Doesn't time fly? It was way back on Sunday morning that Dizzy_Thinks was graced by THIS steaming pile of peese extract, taking the piss, entitled "N for Vendetta?". Widely linked to by the likes of subject's mates Tim Montgommerie and the like. The subject has so many mates it's untrue, and "enemies", which is kinda the point of the Dizzy post.
In which a young Aylesbury Duck - clumsy, waddly and overweight creatures that they are, not very bright, easy to catch out, often mistaken by townies for a goose having a gander - Mr Phil Hendren, for it is he, ever so very slightly missed couch potato doyen of the ill-fated 18 Doughty Street bloggers sofa, makes some wild assertions about fellow bloggers of a more progressive persuasion.
To whit that myself "the Manchester Labour blogger Chris Paul", Sunny Hundal and Unity at Liberal Conspiracy (also at Pickled Politics and Ministry of Truth respectively), and in particular Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads have an unconscionable down on a certain notorious daughter of Liverpool.
Now on a constant and arduous, nay Sisyphean journey between Beds and Cots, Cots and Beds, Beds and Cots. Second and Main. Main and Second. Second and main. Apparently. So she say. Which we must of course believe. Until and unless anyone shows anything different.
Mr Hendren ignores the many and varied interesting dimensions of his heroine Ms Nadine Bargery-Dorries Mum-P's character and behaviour and utterings and creates a bizarre narrative arc for the bloggeration - shorthand for the critical and incredulous bants and repartee - generated by this imagined "progressive conspiracy" against the Princess of the Blogs, Ms Nadine Bargery-Dorries Mum-P. So bizarre that I feel a song coming on and must digress at this point. [digression]
Her old man's a dustman
He wore a dustman's hat
He wore cor blimey trousers
And he lived in a council flat
Well not quite. Nad's dad George Bargery was salt-of-the-earth, but not ever a dustman as far as I know. He had no need for hats. He almost certainly did not wear [rather Cockney] cor blimey trousers. Except perhaps to a fancy dress do. More likely cool drapes or leathers. And while much of the family went on to live in a council house. George didn't. As far as I can work out. From extensive research.[/digression]
Goodness, I don't know why I threw that song in really. But hey ho. That by the way is an Australian version of the loved and loathed yeasty spreadable. Diddy Thinks suggests we're not bewitched exactly by Ms Nadine Bargery-Dorries Mum-P .. because she is a girl and that obviously makes her silly so what we on about. Or something like that anyway. Which is I feel a vile smear, and as the careful-when-it-suits him, Hendren might say a "potentially actionable" one at that.
The man who is about to look such a damned fool, before very long I'd guess, goes on to say that we'd all "hate" her even if she were a socialist. Because she's like Marmite. You either love her or loathe her.
What! Projectile! Rot! That! Is!
Ms Nadine Bargery-Dorries Mum-P has attention from both the mainstream press - good and bad - and attention from the bloggerati - good and bad - ENTIRELY on merit. Because she's worth it. Just as this classless meritocrat would want it. And, My Mate Phil, it's way more complicated than Marmite. Here's what Dizzy did to my comment, offered in good faith, with much love and respect:
Which is, actually, a completely unfounded smear-and-a-half. What he did next I understand was to forward the unpublished "much of it possibly actionable" (in his writ) comment to Ms Nadine Bargery-Dorries Mum-P. And what else is he suggesting? What a complete twunt! In the nicest possible way. More of which, anon.
So, here (yawn, I know, zzz Phil) is my comment as would have been in a blogger's comment context that Diddy Rascal would not publish and saw fit to smear me over, and to pass on to his heroine:
Let's be clear Dizzy:
As you know I think, I could go on. All this Telegraph/Lib Con kerfuffle about PR Companies aside there are many more lines of interest.
Are you seriously suggesting there is no reason to look into any of this? Could be Guido would have made a better job of dragging these things into the light of day, we'll never know, but the idea that this is just Marmite or in anyway not an appropriate topic is just crackers. Marmite on Crackers.
Watch this space as they say.
All the best
* I've made a couple of very small amends to this as it's not a blog comment any longer, but essentially it's as near verbatim as damn it. Clearly in the usual run of things a blog comment may then attract further comments and a conversation may ensue. If the blog owner allows this. Like Paul Staines aka Guido Fawkes aka Mister GuF, and Iain Dale, perhaps more so Mr Hendren is a notoriously partial moderator, editor and selector of comments to publish. That's his choice. Just pointing it out.
Soon enough Ms Nadine Bargery-Dorries Mum-P wrote to me (Howzat!? I never knew she cared) after it seems receiving this comment from the Diddy Thinks. Who was copied in. Suggesting that Carter Ruck should henceforth be taking my twitterings and bloggerings and so on into account when they were weighing up who to gag and suppress with firm but fair bullying. But essentially a chummy blogger-to-bloggger missive. Which I appreciate. There's no reason to fall out now is there? Facts are sacred but comment is free. Quoth a great Scott.
Ridiculous as ever! Nadine! This is why we all love you so! There were four particular points made about the above "much of it possibly actionable comment" (Phil Hendren) and I must presume also the last Nadine-related post on my blog also.
So, Nadine would like me to point out that:
Later we'll deal with at least one of these four areas. With some pictures and maps, and few words. Which will make a pleasant change. Meanwhile here's Delboy's take on the Marmite, Frankenstein Foods question: