Guardian continue their Tax Avoidance crusade.

Thrugelmir

Read today that U2 ( the rock band) are resident in the Netherlands for tax purposes. So just shows that really it doesn't matter who you are or what you say you believe in. To reduce tax liabilities to the lowest possible is in everyones blood. If you've got the money you can afford to employ advisors.

tomstickland

Yeah, but Bono has saved Africa or something.

nickmason

Okay, so having seen some of the fall-out (MSE posted me an update, and I couldn't resist the curiosity), I am moved to write a postscript - and just to spoil someone else's cheap stunt, I recognise that this is a reversal of my statement not to be back!

First up, I have no ask to grind with Sir Humphrey pointing out that I have a blog - he is of course correct that I put that in the public domain (although fwiw, I did it for a local audience rather than an attempt to enter the mainstream blogosphere). Nor do I deny that I am in the public domain by dint of being an elected representative, and indeed I am very aware that having mentioned the council I serve on, anyone could easily track me down.

As some people have correctly pointed out, it was stupid to come on here with my name, but it really was the first time I'd ever got involved in an online community, and so it was genuinely more naivety than anything else. a couple of people did warn me of my mistake, but by then I was already established.

There was an optimism in my decision to keep using that name; I thought that by being accountable - I do find all the sock puppeting as it's called enormously obstructive to debate - for what I say it might add credibility. It also struck me as a useful discipline on my own thought!

The reason for my departure is more nuanced. Twice now Sir Humphrey has strayed into personal attacks - not horrendously so, but to an extent that I wanted to retaliate, but could see the impossibility of that approach. One was the post on this thread that warned me against encouraging the nutters while drawing attention to my vulnerability of being identifiable. The other was the suggestion that someone that we both know from university was keen to be lobbied, suggesting corruption, and a bizarre attempt at associating me with him. Neither of these were particularly serious, yet it was clear to me that Sir Humphrey's willingness to use what he knew of me was something I could not negate.

I struggled with this, because one would hope that I could respond with facts alone, and rise above it. But I found the position impossible. Sir Humphrey's response at 1:17 is a case in point (incidentally it is full of untruths and is frankly worthy of the Draper school of blogging), but specifically:

Nick is also someone who I know has never been shy of publicity,

You see, I have no idea how he can claim to know that, but it simply isn't true. I could give you vast swathes of evidence about me that illustrates the opposite. But I don't care to, because that would give him more of my personal life story that I don't want to reveal, especially now.

I can't even rebut Sir Humphrey's "authority" to "know" stuff about me, because I have no knowledge who he is. He seems to "know" lots of things that aren't true, but I don't know whether that is deliberate misdirection or just ignorance.

I really don't have an axe to grind against Sir Humphrey. If the playing field were level, I'd be more than happy to engage - as I said, I don't think he's done anything despicable. And what he has done, he seems aware of:

I never said it was a nice thing to do. I am not always a nice person if I am angered

He also has maintained that he has his reasons for remaining anonymous; in the light of my experience, I understand his position, and so I don't see any way to rebalance this without me posting anonymously. Which, IF it happens, I won't be telegraphing here. In any event, I was never a fan of the sock-puppeting.

But as things are, there is no benefit in fighting this imbalanced fight - I think cat695 has some sense in his signature about this! And I'd rather leave now, before it got worse, or before I betrayed myself in a battle against an ethereal opponent.

LIR has it right; it's sad that it has to be this way.