Diltiazem Hcl Er(Cd) Caps 300mg Clindamycin Phosphate Topical Gel Buy Online Celebrex Tablets 200mg Buy Lasix Online Can You Buy Kamagra In The Uk

Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC


4:51 pm - January 27th 2010

by Unity    


      Share on Tumblr

Let’s try a bit of word association… James Delingpole..?

I’m guessing that ‘climate change denier’ was probably the first thing that came to mind, although having read George Monbiot’s latest missive on CiF, ‘vicious douchebag’ seems rather more apt.

On Sunday, Delingpole posted this on his blog at the Telegraph:

The Warmists are looking increasingly foolish and wrong. But they aren’t going to go down without a fight. Consider, Exhibit A, this nauseating email currently being sent out to Conservative candidates. It seems that in the last week a couple of hundred Tory candidates have received variations on the theme below. Note that these emails do not come from a named organisation but from individual voters in each of the different prospective parliamentary candidates’ constituencies.

The text of the email in question, which he also posted, goes like this:

Dear Edwin Northover

I was concerned to note the results of a survey of 140 Conservative candidates for parliament that suggested that climate change came right at the bottom of their priorities for government action.

I hope you can reassure me that you recognise the importance and success of climate change action by the UK government at home and internationally.

Can you clarify that:

You accept that climate change is caused by human activity?

Do you support the target to achieve 15% renewable energy by 2020?

Do you support the EU imposing tougher regulation to combat climate change?

Kind Regards, *** ***”.

Not only does that look to be a perfectly polite and reasonable enquiry but it looks, to me at least, very much like the kind of  simple fill-in-the-blanks form email that’s pretty much a staple tool of internet-based campaigning.

In other words, it about as far from ‘stalking’ – the term Delingpole used in the title of his post – as its possible to get.

From here, I’ll let Monbiot pick up the story:

It looks to me like a polite enquiry from someone concerned about climate change. Delingpole, however, saw it as a “nauseating email” which must have come from a “disgusting eco-fascist organisation”, though he didn’t know which organisation this might be. His post was headlined “Conservative candidates stalked by eco bullies”. Much worse, he published the man’s name and home address.

Delingpole’s bootboys took the hint and immediately swung into action. Within a few minutes of the comments opening, they had published the man’s telephone number and email address, a photo of his house (“Note all the recycling going on in his front garden”), his age and occupation. Then they sought to tell him just what a low opinion they had of “stalking” and “bullying”.

One commenter wrote: “I tried to telephone *** *** on the number helpfully posted in this blog, but he’s out until tomorrow. Perhaps he is out ‘tackling climate change’? – anyway his missus didn’t seem to know where he was.”

Paradoxically, their hounding of this poor man demonstrated that he was just what he seemed to be: an ordinary citizen, exercising his democratic right to ask a parliamentary candidate about his position on an important matter.

The Telegraph have now removed Delingpole’s post, although not until it had sat on their site for 20 hours collecting abusive and inane comments, including:

“This intrusive and abusive lobbying is disgusting”

“I cannot stress enough how dangerous and vindictive the environmentalist movement is.”

There is, however, one very important point that Monbiot fails to reflect on.

Edwin Northover is the Conservative PPC for the constituency of Leyton and Wanstead and the clipped copy of Delingpole’s article that I’ve managed to track down shows that this particular email was sent Northover at a googlemail address used by Leyton and Wanstead Conservative Association’s constituency office:

Leyton and Wanstead Conservatives – working to elect a Conservative Government

With a Constituency spanning Waltham Forest and Redbridge we are an active association working hard for a Conservative Victory in the 2010 local elections in Waltham Forest and Leyton and Wanstead and in Leyton and Wanstead Constituency in the General Election in 2010.

After years of Labour mismanagement and Leyton’s own “expenses-gate” we have a excellent opportunity to win Leyton and Wanstead at the next General Election. If you would like to join our campaign or learn more about our work please email LWConservatives@googlemail.com or call our Constituency Office on 020 8551 4333.

Ed Northover- Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Leyton and Wanstead

So, how did a private email to a would be Member of Parliament come to be published, with the name and address of the sender, on a blog post at the Daily Telegraph?

Methinks, that Edwin has a considerable amount of explaining to do.

After all, if he, or perhaps his constituency office, cannot respect the privacy of a constituent when he’s a candidate, how can either be trusted to respect his constituents’ right to privacy and confidentiality should he become an MP.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
'Unity' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He also blogs at Ministry of Truth.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Conservative Party ,Environment

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Disgraceful. I hope the victim complains to the Press Complaints Commission about the Telegraph, and to the Information Commissioners Office about Leyton and Wanstead Conservative Association.

2. David O'Keefe

Shameful.

Northover’s position is untenable, even if he didn’t know who forwarded the email onto Delingpole.

Could Delingpole, Northover and the Telegraph be prosecuted for this?

Could Delingpole, Northover and the Telegraph be prosecuted for this?

Not without evidence of intent or that the email was obtained via an illegal intercept.

A civil suit for breach of privacy, and complaints to the ICO and PCC are pretty much the limit, AFAIK.

The rule used to be a letter was only deemed private if it was marked PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL.

If it wasn’t, the recipient was free to show it to anyone he liked, or even publish it.

Surely the same is true of e-mails?

What was the link to the Delingpole blog post? I’m sure Google has a cache of the original blog post.

This is unbelievable – the man was actually saying he harassed someone just because they asked some perfectly reasonable questions about climate change. Isn’t it an offence to post his details?

And it looks like the PPC’s office deliberately leak that email too – ensuring he would be harassed by Telegraph readers.

Fucking shocking.

4 – I’d have thought so. It’s like publishing private correspondence: bad manners, but no crime. His best recourse is the awful publicity this will garner for the Tory ppc…

How can prosecution be viable? This was an email sent to a political figure, seeking answers to political questions. That the recipient chose to publish it is fair enough, as it was his property (gifted to him by being sent by the sender), and that he chose Mr Delingpole as his medium of publishing was up to him.

If you send a blatantly political email, expect it to be treated politically, and be prepared to put up with the backlash (before Mr Hoffman-Gill queries my anonymity at this point, I do try and answer challenges here, and have reasons I can’t use my name). I also notice the story has been given to Mr Monbiot, so presumably the victim here is also capable of acting politically and publicising the case (or Mr Monbiot reads Mr Delingpole I suppose).

