A fine take down but I am loath to read yet another EPIC DALE post, sometimes he gets far too much coverage out of proportion tot he quality of his writing.

So, in short: ‘prurient ‘ wasn’t the mot juste; he should have said ‘inevitably’ instead of ‘naturally’; and mental illness is a serious matter.

Yep…I’ll grant you the trifecta.

But was it really worth the detour via Iverness?

I really think we should all stop giving Dale the attention he craves.

its just those nassty leftissts again, my precioussssesss

To be said in the style of a pantomime dame, a gay Bond villain or an effeminate Hissing Sid?

(Presume you are not likening him to Gollum!!!!).

pagar, you really are pushing this crap a wee bit too far.

Hmm. Slightly thorny one. Mental health problems (been there, and work in MH) are not a joking matter (unless it’s the user making the gags) nor should they be used to denigrtae anyone.
However, and it’s something that gets omitted from much of the anti-stigma work (eg the otherwise laudable Time to Change stuff, though I do object to Mr Campbell being held up as some kind of poster boy for MH users. I don’t want to be associated with that liar.Others could have been given prominence) the corrolary of MH problems potentially hitting any one of us and that users of MH services are no different (bar their MH experience) from the next man/woman (because they are the next man/woman) is that some are despicable,some are laudable, some are wankers,some are saints: just the same as the wider population. Playing the MH card to get you out of a fix is pretty low behaviour,and I’ve seen it happen, but that scenario is definitely not proven for this case. Nonetheless, part of eradicating stigma and discrimination for MH users is for users to take ownership, as it were, of their MH. Thus while MH issues can explain bad behaviour, they can’t be used as an excuse for them.
However, and this is an almighty how-fucking-ever, Dale is way,way off beam in his insinuations here.
She has vile views, yup. She’s been embroiled in dodginess.She has MH problems. The first two do not connect with the last of those statements (merely coincide) and Dale displays discriminatory ignorance.

I totally and utterly agree with Daniel @1 and John Booth @3.
In my humble opinion you’re giving Dale exactly what he’s craving for: attention.

As much as I dislike Dale, go over to CiF (dodgy ground, I know) and read the article by Fionola Meredith. The tone of both above and below the line is remarkably close Dale’s. He’s not alone in this view. Even though his view might be a bit strong on this, I think there’s a lot of left-wing resonance with it.

Coincidentally I just had my own experience of him denying something that I thought he had said.

http://labourandcapital.blogspot.com/2010/01/person-on-internetz-is-wrong.html

I didn’t suggest at all that she had faked a suicide attempt. I dont believe that for one minute.

Dale may not have suggested that Robinson may have faked the suicide attempt but his suggestion that its somehow natural to engage in speculation about the veracity of her statement about her own mental health serves to legitimise speculation of precisely that kind, even if his follow-up comment about whether its right to automatically classify as suicide attempt as an indication of mental illness suggest that he’s speaking – as usual – from his own deep seated ignorance.

THANK YOU for highlighting this, it’s an example of one of the more egregious types of intellectual dishonesty. This kind of circumspect “Well *I* don’t believe this, but SOME people might…” way of talking is both deceptive and cowardly. It really reminds me of how Glenn Beck talks, and those familiar with GB will know that’s a very bad thing.

Why are Dale’s comments more worthy of a full response than David Semple’s comments on this site?

For example: ‘I certainly don’t wish Iris Robinson well; I’d happily see the entire DUP dropkicked into the Atlantic Ocean. Indeed were she gay, and not such a vigorous gay-basher, there’d probably be some obscure Free Presbyterian Minister claiming her ill-health was vengeance sent by God.’

You are spending too much time with Sunny if you think Dale is worth this much attention

I once approached Iain Dale about an emotionally fragile if not unstable individual who had already made a recent attempt at suicide (this was confirmed by police). A primary source/focus of this person’s agitation was a series of claims that have only ever seen the light of day on the weblogs of Paul Staines and Iain Dale.

(Basically, it involves repeated claims and implications that I am a Labour activist. Often this includes an implication of corruption, with my being secretly in the pay of Tom Watson, the Labour Party or the government, none of which is true.)

I had to threaten to lobby his advertisers to get it done, but Paul Staines had earlier removed these claims that he had published (that he knew not to be true).

However, objections to similar content/behaviour on the site of Iain Dale – involving claims that he published that he knew not to be true – led to him accusing me of a stalker, and publishing mutliple claims about my being mentally unstable.

Iain Dale did this knowing that at the same time I was being smeared as a paedophile by someone who *was* most likely mentally unstable, *and* that he had just neatly sidestepped an opportunity to do something to stop it.

(If you want to look into this for yourself, try asking Iain Dale why he didn’t call Patrick Mercer directly on my behalf as he agreed to. He will either tell you he did, which I can prove to be a lie, or give an excuse why he didn’t, which I can also prove to be a lie.)

Later, Iain Dale was shown an article by a third party combining his smears with the ‘paedo’ smears. (Iain cannot deny this or claim to have innocently missed an email as he has done so often in the past, because it was also shared with his lawyer.) That article built on his lies and claimed that I had a long history of mental illness and may have smeared myself as a paedophile. Despite knowing this, Dale claimed to be unaware of any link between the two smears, and even expected credit for not going quite so far as to smear me as a paedophile himself.

Iain Dale refused to even discuss removal of the older false claims and the newer claims of mental instability, even when I was threatened with violence by thugs repeating his ‘stalker’ smears.

When I attempted to contact him and warn him of the vulnerable, suicidal person who was visibly agitated by lies that only appeared on his website (i.e. by taking them to be true) he attempted to portray my concern for this man as a potential threat!!

(I have in my possession irrefutable proof of this disgraceful conduct. I guess in a way it was my mistake for begging him to act before someone got hurt; these are words that can easily be taken out of context and Iain Dale plays such games all too often.)

The third party who appears to have been feeding such false claims to the vulnerable/suicidal individual now relies on outright lies published by Iain Dale and Phil Hendren (among others) to attack me directly online, and by manipulating others in to attack me on his behalf. This has led to instances where my home address has been published next to the false claim that I am a ‘mad stalker’ (primary source: Iain Dale, who is aware of all of this)

This third party and the vulnerable/suicidal individual are both former associates of Tory MP Patrick Mercer.

Mercer refuses to speak with me or even discuss/disown the more malicious of his former associates on the grounds that I am an ‘electronic stalker’. Iain Dale is confirmed as the source of this false claim, too. He denies sharing with anyone else, but I have witnesses of Iain Dale attending public meetings in which he heavily implies that I am a stalker.

Repeatedly, Iain Dale has sought to defend some of what he has published ont he basis that it is ‘opinion’, even when he knows it has been interpreted as fact, and passed off as same.

While he is not the primary instigator, none of this extraordinary mess would have been possible without the input of Iain Dale, who still refuses to retract or correct the lies he has published about me on his website (often as anonymous comments, as if this affords him any plausible deniability).

He is a liar and a scoundrel who has knowingly exploited and enabled an ongoing smear campaign against me for personal/political gain.

Wow. Long comment. Sorry.

Summary: Iain Dale is a liar who doesn’t care who he hurts on his journey lickety-split up the ziggurat. He’ll even knowingly exploit a suicidal person if it suits him, and I can prove it.

I’d say you had a fair point, Shatterface, except that a) Dale seems to be widely considered a respectable source of commentary for the MSM, I’m not; b) I never challenged or repeated the meme which challenged the veracity of Robison’s mental health diagnosis and c) as a liberal, who doesn’t give a stuff about such things, I didn’t bother talking about my own or anyone else’s “prurient” views on the nature of her affair.

I’m sure that some people will speculate along those line, although there’s nothing natural about it, unless the suggestion is that some people are just naturally a bunch of scumbags.

I dont consider myself a scumbag, but my natural reaction to this was that she may be lying or over-exaggerating her mental illness and depression in order to elicit sympathy.

Mainly this was due to the fact that she has proved herself a liar and a cheat. Surely this is a natural assumption? Or are differing opinions to your own the unnatural thing?

Yeah – thanks for the link – and skewing my words out of all context…just what I’d expect from Liberal Conspiracy!

Sorry that was a bit harsh – thanks for defending me anyway!

Hmm, slightly confused Jo…where have you been taken out of context, were you actually in agreement with Dale despite appearances?

Jo,

Nothing that follows your quote, which is reproduced verbatim but for the omission of the specific segment of Dale’s post you cited, is intended to impute any particular meaning to your remarks.

What I’ve responded to is Dale’s article and his attempt to blow off your comment without addressing any of the points you raised.

