Housing crisis. Number 10 apologises over tory slur e-mail

nickmason

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

After all, if its OK politically and morally to openly lie about economics ....

But to split an infinitive....now that really is beyond the pale...:D

Rochdale_Pioneers

More on Nadine Dorres this morning. She's "furious and appalled" by Brown's letter to her referring to "our politics". As she responds, "It is the cesspit of 10 Downing Street and to say that we are all tarred with the same brush as Damian McBride is unacceptable"

So, on how shaky a surface is standing in huffily making such statements? Lets look back at the Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry into abortion. Dr Goldacre provided evidence which she disagreed with, so when the committee reported she issued a "minority report" where she said this of Goldacre:

"We were greatly concerned to read in the Guardian on 27 October an article clearly aimed at undermining the credibility of Professor John Wyatt, which contained detailed information about Wyatt’s evidence, which was passed by him to the committee after his oral evidence session, and which could only have been passed on to the journalist concerned by a member of the Select Committee. There should be an enquiry about how this information got into the public domain and as to whether such a personal attack represents a serious breach of parliamentary procedure.."

Sadly her attempt to smear him didn't last too long - despite the baton being picked up by Tory luminaries such as Iain Dale - when Goldacre was easily able to demonstrate where he got the information from (in that he had supplied those details to the committee!). Various bloggers picked up on this and asked her why she had smeared the reputation of Dr Goldacre, as one comment on Iain Dale's blog notes :

"I have posted this on Nadine Dorries blog:
You make a serious allegation against the Guardian and by implication the journalist (Ben Goldacre) that wrote the piece. Yet as he explains here (http://www.badscience.net/2007/10/oooooh-im-in-the-minority-report/#more-561), he based his article on published information.
You should either justify why you have de facto accused him of "a breach of parliamentary procedure" or apologise and withdraw the comment."

Dorres responded by switching off comments on her blog, claiming to be too busy suddenly to process them!

Interesting that a smear artist would suddenly find her high horse at the notion of being on the receiving end of a smear. I can understand her being upset by what McBride was planning, but making a public spectacle of herself claiming to be above the "cesspit" is the height of hypocracy.

Graham_Devon

Bless you, Rochdale.

You really are trying. But again, they don't even compare, and you know it!!

A smear, over some evidence is absolutely NOTHING like completely made up lies at a very very personal, family level.

Why do you do this?

benood

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

More on Nadine Dorres this morning. She's "furious and appalled" by Brown's letter to her referring to "our politics". As she responds, "It is the cesspit of 10 Downing Street and to say that we are all tarred with the same brush as Damian McBride is unacceptable"

So, on how shaky a surface is standing in huffily making such statements? Lets look back at the Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry into abortion. Dr Goldacre provided evidence which she disagreed with, so when the committee reported she issued a "minority report" where she said this of Goldacre:

"We were greatly concerned to read in the Guardian on 27 October an article clearly aimed at undermining the credibility of Professor John Wyatt, which contained detailed information about Wyatt’s evidence, which was passed by him to the committee after his oral evidence session, and which could only have been passed on to the journalist concerned by a member of the Select Committee. There should be an enquiry about how this information got into the public domain and as to whether such a personal attack represents a serious breach of parliamentary procedure.."

Sadly her attempt to smear him didn't last too long - despite the baton being picked up by Tory luminaries such as Iain Dale - when Goldacre was easily able to demonstrate where he got the information from (in that he had supplied those details to the committee!). Various bloggers picked up on this and asked her why she had smeared the reputation of Dr Goldacre, as one comment on Iain Dale's blog notes :

"I have posted this on Nadine Dorries blog:
You make a serious allegation against the Guardian and by implication the journalist (Ben Goldacre) that wrote the piece. Yet as he explains here (http://www.badscience.net/2007/10/oooooh-im-in-the-minority-report/#more-561), he based his article on published information.
You should either justify why you have de facto accused him of "a breach of parliamentary procedure" or apologise and withdraw the comment."

Dorres responded by switching off comments on her blog, claiming to be too busy suddenly to process them!

Interesting that a smear artist would suddenly find her high horse at the notion of being on the receiving end of a smear. I can understand her being upset by what McBride was planning, but making a public spectacle of herself claiming to be above the "cesspit" is the height of hypocracy.

Abortion raises such high emotions I don't think you are comparing apples with apples. I also daresay that Ms Dorries believed her accusation to be correct, but perhaps that's naive.

You do seem to have the minutiae of political smears at your fingertips RP, very useful when it comes to rapid rebuttal I'm sure.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Bless you, Rochdale.

You really are trying. But again, they don't even compare, and you know it!!