One other thing: “Not only does that look to be a perfectly polite and reasonable enquiry but it looks, to me at least, very much like the kind of simple fill-in-the-blanks form email that’s pretty much a staple tool of internet-based campaigning.”

Unity. I always thought the point of internet-based campaigning was to encourage individuality and free thought. If it is just to allow further targetted mailing campaigns, then it is not what it is hyped up to be. If you think sending someone else’s words as your own is the point of the internet, it may explain the current right-wing success in utilising the internet as a means of motivating ideas and challenging theories (can I cheekily point out the recent highlighting of defects in the IPCC report as an example?).

Sunny:

When I checked Google’s cache before posting, there was nowt in there, but that now looks to have been a glitch.

I’ve not got a PDF with all the comments, but I’m not posting a link because although the last cached version is one that the Torygraph have edited to remove the victim’s personal info, the comments include a googlemap link to the guy’s home and a bunch of other personal stuff.

Publishing people’s email is one thing – publishing their home addresses and phone numbers is something entirely different. (not surprised the right-wing trolls are making excuses for Delingpole’s appaling behaviour though)

If it weren’t a big issue then why did the Telegraph delete the blog post?

I found the original address:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023508/conservative-candidates-stalked-by-eco-bullies/

Can anyone find a cache/copy of that?

I have found copies by pasting the text into google:

“The Warmists are looking increasingly foolish and wrong. But they aren’t going to go down without a fight. Consider, Exhibit A, this nauseating email currently being sent out to Conservative candidates. It seems that in the last week a couple of hundred Tory candidates have received variations on the theme below”

No question about him revealing the name and address. What an animal.

Sunny,

Did Mr Delingpole actually intimate to people they should harass this guy, or was this some of the worryingly obsessive commentators you get on the Telegraph Blogs’ own decision? Because none of Flowerpower, Tim J or myself (I presume we are the probable trolls you refer to – presumably because we hold different views, as all comments seem relevant) have defended Mr Delingpole, just noted that the sending of a letter is actually a public act, especially when it is clearly politically motivated (as Unity notes, this is a political campaign, not a private enquiry).

If you want I will condemn the Telegraph commentators’ actions, because I think they were excessive and unfair (and petty and pointless – the guy’s mind is clearly made up, so why bother engaging with him?). But they are not illegal.

The ‘hat tip’ in the original post was to Anthony Lenaghan who is involved with Leyton and Wanstead Conservatives and stood as a Tory candidate in Redbridge in 2006.

He’s on twitter as anthonylenaghan.

There’s a text copy here

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:Bj-aWECqujUJ:siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx%3Fmsgid%3D26269903+http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023508/conservative-candidates-stalked-by-eco-bullies/&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

James Delingpole needs to apologise, that’s bang out of order.

As I believe publishing anybody’s names and addresses without consent, even the BNP membership list; privacy should be maintained, especially on the internet which is choca with potentially violent nutters.

I have been known to contribute to Usenet Groups.

And if there is one guaranteed route to an abuse complaint – routinely resulting in being taken off air by your ISP – it is publishing someone’s address, unless this is routinely available.

Doing this in a column/blog/whatever in an allegedly respectable national newspaper isn’t the stuff of argument – it’s bang out of order. Full stop. End of story.

Forget any knee jerk political point scoring – this is bad news, whether it’s coming from right, left, centre or wherever.

Sadly, because it’s a Tory PPC that is implicated in it, there will be some who will be reluctant to accept this.

Watchman:

You’ll not that I’ve not suggested that anything illegal has occurred here, what I noted was that there would have to be evidence of intent to harass or that Delingpole obtained the email via either hacking or an illegal intercept to make a criminal case out of this matter.

A civil action for breach of privacy and/or copyright (believe it or not) is theoretically possible in a case like this, but unlikely to succeed.

And I should point out for Flowerpower’s benefit that the test in law is whether the plaintiff could be held to have a reasonable expectation of privacy, not whether they put ‘private and confidential’ on the email.

An ICO complaint could be made under DPA, against the Conservative Association and, of course, the PCC could receive a complaint in regards to the Telegraph’s conduct.

That’s the legal possibilities, as I understand them.

What’s rather more relevant here is what this says about the trustworthiness of the Tory candidate and/or his staff, which is rightly a matter for the electors of Leyton and Wanstead to decide, and what it says about Delingpole’s view of democracy, which seems not to include the right to ask polite questions about the opinions of parliamentary candidate on matters you care about.

Tim:

I’m a Usenet old lag myself, and yes, posting someone’s personal info was just about the fastest way of becoming toast but for extreme situations in which it was the ultimate sanction to be used only against a seriously persistent troll..

The brownshirts are marching to the orders of the far right . No views will be tolerated except for fascists that now control the tory party.

We will all be wearing uniforms and jack boots by the time the Conservative govt has finished.

Two can play at that game.

Des anyone know where Delingpole lives? Can someone post his name and address and telephone number on prominent display. Maybe the editor of the telegraph would like to have his address published.

What is fascinating about this is how unhinged the brown shirts have become on this issue. They really are nuts. Just look at how quickly the brownshirts sprang into action to start harassing this man.

Cameron must be asked to respond to this. Is this what life is going to be like in Tory Britain? Any one who dares to ask a question or criticises the Tory govt , can they expect a bunch of brownshirt thugs round their house? It is quite clear that dissent will not be tolerated in call me Daves fascist state. It also is a warning to how far right the tories are going to be. They are gearing up their jackboot tactics before the election.

21. astateofdenmark

This is pretty stupid to post someone’s personals on the net. The email was probably forwarded to Delingpole by whoever checks the email address. That person is in a position where removing personals should be common practice, as you can’t trust who you’re passing it to.

These sorts of email campaigns are pretty standard for a lot of single issue groups. Greenpeace organised an email campaign targetted at Labour MPs over 3rd Runway and some of them received literally hundreds a day. Such campaigns can be incredibly annoying, but that doesn’t excuse posting personals to a public space or responding in kind.

At a minimum this person should get an apology from whoever forwarded the email to Delingpole and Delingpole himself.

I had an email correspondence with my constituency MP (Labour) in which he made some statements which, were I to paste them on a blog, he would find extremely awkward.

Of course I will not do so because it was a private dialogue and to reveal the detail would be ill mannered in the extreme.

Similarly, Mr Walker was entitled to believe a private email to his MP (even a cloned one) would not end up in the public domain- far less his private address etc. If it was leaked by the PPC he is clearly not fit to be elected and he should be sacked immediately.

And the journalist should go too.

23. Flowerpower

Tim Fenton & Unity

I think there is some confudion as to what Delingpole published and what commenters in his comment thread published subsequently.

If I have made sense of it, Delingpole published the contents of the man’s e-mail including the e-mail address, but NOT his home address.

A commenter then entered the e-mail address into Google where he found a site where the owner of that e-mail address had given his name, date of birth, home address and telephone number.

Can’t see why Delingpole was at fault.

And certainly some contributory negligence on the part of the man himself.

Here we go again, “Flowerpower”.

I’ve just re-read the Monbiot piece in the Guardian. He says ” … he [Delingpole] published the man’s name and home address”.

Just what part of that do you not understand? Or is this another “non story”, “weak”, “he didn’t mean it”, “doesn’t read that way to me” excuse?

As I said before, this is bang out of order. And, as I also said before, there will be some who are reluctant to admit this.

Thank you for riding to the rescue with your customary precision.

This is just like Unionists in Northern Ireland in the 60s. They would stand outside a house and then preach hatred of Catholics. They would whip the crowd into a frenzy and then they would point at the house and say “a catholic lives here.”

They would then remove themselves from the scene ,and let their thuggish hate mob burn the house to the ground. Afterwards they would say “we never told anyone to burn the house down”

Thugs & Cowards the lot of them.

Flowerpower – If you look at the link above which has a copy of what Delingpole posted (and we’ll have more on this tomorrow perhaps) – then you’ll see it was the original post that included the person’s home address.

Furthermore – what does it say about James Delingpole’s state of mind if a simple question like that makes him call them a fascist?

Is he out of his fucking mind? Actually, don’t answer that – it’s obvious.

27. Flowerpower

Tim Fenton @ 22

I don’t read Monbiot any more, so I have no idea what he says. However, Monbiot’s previous isn’t something I’d set much store by, frankly.

I have, however, read the cached version kindly identified by a commenter above. In this version the info on the bloke’s address etc. is in the comments.

There is a lot of pompous windbaggery going on here.

No one should have any reasonable expectation that the contents of a letter or e-mail will be kept confidential unless they take the trouble to mark it CONFIDENTIAL.

As I indicated above there has long been a social convention to this effect – going back hundreds of years, in fact.

In my view, neither the Conservative PPC or Delingpole was guilty of anything – not even a social solecism.

The bloke who posted the Google map stuff though was a bit OTT.

And Cllr. Terry Kelly is posting his contact details and demanding that anyone wishing to engage in ‘discussion’ with him do the same.

http://councillorterrykelly.blogspot.com/2010/01/zionists-have-their-own-deniers-as-well.html

The Police have enough their hands without having to protect anyone who’s ever got into an Internet argument.

Flowerpower, whether you read Monboit is immaterial.

There is indeed windbaggery going on here, and it ain’t coming from me.

The principle of confidentiality has nothing to do with putting the word on your correspondence. But you’re only posting here to pretend that it’s a “non story” or “he didn’t mean it” or “doesn’t read that way to me” or perhaps even “where’s your sense of humour”.

That PPC is, I reckon, about to get at the very least a Grade 1 bollocking. Might even get the boot – Young Dave doesn’t brook significant crap from the footsoldiers.

Well., first,just so Sally Jack Boot knows what kind off fascist I am.Yes,I,m a great fan off Delingpoles anti-Warmist-Financial-Ponzi-Scheme-Rip-Off. Or the (never let a crisis go to waste)Bilderberger fraudsters that the Left only percieve as a global machavellian conspiracy when it,s in their interest and has the name Bush-Neo-Con stamped all over it.
Not that I,m a fan off that bunch of gangsters either.
As a devoted “warmist heretic”I did offer my support (for a hefty fee)to the oil companies.
Unfortuantely I recieved no response to my generous offer.Perhaps the oil barrons have been much too busy financing and cashing in on the new “carbon trading gold rush”to read my e-mail.

However,as to a person having their private personal details published in the public sphere,in this day and age of the internet,I am afraid I must agree it was rather irresponsible.
Its not really something that should be made a habit off.

I doubt that this exclosure would lead to the rather picturesque event of “thugs going around the house”–as one (parody of a 68,s student ,campus adolescent) has described.As this type off harrasment is much more the tactic of the “New Fascists”
or “Anti-Fascists”as they are oxymoronically reffered to with ever increasingly tongue in cheek scepticism.
Just try doing a lecture tour of western univerities when your name is Robert Spencer,as opposed to “Imadinnerjacket”and you.ll soon get the picture.

It is somewhat unlikely that the following/commentators that frequent those kind of blogs would resort to the very same tactics of the “anti-Fascists” whom they deplore.
And should be that any such harrasment materialized,I.m sure they would be the first to condemn it.

Lets not squeeze every meager drop off juice we can,out off this rather dry lemon.The point has justifiably been made.
And by the way.The warming heretics that Sunny suggested should be ridiculed with a the full Ad-Hominem, Leper work over, are watching the A,G.W.collapse like a house of cards.
Yup.we was duped again.
Well,thats Maoism,Stalinism,Trotskyism, Obamaism,Multi-culturalism, and A.G.W out of the way.Six down—-ten to go.

I wouldn’t be too hard on Northover here – it is plainly absurd that he took offence in the way he did but I don’t think he could have forseen that the guy would have his personal details published.
The real guilty party is the people, whether Delingpole or other commenters, who published his name and address and other personal details. Given the poisonous nature of the “debate” at Delingpole’s blog it was surely obvious that this would lead to the guy suffering abuse and harrassment and I can’t see why this should not be investigated with a view to a possible criminal prosecution for harrassment.

32. Flowerpower

Tim Fenton @ 27

Okay, I steeled myself and read Monbiot.

Clearly Delingpole published only material that was in the communication itself. As I believe he has every right to do. Your insistence that a duty of confidentiality applies to letters that aren’t even marked Confidential is ridiculous. If that were so, the newspapers wouldn’t be able to quote any letter without the author’s express consent. Indeed, I’d be in breach when I read the gas bill to my wife.

Of all the kinds of communication, the one arguably LEAST deserving of being afforded any special treatment are junk-mail, unsolicited campaigning missives like this one.

