Conservatives turn a blind eye because it suits them to do so. Take, for example, what happened in Guildford:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/anne_milton/2007/01/peek-boo.html

On personal attacks, I’ll accept some fault here. Some people are very talented at goading their opponents into an emotional state, which then allows them to play the victim (for a higher level of this at work, see the loaded question; “Why do they hate bush?”). But it’s getting easier to avoid this as time goes by, as the same patterns keep emerging and many of these tactics now have the feel of routine to them. But consider that one pattern that keeps emerging is the call to turn away.

I am expressing concern about personal attacks and the way in which they are conducted, and the culprits will usually respond by screaming “Personal attack!”. It turns people off and gives them good reason to ignore any evidence brought to light. Something to think about.

That said, I make no apologies about being emotional about the damage being done to the blogosphere. I hate the word, but love the place.

Finally, there is a big difference between people taking a stand against this kind of behaviour and engagement in a “blog war” (a tag first applied by Staines then Dale).

Time for them to put their heads above the parapet too and say this behaviour is unacceptable… and their Party leadership.

Yes, the article Sunny links to does refer to Guido and Iain Dale, but only small references and only because they genuinely are the most prominent political bloggers. Not the best, not even necessarily the most-read, but the ones that everyone talks about. The way to displace them is not to write angry posts condemning them. Calling them the ’shock troops of a resurgent Tory party’ is somewhat unfair to the majority of decent Conservative party members who would not condone the alleged actions undertaken by these bloggers, and the casual use of the phrase merely gives Conservatives the excuse of believing that they are under unfair attack themselves.

I remember when Iain Dale’s blog was fairly new, and a lot more interesting than it is now. I stopped reading it when the partisan agenda became too much to take, and he made a few too many dubious accusations against others. I stopped reading it because it was negative, and that’s largely the same reason that I stopped reading Tim Ireland too. If a group of people want to have some kind of ‘blog war’, that’s up to them, but I’ve no interest in getting dragged into the fight. I’m sure I could summon up some vitriolic invective about nasty Tory bloggers if I wanted to, I just don’t see what good it would do.

Consider for a moment that blogging is still a fairly new phenomenon and has a lot of potential to grow. To use the clichéd economic analogy, we’re better off aiming to for a bigger slice of a larger pie than trying to argue that someone else doesn’t deserve their share of the current pie. Most people in the real world haven’t heard of Guido, and I doubt t hat many of them would be inclined to trust him or listen to what he has to say in the first place. If we want tomorrow’s blog audience to listen to more reasonable voices then the challenge is to promote those reasonable voices. We can’t win some kind of blog war with Guido precisely because he can use all of the dirty tricks that we can’t.

Your post strikes me as off-puttingly vitriolic (Guido and Dale are a ‘disease’, those who do not do their utmost to oppose them are ‘fools’)

Please try and represent my comments correctly. I said

‘It’s a disease and it’s spreading fast.’

It’s a disease. It. Not they. By which I meant their methods not them themselves.

‘Tory central office would be fools’

Would be fools. Not are fools. Meaning that the methods employed can be rather effective at marginalising opponents. What political party wouldn’t want a new dirty trick in their arsenal?

Steve I’ve only just become aware of Will at DSTPFW in the last day or so (his critique of Liberal Conspiracy was hilarious). What kind of stuff does he get up to?

I no longer think that is an option. Even Guardian journos these days spend their time reading about two blogs before they start plugging the above.

Given that I am a fairly boring chap, who watches daytime TV, can you not get a ‘no win, no fee’ deal to take on these folk?

Let me try to make this as exciting as possible for ChrisC:

Imagine for a moment that your direct political opponent has created an anonymous weblog and posted a photo of you, your name, details of your whereabouts and repeated claims that you’re a paedophile.

Just think about it. Isn’t that possibly the most *exciting* thing that could happen to you?

Blogger.com refuses to remove the item, and even when the person who does it is identified and caught red-handed, the matter is ignored by his (civil) employer, and superiors in his party all the way to the top.

Imagine also that this chain of authority figures would be far more likely to take the matter seriously if it became an issue that many other people took seriously, but the matter was ignored by senior bloggers with remarkably similar political allegiances to that of the culprit.

Having fun yet? Are you *excited*?

Oh, we haven’t even started yet.

Now put yourself in my place. You’ve just watched all of the above happen, seen the techniques used to achieve it, done your best to deal with it, and then noticed similar behaviour and techniques in use at the blogs of those who were in a position to do something about it, but chose to ignore it. You speak up about that and try to warn fellow bloggers of the possible consequences, and your reward is to be subjected to deeply personal attacks while your quite valid concerns are strategically described as a personal attack.

And all the while, there’s a series of (mostly anonymous) comments assuring those who express concern that they shouldn’t look at your evidence (it is boring) and that the best possible thing they can do is just let Dale, Staines etc. get on with it, because they can’t possibly do any harm to you or anyone else who is not looking in their general direction.

How’s that, ChrisC? Did it restore your will to live?

(Note – For the record, I’ve seen this behaviour from the left and the right. But mostly from the right. This could be down to the whole property/society thing mentioned above, or because it grew and festered in a circle of right wing ‘bloggers’ that followed the example set by Dale and Staines. On that note, I did not read Justin’s comment as calling a person as a disease, but rather describing certain parties as being responsible for a disease spreading.)

Some while back Iain Dale announced on 18DS and his blog that he intended inviting me onto 18DS to talk about the prisoners votes case. Then the silence was deafening. I received no explanation from the great man himself. Then Tim Ireland and Unity took up the issue on their blogs. Iain Dale then said he would give me an explanation. However, his explanation that it was because he did not know about my past when he made the offer did not ring true. One only had to read my blog or Google me and my past was there to see if anyone did the least bit of research. Recently, Iain Dale interviewed Jeffery Archer on 18DS and he knew of his past. Whereas I admit my guilt, Jeffery Archer’s response to this question received a “no comment”. Later when the question was rephrased he dodged it altogether. I would say on this issue that I have the high moral ground.

In email exchanges with Iain Dale he accused Tim Ireland of attempting to police the internet and stalking him. Then he informed me that if I did not remove my link to Tim Ireland’s blog, he would remove his link to me in his blogroll. I refused and he carried out his threat. I did not respond by removing his link in my blogroll, however, I did post that Iain Dale was both a hypocrite and a liar. Neither accusation is libellous because they are true and I can prove it in a court of law if necessary. As for stalking, one only had to read the sockpuppets on Iain Dale’s blog following my comments. Only when I threatened Iain Dale with legal action did he curb this conduct from commenters.

I am not scared to get in the ring with Tory bloggers. In fact, neither Guido nor Iain Dale will get in the ring with me. And, I have seen comments on conservativehome stating “What are you doing on here jailhouselawyer I thought you were banned?”.

I have been watching recent developments on both Bloggerheads and Ministry of Truth. They seem to be doing ok. If I am needed I am only a email away.

It’s not just the Tory blogs that do it though. Will at DSTPFW is a major offender too.