Guardian continue their Tax Avoidance crusade.

Sir_Humphrey

The only reason I posted the link was to avoid the charge that I was making it up. Remember that Nick Mason is a university contempory of mine, and I was well aware he used to work in banking - not quite the impression he was giving on this board. The reason I knew that is because he decided to put himself into public life by becoming president of the Oxford Union - I barely knew the guy at University other than by his reputation.

I don't see how he is going to get any worse $8!t than me as a result. He has been quite content to misrepresent my views in the past - if you dish it out you have to take it.

To be frank, it never even crossed my mind that linking to his blog would cause him offence - if there were home addresses or whatever on that blog I could not see them. I made sure of that.

I do not see how he can complain that I have infringed his privacy by linking to the blog he decided to put into the public domain. Why he decided to do that without a nom de plume is beyond me, but since he decided to do so I reasonably assumed he would be okay with that.

He is certainly the first blogger I have heard of who has objected to publicity (apart from maybe Derek Draper ).

I would be the first to admit that I put my views across very bluntly sometimes, but we are all adults here surely?

moggylover

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The only reason I posted the link was to avoid the charge that I was making it up. Remember that Nick Mason is a university contempory of mine, and I was well aware he used to work in banking - not quite the impression he was giving on this board. The reason I knew that is because he decided to put himself into public life by becoming president of the Oxford Union - I barely knew the guy at University other than by his reputation.

I don't see how he is going to get any worse $8!t than me as a result. He has been quite content to misrepresent my views in the past - if you dish it out you have to take it.

To be frank, it never even crossed my mind that linking to his blog would cause him offence - if there were home addresses or whatever on that blog I could not see them. I made sure of that.

I do not see how he can complain that I have infringed his privacy by linking to the blog he decided to put into the public domain. Why he decided to do that without a nom de plume is beyond me, but since he decided to do so I reasonably assumed he would be okay with that.

He is certainly the first blogger I have heard of who has objected to publicity (apart from maybe Derek Draper ).

I would be the first to admit that I put my views across very bluntly sometimes, but we are all adults here surely?

I can see exactly where you are coming from, and I suppose you are right really that if he uses his own name, and has a blog, then at some stage the two are going to get linked.

I'm pretty sure that I could "identify" another poster on MSE myself (and I suspect that I know him well and worked with him) but I choose not to be certain about the fact because I don't think that is in the spirit of an internet forum of this kind really, however, in retrospect perhaps Mr Mason rather asked for his "outing" - but I would have respected you more had you resisted:D

I wish that we could all move away from "misrepresenting" what others are saying: especially all the politicians out there:D. Seems to be a latter day ill that we are lumbered with and I can understand your frustration.

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

Rats, I was cming back to edit something into that, but I'll leave it now.:D

Sowwweeeeee LIR! It was good just as it stood though:D

lostinrates

moggylover wrote: »

I can see exactly where you are coming from, and I suppose you are right really that if he uses his own name, and has a blog, then at some stage the two are going to get linked.

I'm pretty sure that I could "identify" another poster on MSE myself (and I suspect that I know him well and worked with him) but I choose not to be certain about the fact because I don't think that is in the spirit of an internet forum of this kind really, however, in retrospect perhaps Mr Mason rather asked for his "outing" - but I would have respected you more had you resisted:D

I wish that we could all move away from "misrepresenting" what others are saying: especially all the politicians out there:D. Seems to be a latter day ill that we are lumbered with and I can understand your frustration.

Of course we could, and some of us have, googled Nick, but as Sir Humphrey says, this was motivated by Sir H's 'personal knowledge' of Nick. This sort of confirms for me the point I was trying to make about ''spirit of the rules'' and morality.

I think Nick was stupid, frankly, to use his own name here, but it makes me very sad that that is how it is: and a very sad reflection on us as a grouo and indeed asa society. Perhaps it would be a better format if we were all forced to use our own names and all stand equally behind our real life decisions, not just what we say here. I think to draw attention to the real life contact point of someone here,from behind a persona, is pretty low. FWIW I know how to contact some of our 'dearly departed' from MSE. but I haven't because I think that would be poor form too.

Sir_Humphrey

lostinrates wrote: »

I think to draw attention to the real life contact point of someone here,from behind a persona, is pretty low.

I am not convinced by Nick's protestations to be frank. A lot of blogs and pressure groups are Tory supported. For instance, the Guido Fawkes blog is written by a Tory supporter, Paul Staines, and the Tax Payers Alliance is funded via the Tories, if what I read in the press is correct. Conservativehome is another site that used to have a different name 10 Doughty Street. I know people who have worked with Tim Montgomerie.