I certainly hope that Dave does not even reprimand Northover. To do so would be to surrender ground to the enemies of openness and transparency, and the you-can’t-do-anything-without-permission at Lib Con.

Publish your full name Flowerpower. Since you think there is nothing wrong here put your money where your mouth is.

Lets have your name, where you live ,and where you work.

If not, go away.

Always instructive to see just how much the trolls support violence and intimidation to push their agenda.

But off course they are at the same time always on here wailing about Liberals being rude, and not being civil in their debate. How they wailed against no 10s attack dogs. Now we see how false that position was. As long as it is the brownshirts breaking heads they have no problem at all.

That PPC is, I reckon, about to get at the very least a Grade 1 bollocking. Might even get the boot – Young Dave doesn’t brook significant crap from the footsoldiers.

I’d have thought so. Publishing personal details is an etiquette no no. Although the chances of a private prosecution for the republishing of an email is unlikely in the extreme – especially given that this appeared to be a round-robin style message. So: legally fine, but fucking bad manners.

I suspect the PPC (or whoever answers the emails) emailed Delingpole as a sort of ‘look what I have to deal with’ thing. And if either of them had snipped the personal details from the email it would have been utterly un-newsworthy. As it is, it’s a great big black mark on the common sense/press handling front for the PPC and, judging by how quickly it’s come off the Telegraph site, a rap on the knuckles for Delingpole. Idiots.

flowerpower – It’s amazing the lengths you right-wing nuts will go to defend one of your own.

Usually constituents include their home addresses so that their MP or the candidate can contact them – by letter or just to confirm they are actually a constituent.

What you’re saying is that a person should have no expectation of privacy when they send off that email. And furthermore, if that person has views that go contrary to the MP or candidate’s views – perfectly fine with you if those details are posted online so others can abuse.

This really is the face of the new Tory right isn’t it?? You complain about the horrible lefties but when there’s a blatantly grotesque example of a person’s privacy being violated – you’re sat there making excuses.

You fucking disgrace, “Flowerpower”. Is there no depth you won’t sink to?

All this just so that Delingpole can feel better about himself and overcome the sense of inadequacy that’s haunted him ever since Oxford.

Right-whingers are not men.

Alec,

The Police have enough their hands without having to protect anyone who’s ever got into an Internet argument.

The difference is that Cllr Terry Kelly invited to email him and, as you know, got into an internet argument of his own volition. Even then, if someone published his home address and phone number in the knowlege that he would be subject to harrassment that would not be qacceptable. By contrast the person who wrote the original email in this case did so in a private capacity, not knowing that it, and (much more importantly IMV) his personal details wouild be made public.

Well, Mr. Delingpole is clearly an unscrupulous and unpleasant individual, but he’s a journalist (of no apparent great talent, yet enormous ego) after all, so what depths should we not expect him ever to sink to?

More important question is why the Telegraph took so long to squash it – either they’re ragingly incompetent, or don’t care what their contributors shove out, so long as it attracts traffic (the more “controversial” the better, ho hum).

As for “Watchman”, “Flowerpower”, “Journeyman” & any other pseudonymous commenters prating-on about what more could the guy expect, he didn’t stamp “CONFIDENTIAL” across it in flaming 3-d letters, etc – you’re pathetic.

If you don’t have the courage of your own convictions, why should anyone pay attention?

Ho hum (again).

Excellent work Unity.

Just one thing: the comments seem to have formed around the consensus that publishing the man’s address was not illegal (which it wasn’t) but that doing so was just bad manners, or simply violated his privacy.

It was worse than that.

It put him in danger. The internet is full of absolute wingnuts who believe in vast conspiracies. Although most are harmless, wingnut conspiracies attract the occasional dangerous individuals also.

By posting the constituents’ address this PPC put a man in danger – sure, that danger was and is very small, the worst he’s likely to get is death threads posted through the door. But there’s always the chance that some real maniac puts a molotov cocktail through it instead.

This is very much more than just bad manners or infringement of privacy.

It’s potentially dangerous. And the PPC and the journo responsible know this. Which makes it an act of cynical bullying, because they also know that the man in question must now realise he is in a danger he wasn’t before, no matter how small that danger is.

Delightful.

Redwatch / Daily Telegraph, same deal.

@Andy Gilmour

“As for “watchman”,”flowerpower” “journeyman” and any other psuedonymous prating-on about what more could a guy expect”……

I didn’t.I said

“However,as to a person having their private personal details published in a public sphere,in this day and age of the internet,I’m afraid I must agree it was rather irresponsible.It’s not really something that should be made a habit of.”

Yu just can’t win.

If Delingpole wasn’t at fault, why has his post been deleted?

Paul Sagar,

I kind of agree with you. However there has been a near mirror case running:

http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/the-knock-at-the-door/

Apparently ‘harassment’ legislation can be read as widely as you like!

We have always been concerned about policing the internet, I just don’t think we were expecting a knock on the door….

Sunny H @ 34

What you’re saying is that a person should have no expectation of privacy when they send off that email.

Quite so. If they want privacy they should write PRIVATE or CONFIDENTIAL on it – as people have done with letters for centuries. Can’t see the problem. It doesn’t take much effort.

Had the PPC replied saying that he took Delingpole’s line that AGW was bogus, I bet Mr W wouldn’t have kept that a secret for a second. . Nor would you.

So if the reply would be fair game for public consumption, why not the initial letter?

46. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells

Delingpole clearly isn’t quite all there as any semi-rational person who’s had the misfortune to read his book (in which he claims the Germans, hosepipe bans and bendy buses are evidence of ‘pc gone mad’) will tell you.

Flowerpot,

You are either an idiot, or a twat.

Or possibly both.

I think that’s about the level of engagement that’s appropriate.

Maybe people who live in glasshouses shouldn’t throw stones.
A whois of jamesdelingpole.com is interesting. Anyone here live in Camberwell? 😀

Flowerpower,

I know next to nothing about this, but I’d have thought that talking to your MP was kind of, y’know, private, like?

Not for publication.

I cannot see your argument. I have looked in microscopes, I have looked in telescopes, I have looked everywhere and your argument is nowhere to be found.

The tit was, err, a tit.

Paul Sagar,

I am interested in whether or not Liberal Conspiracy is interested in the case or not?

http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/the-knock-at-the-door/

It seems it isn’t.

After the fuss that was made about Sadiq Khan being bugged while engaging with his constituents I find it laughable that people like Flowerpower can play a petty game of semantics over what is common action in representation.