I’m still angry that Iain cast obvious dispersions on her suicide attempt by wanting proof and further information about the attempt. That was mainly what got my back up. Everyone is entitled to sympathy and privacy as a human being even if they spout vile views. If Iain had been taken to hospital after a suicide attempt I would respect his privacy and not write a blog post wanting to know more information about whether he took pills or gassed himself and implying he wasn’t really unwell or emotionally ill.

Slightly off-topic (but in a strange way not….), the Guardian is saying Rod Liddle is set to become editor of the Independent.

Yes, I know that sounds ridiculous, but its the MediaGuardian team saying so – and they are quite often ahead of the pack.

Dale……… “You clearly didnt bother to read what I wrote. You read what you thought I had written. ”

Everything you ever wanted to know about Dale is in that one sentence.

As for the issue, I think we should just let them get on with it. Neither Dale or Robinson are worth defending. Robinson is another fake, right wing, come to JAYSUS piece of trash, and the other is a gay man who spends his life carrying water for a party full of people who hate him for what he is.

Waste of space the both of them.

Wow! Man complains who lies about someone complains that that someone publishes lies about them but refuse to tell that someone that lies have been published about him because he won’t engage with that person because they published lies about him.

Obviously that should have said:

“Wow! Man who lies about someone complains that that someone publishes lies about him, but refuses to tell that someone what lies have been published about him because he won’t engage with that someone because they published lies about him.”

Fat fingers, didn’t proof read until after hitting submit. Still… at least I wasn’t lying like some do.

dizzythinks (Phil Hendren):

I haven’t lied about anyone or anything, if that’s what you’re implying. And not only am I telling the truth, but I can prove everything I claim here.

(I do not burden other webmasters with libel. It is not polite.)

You continue to host a claim that you accept to be untrue, by the way, and it’s been repeated by the third party I mention here as part of his ‘case’. You’ve refused to so much as look at the details, and I can prove that too.

You’re comparing Ian Dale’s response with Peter Tatchell’s for what reason?

“You’re comparing Ian Dale’s response with Peter Tatchell’s for what reason?”

To show what a tit Dale is. NEXT

@sally:

You think that’s the reason do you? Many people must have given provided more sympathetic coverage than Dale. Why was Peter Tatchell’s response compare, specifically, do you think?

You’re comparing Ian Dale’s response with Peter Tatchell’s for what reason?

Because both have commented on the same story, albeit in a very different manner.

Unity, many people have commented on the same story. Why choose Tatchell particularly?

Ask the BBC – that’s where his comments were taken from.

I know perfectly well what you’re trying to insinuate here – don’t bother.

Why choose Tatchell particularly?

Sir Ian McKellen wasn’t available.

@Phil Hall – very good.

I wonder what Christopher Biggins has to say on the subject

While the brain injury that virtually forced Peter Tatchell out of politics cannot be directly attributed to Iris Robinson I must admit I found his comments about HER ill-health vaguely ironic.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/20/peter-tatchell-retires-interview

Now I’m not suggesting that civil rights activists like PT should do a Dale and start rejoicing at Robinson’s reported psychiatric problems, and apparent suicide attempt, but somebody, somewhere will suffer (again) because certain religious zealots continue to obsess about whose body part is inserted into which orifice.

Maybe PT is such a deeply empathic person that he is able forgive his tormentors even though he has personally suffered at the end of a long dysfunctional chain forged by the likes of Robinson and her ilk?

I don’t believe Robinson tried to commit suicide anyway. If she is such a devout Christian she should know that suicide is a big no, no for the bible bashers.

Sounds overly dramatic to me, and designed to garner the sympathy vote from the hicks. These people are snake oil salesman and bullshitting is what they do.

Have we heard from Alan Carr yet?

‘do a Dale and start rejoicing at Robinson’s reported psychiatric problems’

He didn’t. On the other hand, LibCon did celebrate Rush’s reported heart attack. That was the point, and is the point of this piece by Unity.

[38] Well, according to Dale,
“People will now naturally ask how true her confession of mental illness really was. She clearly attempted to kill herself, although we’re not told how near she came or how she tried to do it. That in itself is not proof of mental illness. It could just be a sign of a woman with nowhere else to go once she had been found out”.

‘A woman with nowhere to go’, eh, armchair diagnosis at full throttle, surely?
And from a non-clinician to boot (he makes psychiatry sound so very easy).

Dale doesn’t actually say that Robinson is playing ‘the mental health card’ but then again he doesn’t state (unequivocally) that she is a paedo either, but it is hard to deny that there is not a gloating tone, overall, to his analysis?

