No Junk mail! (Copy and stick on your door)

Tory Lies (4) :barclays Dully Tele Guido Fawkes Lumley sham

How despicable can the Dully Tele get?

They tolerate the homophobic libels of Lumley (see my blog post 1 above), delete my responses and the quite unimpeachable original comments to which the rabid raving rabbit took objection . . 

They allow posters to copy libels from Guido's blog, which in situ, were protected by his company being registered in the WIndies . .  (Paul Staines in turn refused to publish my allegations re that on his blog, while immediately publishing the low down on la dolally Lumley . . )

Now they have deleted Nadine Dorries' efforts on their own site:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/23/dorries-tory-mp-blog-taken-down

Dorries may be a loopy cuckoo in the Tory nest, tolerated for her lively and bouncing persona, but it is all part of a pattern of Dully Propaganda for the extreme right, not the actions of a freedom loving, if irracible Telegraph of old. 

And people are cottoning on, Labour's better than expected rating in the latest Euro-election oriented poll suggests that . . .

Shurely shome libertarian shlepping shocker - eh what?

Thrice Dully Tele: The campaign of Tory abuse and libels (3)

This entry in the Urban Dictionary sums up so much of the modern Daily Telegraph:

1.	Dully Tele
	1) The Daily Telegraph, a London based conservative newspaper often enlisted in boring and dull propaganda for the UK Conservative Party.  2) One who writes such propaganda; more generally those who follow such lines, whether readers or not, bloggers and posters of such mind and expression.  3) (More generally) tedious, tendentious, dull in a dispirited and dispiriting way. The Daily Telegraph when acting in propagandist mode, and its writers, readers, bloggers and posters in like actions.  "Think I've been dully teled."  "Doom, doom, and thrice Dully Tele. . . "  "You Dully Teles" get on everyone's . . . nerves . . "  "Dully Tele or {Dilly Tele], that is the question . . " Increasingly like a wannabe shock jock with an anal obsession, it is not what it once was.

Harriet says it all: The campaign of Tory abuse and Libels (2)

Says it all really . . 

The Dully Tele lied to make a story about Labour splits . . . Leadership travails & etc Brown on his way out . . the long knives are out . . .

The scunners were caught out again! On a quiet news day through the determination and bravery of Ms Harman the BBC had no choice but to show Harriet's copy of the Dully with the 'story' denied.

BUT that didn't stop them showing the original over and over again though.

Oh, and a nice bank holiday obsession re B Johnson and Mrs Thatcher - eh? What?

Neow why might anyone think that the Dully Tele/Ashcroft/tory plan is:

1 Get rid of Brown by any means possible - abuse and libel not a problem

2 Win election with Pinnochio Cameron apparently i/c Conservative Party

3"Give way" to "popular" demand for G Osborne/B Johnson leadership as soon as Cameron falters and redraw Great Britain's economic, democratic and social structure - plutocracy, anti muslim racist legislation, low tax for rich, more decontrolled private rented housing,  private police forces, sell off the BBC etc

 

The campaign of Tory Abuse and libels (1)

A doctrine of overwhelming abusive libel is in train to drive an elected government from office. I call it the Staines Doctrine, because those on the Daily Telegraph Blogs and other propaganda efforts seem to have an almost sybaritic pleasure in aping the worst excesses of Paul Staines’ Guido Fawkes site. Journos like Simon Heffer run parallel to such molestations.

A topical example I cite involves a poster using the screen name Patsy Redeyes, who originally called herself Patsy Greeneyes and displayed an avatar picture of the actress Ms Lumley. She used homophobic obscene abuse of the PM and those of her fellow posters who took generally pro Labour views on the Daily Telegraph blogs. A similar poster may be found on Guido Fawkes using Joanna Lumley’s name.

I objected to the Telegraph (or Dully Tele, as seems appropriate) and some were removed. I copied some before they went.

Thinking that Ms Lumley’s good name was being abused by some lunatic I phoned her Literary Agent to explain. The lady I spoke to suggested I try her Theatrical Agent, which I did leaving a message.

An hour or so later Patsy Redeyes wrote as follows:

On Iain Martin's post In punishing aspiration Labour is committing electoral suicide

“Aw shucks Baron and there was me thinking you didn't care,oh dear, I think i'm gonna cry.”

and:

On Iain Martin's post In punishing aspiration Labour is committing electoral suicide

“Ms Lumley,Ms Lumley?

“How very dare you,Patsy Redeyes,IF you don't mind,these Redeyes were very expensive don't ya know.”

Almost all my posts on this blog have been removed. Only one of them - in which I suggested that women obsessed with their phobia about male homosexuality, as Ms Lumley evidently is, may have a reason for some sort of jealousy - deserved to be removed, and I asked for it to be removed myself, rather more speedily than the female poster who claims there that she did. As she used the “c” word on another occasion her bona fides as a defender of public decency is somewhat flawed.

Who goes back to remove posts in this fashion? Or at least ask for them to be removed? Is it the same Cameron thrall who changed the details about the painter Titian on Wiki to suit Cameron’s error when challenging Gordon Brown over the date of the painter’s death?

Does Lord Ashcroft, of Belize, whose contributions to the Tory operation are now subject to serious question by the authorities, bankroll this aspect of the Tory propaganda machine? Perhaps his minions had warned Cameron about standing so close to Lumley - he did look very uncomfortable, didn't he?