Posting the letter up on the telegraph, fine…whatever, if people want to abuse the principle of confidential trust between a themselves and who they represent fine…let’s just make sure the world knows it.

But posting personal information such as home address on to the telegraph AND Dellingpole then putting that address up for all to see? It went through two stages of people that, were their addresses published to the world, would be mortified to have the same happen to them and would most likely try to sue the hell out of those that published it. Right wingers can try and mitigate it as much as they like but we all know they’re lying through their teeth as not one of them is willing to put their home address up on here and take the abuse that equally fervent and idiotic left wingers would dole out to them.

Douglas:

In regards to that particular story, it has been discussed behind the scenes.

My own view is that there was no justification for police involvement, let alone for the stance taken by the officers who paid Seismic Shock a visit.

However, I’m not prepared to blog the story until I have the time to examine all the various allegations levelled at Rev Sizer in detail, so I can sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Some of Seismic Shock’s material looks to have been entirely fair comment.

Some of it relies on lines of argument and dubious reasoning of a kind that leave me feeling distinctly queasy, largely because it strays rather too close to giving American advocates of dominion theology a free pass.

Unity,

However, I’m not prepared to blog the story until I have the time to examine all the various allegations levelled at Rev Sizer in detail, so I can sort out the wheat from the chaff.

Fair enough. I am glad you are looking into it. My point was merely that one should compare and contrast. What appears legitimate from one perspective seems illegitimate from another.

It seems to me to be awkward to argue pro a right to harassment when one is publicising ones own, daft, views. But the law is, err, the law.

Apparently.

I think you and I are big enough and probably ugly enough to argue without claiming legal harassment.

This is a law too far, perhaps?

Lee Griffin @ 51,

This is quite awkward. I have written to my MP and published what he had to say.It seems to favour me too much if I argue that my letter is sacrosanct when his reply is not. We try, sometimes, to get our politicians to say things, do we not?

That does not, obviously, excuse publishing or encouraging others to publish my home address. Though, in principle, I shouldn’t mind.

If it were not for the Telegraph loonies, I’d prefer to be completely public.

I argue stuff under my own name, and, in principle, I’d like to be able to publish my address, though the reason I do not is obvious.

This is quite a sad side of t’internet, is it not?

55. Flowerpower

Paul Sagar @ 47

My friends and colleagues are always saying how Lib Dems are the nastiest people in politics. Worse even than the most brutal Tankie.

I sued to argue: “What about Charles Kennedy, he’s nice. And Ming’s a gent. Cleggie’s a pussycat. La Teather displays absence of malice. And Lynne Featherstone is kind, clever and funny.”

I guess I always knew it might be different at street level.

Now I see what they mean.

Flowerpower, what do you expect? Do you think your cretinous arguments should be greeted with kisses and choruses of Hallelujah?

Think about it for half a second. You’re arguing that it’s legitimate for a national newspaper to publish the home address of a completely innocent man. You actually seem to think this is a comparable situation to you reading out a gas bill to your wife.

Surely even someone as impenetrably thick as you can understand that this an obvious violation of the press’ most basic responsibility: to the safety of the public.

When its nuttier readers – inevitably – rock round to his house, post pictures of his home, and generally start intimidating and hassling him and his family, you “can’t see the problem.” After all, if he didn’t want a crowd of pitchfork-waving psychos to appear outside his front door, then he should have thought of that before he wrote a perfectly innocent letter to his prospective MP, shouldn’t he?

That’s your argument – you’re justifying mobilising a lynch mob, on grounds of “openness and transparency”.

I realise that you’re a compete halfwit – a drooling, gibbering imbecile – but please try very hard to understand the counterargument because it really isn’t that difficult: a national newspaper should *never* reveal anyone’s home address, because it is *dangerous*.

#54

No, I disagree. You can publish something your MP says, but your MP should not publish something you have said. Most MPs take this so seriously that they will not use information given them via constituency correspondence from constituents who are opposition councillors, even where there would be clear political advantage.

“I have written to my MP and published what he had to say”

This is ultimately a one way street to me, Douglas. MPs are elected to represent, and constituents have a right to know their views. I have zero problem with an MP using a constituents views anonymously on the flip side, an MP is not in a position to know whether the person that has contacted them is doing so from a situation where privacy is important or not, so they *must* take the view it is important.

Publishing views is one thing, attributing them to an individual, let alone with personally identifiable information that could easily lead to their safety being in question, is quite another.

@Larry 9.45.

Just so there’s no misunderstanding,I have agreed that it was bad form to publish privat details on a public domain.
But your “crowd of pitchfork waiving loonies”—“outside his front door” is making a bit of a four course meal out off this don’t you think.
So some commentator got a little too over enthusiastic and unillaterally went over the line.
But “pitch forks”….I mean come on, we are talking about Delingpole and Telegraph blogs here.
Not….the militant campus radical thought police of the Left
I am deeply offended.
Naturally it being Liberal Conspiracy,there are visions of top-hat and coat tail attired,cigar smoking Victorian entrepeneurs anxious to re-establish the C02,emmiting Satanic Mills at the first available opportunity—supported by legions of Texan red-neck,A.G.W skeptic, commie hating,pitch fork waving lynch-mobs.
Bollocks.

You can publish something your MP says, but your MP should not publish something you have said. Most MPs take this so seriously that they will not use information given them via constituency correspondence from constituents who are opposition councillors, even where there would be clear political advantage.

I generally agree with this. However, there is an argument that this would apply less strongly to a fill-in-the-blanks round robin letter from a pressure group. The personal details should obviously have been removed, and it’s unforgivable that they weren’t, but there can be no issues of constituent confidentiality when someone cuts and pastes a ‘send this to your MP’ email.

“there can be no issues of constituent confidentiality when someone cuts and pastes a ’send this to your MP’ email.”

I agree, and this is why I don’t mind MPs anonymising *any* correspondence they get either from a form email campaign or individually realised. It’s entirely good for an MP to have a serious concern brought to them by a constituent and to use that correspondence where it’s appropriate in their public duty to highlight a problem or situation, MPs do it all the time to do their job.

Oh journeyman, if only we could all be as oblivius to the irony and hypocrisy of our statements as you are.

Isn’t the accusation of “stalking” libellous in this case?