@the a&e charge nurse

So you lied then.

[40] ‘So you lied then’ …….. sorry, you’ve lost me?

Lost you, the a&e charge nurse? Not surprised. Here we go for the hard of thinking then:

In 35 you say:

I’m not suggesting that civil rights activists like PT should do a Dale and start rejoicing at Robinson’s reported psychiatric problems, and apparent suicide attemp

which implies, and only makes sense if, Dale did in fact rejoice at a suicide attempt and psychatric problems.

Then, in 39 you quote Dale. He doesn’t say anything to leave anyone with a couple of brain cells and a shred of honesty the remotest impression he ‘rejoiced’ and psychiatric problems or a suicide attempt.

So you lied. Easy.

[42] there is a certain triumphalism in Dale’s words after insinuating that not only did Robinson play ‘the mental health card’, but even exhibited a diluted form of paedophilia once events in her personal life began to unravel so dramatically.

It is hardly surprising that one or two have concluded that Dale is rather satisfied that a politician with repellent views on homosexuality has got her comeuppance (if we view the episode through Dale-tinted glasses).

Now, only somebody incapable of grasping the nuances of Dale’s comments would make the leap to claiming that somebody is ‘lying’ for suggesting he is, in fact, gloating over Robinson’s discomfiture.

Or what else do you call it when Dale opines, “people will now naturally ask how true her confession of mental illness really was”.
And, “it was odd for her to have a sexual relationship with someone 40 years her junior”.

Where is the lie exactly?

‘Where is the lie exactly’

You saidf he rejoiced at a suicide attempt. That’s a lie.

[44] so Dale was deeply upset at Robinson’s fall, eh?

Incidentally do you know what schadenfreude means?

Phil S, your desperation to fight Dale’s corner and insidious little comments are getting pretty tedious; your protestations carry no weight here, neither do your paper thin strawman arguments.

I don’t think Dale needs me to fight his corner. I was just correcting the a&e charge nurse who, I see, has accepted my charge of lying.

How about Sir Elton, Unity? Have you canvassed his opinion yet?

Phil: first off your dragging out of gay stereotypes is tedious, second off I can’t see where the a&e nurse has done such a thing.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill – I think you might need an irony top-up. Unity’s choice of Tatchell’s words with which to berate Dale had laready done the job.

No, I think you need to stop confusing your interpretation of Unity’s post with anything like fact.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill thanks you’re so right.

See? Irony again. Did you get it this time?

Incidentally, Daniel Hoffmann-Gill, what stereotypes have I dragged out? Do tell, I’m all ears.

Actually Daniel Hoffmann-Gill, I just read your profile on your blog and I see that you do indeed have an irony blindness problem.

Three comments to say so little? What is it? This awful missives come to you in tiny bursts.

Phil, your trolling of this thread with tedious stereotypes and a delusional sense that your opinion is fact speaks volumes about you, as does your need to pass judgement on my blogger profile.

Best if you get lost now, you’re showing yourself up.

What stereotypes Daniel Hoffmann-Gill? Do you think that naming well-known gay men is somehow stereotyping them more than Unity’s peculiar decision to compare Dale with Tatchell?

your need to pass judgement on my blogger profile

I didn’t need but I found it funny. Shouldn’t I have found it funny?

Stereotypes as in the long list of gay men you keep mentioning and in response to your question the answer is no, the use of Tatchell by Unity was in the correct context in my opinion and was not stereotyping.

You are going to have to accept that opinions different to yours are more than acceptable.

As for your interest in me and my profile, I’m touched you are living vicariously through me, keep going old bean.

Stereotypes as in the long list of gay men

That’s a long list of gay men. You do know what a stereotype,/em> is, do you?

the use of Tatchell by Unity was in the correct context

What, Dale and Tatchell are both gay? Oh that’s a good reason.

old bean

I bet all those disadvantaged people you help must be so grateful they barely hv a forelock left to tug. Pip, pip!

Good grief Phil, you do protest too much don’t you in the desperate defence on your idea, which you are free to hold but once again you fail to realise that not everyone has to agree with it and, god forbid, people can find you and your idea ridiculous.

For your first ‘point’, your tedious spamming of the thread with a variety of gay men’s names was and is tedious and has an air of homophobia about it, esp. the ‘point’ you are trying, weakly to make so thus having to overreach and over assert yourself.

And yes more, than aware of what a stereotype is, you are dragging those out.