It beggars belief that someone in Nick's position is just blogging for the sake of it. I also notice a lot of other posters whose main contributions are to post links from Guido or the Taxpayers Alliance. I find it very hard to believe they are not shills for those people.

I also find the hypocrisy and humbug from the Tories quite sickening. They rightly attack McBride and Draper for their smears, yet employ Andy Coulson who as editor of the News of the World printed photos of George Osborne with a hooker and white powder and ran stories based on the illegal bugging of the royal family.

If Nick had been a New Labour blogger, I think the reaction here would have been rather different - the difference between a snark and a whistleblower is whose side you are on.

Nick is also someone who I know has never been shy of publicity, so I find it a little difficult to believe his anger. The link to the blog was embarrassing but not a security issue...any echoes of Jacqui Smith?

So you see why I was not prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I realise it may have looked harsh, but I had my reasons.

Sir_Humphrey

As for being open, I have tried to explain what I do for a living in as much detail as I can without compromising my security.

My reward was to be taken out of context, deliberately misinterpreted, smeared and abused.

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I am not convinced by Nick's protestations to be frank. A lot of blogs and pressure groups are Tory supported.

Are you trying to say this is a uniquely tory situtaion?

It beggars belief that someone in Nick's position is just blogging for the sake of it.

Is Nick not also a person as well as a person in a position. Frankly it beggar's belief a lot of us are here, but we are!
I also find the hypocrisy and humbug from the Tories quite sickening.

I find the hypocracy from all angles disgusting, boring and many other things.


If Nick had been a New Labour blogger, I think the reaction here would have been rather different - the difference between a snark and a whistleblower is whose side you are on.

Not from me it wouldn't.

Nick is also someone who I know has never been shy of publicity, so I find it a little difficult to believe his anger.
This is the sort of thing I think the rest of us don't know about the rest of us to battle back with. I doubt many of us are faultless people...are you?
So you see why I was not prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I realise it may have looked harsh, but I had my reasons.

You know, I don't. Your reasons...are they public too?

Sir H, you can be a good contributer. The fireworks thread was ridiculous TBH. Its like me asking you all to boost my ego by telling me how pretty I am...I can say I'm pretty but how do you know if I'm not going to post a picture of myself.

TBH, it makes me sad you seem unable to try why this is not a nice thing to have done. ETA: it is a position that makes me very uncomfortable in our society and politics and in railing against one thing you don't like you've simply highlighted another detestable.

Sir_Humphrey

lostinrates wrote: »

You know, I don't. Your reasons...are they public too?

Sir H, you can be a good contributer. The fireworks thread was ridiculous TBH. Its like me asking you all to boost my ego by telling me how pretty I am...I can say I'm pretty but how do you know if I'm not going to post a picture of myself.

TBH, it makes me sad you seem unable to try why this is not a nice thing to have done.

I never said it was a nice thing to do. I am not always a nice person if I am angered. Most of the time I am nice. Let he has no sin etc etc.

The fireworks thread was poorly written and open to misinterpretation.

EDIT: I know you would not take that attitude. you are consistently the voice of calm and reason on this board and it would be poorer without yiou.

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

EDIT: I know you would not take that attitude. you are consistently the voice of calm and reason on this board and it would be poorer without yiou.

Sir Humphrey, I will not be changing my opinion on whether justification or an apology was the appropriate response here. The more it is justifies the more I find it distasteful, and the more I feel that my ''spirit of the rules' comments were regretably apt.

Thank you for the compliments. However, it might surprise you to know that if you knew me you might think differently. I'm as mad as a march hair and have as good a kick. Or am I? I hope noone who knows me seeks to discredit my proclaimation of myself with posting details of my non MSE life.

michaels

lostinrates wrote: »

Its like me asking you all to boost my ego by telling me how pretty I am...I can say I'm pretty but how do you know if I'm not going to post a picture of myself.

I'm happy to assume you are pretty - I saw it written on the internet so I beleive it.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

With respect, a smear is only a smear if it is actually untrue.

This is what I find wrong with politics in this country - it is not about challenging people's ideas but using personal information if it is available, whether it is relevant or not, to attack one's opponents.

I have probably posted personal stuff about me on here and other forums that I would not want released to the general public but I feel that for this board I would be happy to post what I have to say under my own name.