Reading Delingpole’s output on the subject of climate change (and other matters) it is clear that his opposition to the existence of AGW is entirely idealogical – partly due to him being a member of the more absurd libertarian right which sees any kind of government action as evil and a dangerous conspiracy to stop him doing what the hell he likes, and partly because prominent among those arguing for action on AGW are environmentalists and liberal lefties, whom he loathes with a passion. He’s not really interested in the science – he will parrot any superficially plausible argument which supports his case without making any attempt to check its veracity (hence his championing of the absurd and discredited Plimer).
I think what he’s trying to do a lot of the time is get under the skin of us lefties and outrage us as much as possible, as opposed to, say, Mel Phillips who (mind bogglingly) actually seems to believe what she writes. And to be fair, he is very good at it. I think in general it is beter to just ignore him, but this time he has well overstepped the mark

What a vile episode and glad to see the trolls defending it getting a pasting!

@Lee Griffin

Didn’t some bloke quip that :

“The Right percieves the Left as misguided at worst—–and the Left percieves the Right as evil at best.”

Best ´Regards
journeyman

So?

@Andrew Adams – that’s an excellent description of Delingpole and it’s completely consistent with what I’ve learnt about Delingpole during my – er – interactions with him about AGW on his Telegraph blog and on his FaceBook page. He’s not interested in the science and he takes a lot of joy in responding to my calm postings with comments like “go away you eco-fascist libtard” – clearly attempting to illicit an angry response. A large proportion of his blog posts are just re-formatted post from Watts Up With That (a popular AGW denial website).

BTW, Delingpole has just published an apology. Kind of:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100024152/monbiot-an-apology/

And why did I pull it? (And it really was my decision, no one else’s. In fact I got a huge bollocking from my bosses for having done so because it is not Telegraph policy to pull blogs). Because I made a stupid mistake, that’s why. When I posted up the letter quoted above, I neglected to remove the sender’s name and address. This was careless but not, I promise, vindictive. And I deeply regret any distress or hassle which may have been caused to the person I named. When I read some of the comments below my blog and realised what I’d unwittingly unleashed, I removed the person’s name from the blog; then later, all the comments pertaining to the person; then later, I pulled the blog altogether – embarrassed, ashamed and rather wishing it would all go away. Thanks to Monbiot it hasn’t. But what I would really like to say to the person I named is: I’m sincerely, totally and unreservedly sorry. (And if it’s any consolation, you should see some of the hatemail I’ve been getting from Monbiot’s Guardianista chums).

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100024152/monbiot-an-apology/

For what it’s worth.

Didn’t some bloke quip that journeyman is a pointless cunt?

So Delingpole publishes this poor man’s details and get a pasting. He takes it down. Then posters here scour the internet to find an alternative link or cache so they can put his details back up up again. Does this not undermine the argument somewhat?

For the benefit of ‘Flowerpower’, Delingpole’s sort of apology includes this comment:

“When I posted up the letter quoted above, I neglected to remove the sender’s name and address. This was careless but not, I promise, vindictive.”

Jimmy,

Lets be fair. No-one linked to the cache, so you would have to go and look for it deliberately (using the guidance given). And I doubt many of the idiot commentators that so bless the Telegraph (irony alert) would be reading this, follow the instructions and then look up the address. Especially as I know of no links into this story.

#39

“Well, Mr. Delingpole is clearly an unscrupulous and unpleasant individual, but he’s a journalist (of no apparent great talent, yet enormous ego) after all, so what depths should we not expect him ever to sink to?”

He is not a journalist. As mentioned earlier (#68) he simply repeats what he’s read elsewhere. Since the Telegraph’s cut backs a few years back, people of Delingpole’s limited talent is about all they can afford (well, they have to find the money for Boris’s payment from somewhere). Even when he’s not writing about climate change, Dellingpole’s attempts are lack lustre – when you have finished an article of his you want to demand back from him the five minutes you’ve lost reading his drivel.

Would this blatant expose of someone’s name and address be similar to the names and addresses of Tory (and Labour) MP’s which were blanked out when the expenses were published?

Oh that’s right – it’s one rule for the political elite and another for the Plebians.

Well never mind, clearly politicans don’t read history books because even the ‘mild mannered British people’ will start burning things if this ultimate hypocriscy continues.

As for the climate debate – I say let them all drown – I shall be on my ark kicking off regretfull non-believers who thought it was all a ‘Trotskyite conspiracy’ – or something just as ridiculous.

What the anti-climate group actually stand for is those people who are so insanely selfish that they do not want to change their lifestyle for the sake of any future generation.
Unfortunately this is the fastest way to eradicate the human race – in effect Genocide.

I mean the analysis could be wrong – but will it hurt if we all reduce our consumption on a planet which logically has a finite source?

….of course they don’t like that because they feel it will intefere with their ability to ‘make money’ – or should I say ‘extract money’ from those who actually work for a living.

flowerpower – that the name and address were in the original post has been confirmed by Delingpole, as Unity says. If you’d read the links to the original article also posted on here you’d have seen from the comments that the name and address had been in the article originally. It too something like 60 comments before Delingpole deleted them after some posters drew his attention to it.

At least Delingpole has apologised, now all we’ve got to do is to get Rose to apologise for misrepresenting various scientists, and the Times to deal with their story about blondes and assertiveness.

77. david brough

Are the likes of Iain Dale going to defend their fellow denier?

@48 – thanks – apart from anything else, it gave me a very big laugh.

@72 – Delingpole never actually believes in anything but sweetness and light – he just incites other people. His attitude to the importance of being told about a child’s race before you make your personal decision about whether to beat up that child (not that he’d ever dream of such a thing of course) was what put the seal on my disgust with the pathetic excuse for a man. Here’s a link to it:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/10079233/What_the_BBC_didnt_want_you_to_know_about_the_Belfast_Romanians/

80. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells

So Delingpole publishes this poor man’s details and get a pasting. He takes it down. Then posters here scour the internet to find an alternative link or cache so they can put his details back up up again. Does this not undermine the argument somewhat?

As Google cache is a cultural Marxist conspiracy that only exists in the minds of Trots and Guardian readers, no, it doesn’t.

Considering the politics of personal destruction practised by the Labour government, this whinging about the reprinting of an email is just near hysterical, pompous hypocrisy.

Amongst other things this Labour government has stooped to leaking private citizens medical records to the press and you people complain about a blatantly political email being reprinted.

What a joke.