Second ‘point’, I see you are struggling with the thought of someone disagreeing with you, so you have to push your limited ideas again, as if you are forgetting that myself and others do not agree with you personal take on this post at all.

That is allowed, you do know that don’t you?

As for my use of the word ‘old bean’, (I find it odd the terrible lengths you are going to to try and attack me, you really are scraping the barrel) it was a replacement for a far more suitable word I could have used to describe you but best not to sink to that level, you moron.

As for disadvantaged young people, how thick are you to pass a silly judgment on the use of one phrase and think that somehow reflects an entire human? Idiot that you are, you fit the type of EPIC DALE’S fan base quite nicely with this trite.

Come back to me when you’re not hiding behind an anonymous profile and when you’ve actually perhaps spend well over 13 years working with hard to help young people you tit.

I think it’s worth observing that Iain Dale would, for a number of reasons, look quite ridiculous if he turned up here throwing similar accusations of homophobia about himself. Also, Iain would be more accountable for that action than, say, someone whose identity and reputation ends with a name used in this thread/site.

It would also be damaging to his image were he to play any man this obviously while accusing them of ignoring the ball.

Iain is fortunate in a way that he can rely on anonymous comments that do this for him so often, but there is a limit to their credibility, and little point to convincing the person behind them of anything; chances are they don’t really believe what they are claiming/implying and/or are unwilling to stake their own reputation on it.

[I'm happy to point out to those who are OUTRAGED by certain IMPLICATIONS that Iain Dale has repeatedly denied making anonymous/sock-puppet comments himself. He just makes a regular habit of ducking behind them on his own damn site when it suits him, allowing their authors to wander freely/unchecked on his site (when they're on his side; Iain will often make accusations of 'leftist' puppetry, but has never produced any evidence to back it). This behaviour creates a welcoming atmosphere for the type of comment contributor that most bloggers shun, but the frequency of similar support Iain enjoys off-site is merely a happy by-product, I'm sure. Incidentally, Iain also denies secretly briefing sock-puppeting supporters about issues/people he is having difficulty with, but this turned out to be a bit of a fib... or maybe he just surrendered to temptation just the one time he got caught.]

Phil S: If Iain Dale has an issue with what has been published here, he is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, and is probably the only person who can push/labour the point to any extent with any justification or credibility. Right now you appear to have arrived at a place beyond reaching to make your point, where you are reaching for justification for personal attacks in defence of your point (clearly indicating that you are well past the point where you can hope to make your point). All you are doing now is adding to the impression that Iain Dale is far too reliant on flawed interventions from anonymous people.

Is anyone up for a betting pool on how many comments are required on a LibCon thread about hypocrisy (conflict between personal conduct and professed political views) before the debate descends into idiocy?

On the other Iris Robinson thread, we conducted ourselves very well for a while, and tolerably for most of it. The descent rate on this thread would have benefited from a moderating parachute.

Thanks for your advice Tim. I’ll ignore it and hope you don’t feel too hurt – sorry if that took you a long time to write. We all know about your history with Dale so I’m sure you’ll understand if I scoff gently and skip on.

Here’s the issue: Unity writing for LibCon unconvincingly tried to claim Dale had revelled in another’s illness only because LibCon had been called out for doing that by Dale.

In the case of LibCon, of course, it really did happen. In the example of Dale, it didn’t.

And I thought it quite remarkable that Unity thinks the best way of indicating what Dale should have said is by quoting Tatchell. And the only reason Tatchell was used is because he’s gay.

As for Daniel Double-Barrel…well, he’s just sad. Read his writing? It’s terrible.

Tim:

You are right of course, their is a limit to the credibility of anonymous commenters and also a limit to engaging them and it is odd the lengths the defender of Iain is going to.

You claim the issue to be as follows:

“Unity writing for LibCon unconvincingly tried to claim Dale had revelled in another’s illness only because LibCon had been called out for doing that by Dale.”

That may be your opinion, but without any kind of reputation to back your opinion (on anything), you rely entirely on the case you make in between off-topic attacks on critics. This is not helped when (like Dale) you repeatedly attempt to pass off your opinion as fact.

Go ahead and keep it up if you like, but I doubt you’ll be able to push it much further on any site (bar Dale’s) and most people will be filing your efforts under ‘yet another nasty sock puppet fighting Dale’s corner’ anyway.

For a start, if I was a gay man

You aren’t? Next best thing I bet.