A smear, over some evidence is absolutely NOTHING like completely made up lies at a very very personal, family level.

Why do you do this?

Where did I say they compare? Its not a contest to see who can wee higher up the wall. The question is can Dorres claim the moral high ground not to be in the gutter when it comes to smears? There are plenty of MPs out there who could because they haven't done any themselves. But as she has set out to smear someone who dared contradict her, she looks like a hypocrite when objecting to someone setting out to smear her. You don't think that someone trying to destroy your professional reputation by deliberately distorting events is doing something wrong? I'd find that pretty personal if I was on the receiving end. And why when a pile of proof showing her accusations to be false was published (as opposed to when they were originally published to her committee) did she not retract them or apologise? Or even accept that she had done something wrong?

Can I expect Mr Devon to dismiss any and all Tory smears now and forever as either not comparable or not relevant?

tomterm8

benood wrote: »

Abortion raises such high emotions I don't think you are comparing apples with apples. I also daresay that Ms Dorries believed her accusation to be correct, but perhaps that's naive.

You do seem to have the minutiae of political smears at your fingertips RP, very useful when it comes to rapid rebuttal I'm sure.

That's a bit unfair, isn't it? He's asked to give details of Tory smear campaigns, and then when he does, you imply there's something wrong with it?

Personally, I think the Conservatives are making a rod for their own back, in the same way Blair did before 1997. Removing the sleaze from politics is easy to do when you are out of office, but hard to do when you actually gain power.

Rochdale_Pioneers

tomterm8 wrote: »

That's a bit unfair, isn't it? He's asked to give details of Tory smear campaigns, and then when he does, you imply there's something wrong with it?

Apparently its a get out of jail free card. She believes strongly that she is right. This clouds her judgement and when she steps over the line and sets out to smear a doctor who contradicted her doctor its because of high emotion. When she refuses to withdraw the allegation and refuses to let contradicting voices post comments against her on her blog, its because she believes herself to be correct - facts to the contrary.

So apparently its OK for Tories to smear professional reputations if they believe that the pack of lies they told are justified by the end they pursue. Its like comparing apples and oranges to someone who tells a pack of lies because they feel strongly that they are right and that the end justifies the means.

Graham_Devon

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Where did I say they compare? Its not a contest to see who can wee higher up the wall. The question is can Dorres claim the moral high ground not to be in the gutter when it comes to smears?

Here:
More on Nadine Dorres this morning. She's "furious and appalled" by Brown's letter to her referring to "our politics". As she responds, "It is the cesspit of 10 Downing Street and to say that we are all tarred with the same brush as Damian McBride is unacceptable"

So, on how shaky a surface is standing in huffily making such statements?

Here:
Interesting that a smear artist would suddenly find her high horse at the notion of being on the receiving end of a smear.

There are plenty of MPs out there who could because they haven't done any themselves. But as she has set out to smear someone who dared contradict her, she looks like a hypocrite when objecting to someone setting out to smear her.

She's objecting to the PERSONAL level. Again, why do you even attempt to do this?! I heard the women on the radio yesterday and she said, in her own words, smears and spin was normal, but this was completely off the scale. I agree.

These are NOT political smears as you are trying to make out. These are PERSONAL smears. Personal to an astonishing, degrading level.

You don't think that someone trying to destroy your professional reputation by deliberately distorting events is doing something wrong? I'd find that pretty personal if I was on the receiving end. And why when a pile of proof showing her accusations to be false was published (as opposed to when they were originally published to her committee) did she not retract them or apologise? Or even accept that she had done something wrong?

Can I expect Mr Devon to dismiss any and all Tory smears now and forever as either not comparable or not relevant?

Again, smearing professional reputations, and smearing personal reputations and family life. Completely and utterly different.

I can't believe that you do not know the difference between the smears you are comparing. Therefore, all I can think is that your sheer desperation to water this down for your party, is taking over any kind of sensible reasoning you are sometimes able to share.

You keep banging on and on about the tories dsoing professional smearing, and then comparing it to downright personal abuse and lies.

benood

tomterm8 wrote: »

That's a bit unfair, isn't it? He's asked to give details of Tory smear campaigns, and then when he does, you imply there's something wrong with it?

Eh? What piffle - am I supposed to say "fair cop RP, you're right Nadine Dorries is right up there with McBride and Brown."

The reason there's such a stink about this sordid episode is that it takes the level of debate down even lower than it already sits.

tomterm8

No, it is entirely legitimate to say that the two smear camapigns are of a completely different nature, it is not legitimate to say "You do seem to have the minutiae of political smears at your fingertips RP, very useful when it comes to rapid rebuttal I'm sure" after there have been a large number of posts in the thread asking for precisely that information.