Kingoldby:

You may not have noticed, but this isn’t the Labour Party website.

”Kingoldby:

You may not have noticed, but this isn’t the Labour Party website.”

But i have noticed a grossly disproportionate degree of fake moral outrage directed at Conservative ‘sins’, while Labour actions that are objectively much worse get soft soaped.

Pathetic.

What’s pathetic is all this projection, just so it fits what you think is going on but isn’t.

Brooklyn Zoo.

Douglas Clark:

You have some racist comments over at yours by a troll and you haven’t got rid of them, leaving a comment here as have no email address for you in hope you get it.

Apologies to all for this.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Unity

    Liberal Conspiracy » Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  2. David O'Keefe

    Liberal Conspiracy » Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  3. Pete Kavanagh

    RT @Unity_MoT: Liberal Conspiracy » Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  4. Soho Politico

    Did Tory PPC infringe a constituent's privacy by passing on his contact details for publication in the Telegraph? http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  5. James Hepplestone

    RT @libcon: Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  6. Ian Gilbert

    RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  7. North Briton

    RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  8. Dick Smith

    RT @libcon: Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  9. Political Penguin

    RT @Unity_MoT: @kevin_maguire @johnprescott Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  10. Carmen D'Cruz

    RT @pickledpolitics: This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  11. Warren Morgan

    Liberal Conspiracy » Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  12. Chas Booth

    RT @AdamRamsay: RT @LibCon LibCon » Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending climate email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  13. Richard Hebditch

    RT @libcon: Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  14. Richard Speight

    RT @CllrIanGilbert: RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  15. Rustam Majainah

    RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  16. Chas Booth

    Tory PPC in apparent breach of Data Protection Act. http://bit.ly/b0vAZK via @AdamRamsay

  17. Phil Chamberlain

    Serious Qs 4 hack + Tory PPC > RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after send email 2 Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  18. Robin Green

    RT @libcon: Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  19. CathElliott

    RT @pickledpolitics: This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  20. Dan Rebellato

    RT @pickledpolitics: This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  21. Rosalind Mitchell

    ? RT @pickledpolitics: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  22. Jessica Marshall

    This doesn't impress me re Telegraph
    @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  23. Mark Wilson

    RT @sarahditum: RT @pickledpolitics: This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  24. Jonn Elledge

    RT @pickledpolitics: This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  25. Ben Rathe

    Don't trust the Tories. Not even with your private e-mails. http://bit.ly/csW5KA

  26. Mark Pack

    RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  27. Tony Burkson

    RT@markpack Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM < Naughty James Delingpole

  28. Alastair Bulger

    RT @stephenpglenn: RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM < Disgusting abuse of power

  29. Steven Gabb

    RT @libcon: Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  30. Till Sommer

    RT @TonyStarks1 RT@markpack Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM #nasty #Tories

  31. Baron Von Lame

    http://tiny.cc/Kp77K Tory PPC used the Telegraph to harass constituent

  32. Johann Hari

    Wow, James Delingpole is vile: http://tinyurl.com/ycj4kgp

  33. paulwmk

    RT @johannhari101: Wow, James Delingpole is vile: http://tinyurl.com/ycj4kgp (agreed)

  34. Lawrence Mills

    RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  35. Unity

    @kevin_maguire @johnprescott Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  36. Liberal Conspiracy

    Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  37. Adam Bienkov

    RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  38. Matt Bolton

    RT @Unity_MoT: Liberal Conspiracy » Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  39. Alexandra Runswick

    RT: @libcon: Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  40. Becky Luff

    True, but at least he's stupid and vile RT: @johannhari101: Wow, James Delingpole is vile: http://tinyurl.com/ycj4kgp

  41. AdamRamsay

    RT @LibCon Liberal Conspiracy » Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending climate email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  42. Pete Bowers

    RT @AdamBienkov: RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  43. sunny hundal

    This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  44. sunny hundal

    This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  45. sunny hundal

    @bengoldacre seen this shocker? http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  46. James Cowley

    RT @AdamBienkov: RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  47. James Cowley

    RT @AdamBienkov: RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  48. Ian Gilbert

    RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  49. Sophia Coles-Riley

    RT @AdamBienkov: RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  50. Hannah Lemming

    RT @pickledpolitics: This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  51. sianberry

    AdamRamsay

    Really sinister! RT @LibCon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  52. Lawrie Morgan-Klein

    RT @pickledpolitics: This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  53. Two Seven Two

    RT @libcon: Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  54. Benjamin Gray

    RT @pickledpolitics Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK please RT

  55. mjrobbins

    RT @libcon: Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  56. Adam Corner

    RT @Unity_MoT: Liberal Conspiracy » Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  57. Jon Dennis

    Disgraceful RT @pickledpolitics Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  58. Political Animal

    RT @CllrIanGilbert Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  59. diana smith

    RT @PeterBowers: RT @AdamBienkov: RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  60. Chris Coltrane

    Woah, this is a bit much! RT @LibCon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  61. Andrew Kerr

    RT @PeterBowers: RT @AdamBienkov: RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  62. Lucy Openshaw

    RT @pickledpolitics This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  63. Edith

    (via Tory PPC?) RT @pickledpolitics: Shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  64. Julie Bristow

    RT @carmenego: RT @pickledpolitics: This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  65. Dan Wilson Craw

    Newsflash: James Delingpole = tit RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  66. Thetis

    appalling RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  67. Political Scrapbook

    One aspirant Tory MP has A LOT of explaining to do. Story over at @libcon –> http://bit.ly/csW5KA

  68. Ellie Gellard

    RT @pickledpolitics: Shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  69. Tom Miller

    RT @pickledpolitics: This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  70. Sarah Ditum

    RT @pickledpolitics: This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  71. Jonnie Marbles

    RT @DanRebellato: RT @pickledpolitics: This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  72. Adrian

    RT @johannhari101: Wow, James Delingpole is vile: http://tinyurl.com/ycj4kgp

  73. Michael Hanley

    RT @libcon: Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  74. Jon Masouh

    RT @newsworldtoday: Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC #news http://bit.ly/amibFZ

  75. Carl Hodler

    Horrific consequences for sender of fill-in-the-blanks protest email to #conservatives http://bit.ly/bPJVhW via @pickledpolitics

  76. Heather

    RT @jamiemchale: RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  77. Ed Hayes

    RT @jamiemchale: RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  78. Clay Harris

    RT @sarahditum RT @pickledpolitics Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  79. stephenpglenn

    RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM < Disgusting abuse of power

  80. Sunder Katwala

    RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  81. Liz W

    Did Leyton & Wanstead Tory PPC leak a constituent's e-mail to the Telegraph? http://bit.ly/9C82jM < HT @stephenpglenn @libcon

  82. Jamie McHale

    RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM

  83. paulwmk

    RT @nextleft: RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM (shocking)

  84. Lonely Wonderer

    Constituent sends email to Tory PPC; home address & phone number then publicised by Telegraph readers http://bit.ly/8XFTTW (via @libcon)

  85. Jason Spriggs

    RT @paulwmk: RT @nextleft: RT @libcon Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/9C82jM (sh …

  86. Quietzapple

    RT @johannhari101: Wow, James Delingpole is vile: http://tinyurl.com/ycj4kgp

  87. James Asser

    RT @johannhari101: Wow, James Delingpole is vile: http://tinyurl.com/ycj4kgp

  88. Chris Paul

    RT @johannhari101

    Wow, James Delingpole is vile: http://tinyurl.com/ycj4kgp <- Really?

  89. Pgadz

    Shameful Telegraph – http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  90. Lee Griffin

    Tory PPC (seemingly) and "journalist" James Dellingpole seem to think it's ok to publish your address to nutters http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  91. John

    No wonder people don't like politicians if they treat honest engagement with issues as somehow hostile & due shaming for http://ow.ly/11igb

  92. Jeremy

    Fo not elect Edwin Northover in Leyton. RT @johannhari101: Wow, James Delingpole is vile: http://tinyurl.com/ycj4kgp

  93. Irrelevant

    @JamesDelingpole you ARE vile, aren't you? http://tinyurl.com/ycj4kgp why haven't you been fired yet?

  94. jack_kelly

    RT @speckl: True, but at least he's stupid and vile RT: @johannhari101: Wow, James Delingpole is vile: http://tinyurl.com/ycj4kgp

  95. alixmortimer

    *Comes in late* I know LibCon and Monbiot aren't millponds of reasoned calm, but they're right here http://is.gd/7dAfT Genuinely shocking

  96. Millennium Elephant

    RT @alixmortimer: *Comes in late* I know LibCon and Monbiot aren't millponds of reasoned calm, but they're right here http://is.gd/7dAfT

  97. Shane Croucher

    Liberal Conspiracy » Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  98. Linky Love: 28th January 2010 « Left Outside

    […] Love: 28th January 2010 1) Unity uncovers exactly how unpleasant James Dellingpole (and possibly Tory PCC Edwin Northover) is: On Sunday, Delingpole posted this on his blog at the Telegraph: The Warmists are looking […]

  99. Teresa

    RT @johannhari101: Wow, James Delingpole is vile: http://tinyurl.com/ycj4kgp

  100. Tim Ireland

    Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/dzq3Uv [all-too-familiar story]

  101. Simon Rayner

    RT @libcon: Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  102. I’ve just read James Dellingpole for the first time: He is clearly insane « Left Outside

    […] I read Unity’s evisceration of Dellingpole’s recent behaviour which was brought to all of our attention by George […]

  103. ClimateHate « Freethinking Economist

    […] Conservatives, climate denialism is no doubt becoming a way of solidifying the tribal vote.  The letter-writing campaign organised to squeeze out such views is not going to make them […]

  104. Audrevea

    RT @DanRebellato: RT @pickledpolitics: This is shocking: Environmentalist harassed by nutjobs after Telegraph blogger posts home address http://bit.ly/b0vAZK

  105. RTtravel

    RT @x_d_m indian culture inc. cuisine, travel news, bollywood – free rss feed at: http://ow.ly/11igb

  106. Colin Staniland

    RT @libcon: Constituent harassed by Telegraph readers after sending email to Tory PPC http://bit.ly/8XFTTW

  107. Liberal Conspiracy » ClimateHate – the new battleground

    […] the Conservatives, climate denialism is no doubt becoming a way of solidifying the tribal vote. The letter-writing campaign organised to squeeze out such views is not going to make them […]

  108. Liberal Conspiracy » Revealed: MEP praises French attack on Greenpeace that killed activist

    […] A voter was harassed by Telegraph readers after their blogger James Delingpole published his email (with home address) to a Tory candidate asking about his views on climate […]

  109. Mark Townsend

    @gwenhwyfaer @langtry_girl @SmallCasserole Delingpole has form: http://is.gd/j5FgP Luckily I was out when Northover canvassed here. Grrr!

  110. Mark Townsend

    @stavvers @NatalieDzerins Even if that account is a spoof, don't forget the real @JamesDellngpole harassment tactics: http://is.gd/keeyzj

  111. DanielPoxton

    Last year Telegraph deleted post by Delingpole after he published name & details of a person who then faced harassment http://t.co/nzVqm33

  112. Ben

    Last year Telegraph deleted post by Delingpole after he published name & details of a person who then faced harassment http://t.co/nzVqm33

  113. Rob Hale

    Last year Telegraph deleted post by Delingpole after he published name & details of a person who then faced harassment http://t.co/nzVqm33

  114. Sinead G

    Last year Telegraph deleted post by Delingpole after he published name & details of a person who then faced harassment http://t.co/nzVqm33

  115. Steve Pike

    Last year Telegraph deleted post by Delingpole after he published name & details of a person who then faced harassment http://t.co/nzVqm33

  116. emmie baker larner

    Last year Telegraph deleted post by Delingpole after he published name & details of a person who then faced harassment http://t.co/nzVqm33

  117. Alison

    Last year Telegraph deleted post by Delingpole after he published name & details of a person who then faced harassment http://t.co/nzVqm33

  118. Purbeck Pashmina

    Last year Telegraph deleted post by Delingpole after he published name & details of a person who then faced harassment http://t.co/nzVqm33

  119. Jim Lippard

    Last year Telegraph deleted post by Delingpole after he published name & details of a person who then faced harassment http://t.co/nzVqm33

  120. Martin Shovel

    Last year Telegraph deleted post by Delingpole after he published name & details of a person who then faced harassment http://t.co/nzVqm33

  121. Alan Rowe

    Last year Telegraph deleted post by Delingpole after he published name & details of a person who then faced harassment http://t.co/nzVqm33

  122. sunny hundal

    @oliverburkeman @helenlewis don't forget that @jamesdelingpole was happy to do this though http://t.co/kNeDISAl





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.