Freedom of Information Act request ?
The website supposedly set up to smear the Tory Party in the run-up to a general election was registered to a House of Commons address. A cunning someone used the name Olly Cromwell and opted to keep their address private. But The Times reckons a Commons contact address was used when theredrag.co.uk was registered last …
Mandleson returns Oct 2008, domain registered Nov 2008. Correlation is not causality, it could also be the reasons for bringing back Mandelson, a known backstabber, were the *same* reasons that caused this site to be set up. Not necessarily that he instigated it.
Again an interesting correlation, the Labour party use Easily for their (other?) attack sites:
Cancelling or altering the domain name
16 We may cancel or put the domain name into a special status by notifying you if:
16.1 we receive independent proof that you have provided significantly inaccurate, not correct, unreliable or false contact details (including names), failed to keep your contact details up to date, or failed to give us those details at all;
Erm, hang on a second, the arrest of Tory MP Damien Green by Bob Quick was also November 2008, shortly after the return of the Mandelson.
As I've pointed out before Bob Quick *DOES* inform the Home Office about pending arrests under anti-terror legislation, we know this because he was caught taking papers about the arrest into the meeting and had to resign.
Which means that when he arrested Damien Green MP under the SAME anti-terror legislation, the SAME officer arresting someone under the SAME legislation would also do the SAME thing and tell the home office all about it.
Yet Brown and Smith say 'no, we didn't know, it's an operational matter, etc. etc.'
A political party user a smear campaign to complain about a smear campaign.
All party politicians are interested in power above all. That is why they join a party. If they had any interest in doing the right thing for their constituency they would not join an organisation that has a senior official who's sole job is to force members to do as they are told even when they don't think it is right.
I find it disgusting to listen to the whole lot of them throwing shit at each other about truth, honesty, and above all integrity. They are politicians for god's sake of course they lie and cheat. It is their stock in trade. They belong to political parties of course they smear the opposition.
Put your hands up if you think politicians are trustworthy. Thought so.
You would have thought that after the Jo Moore email leaked back in 2001, that Labour peeps would have got the message that emails are about as insecure as a postcard.
How many more scandals will it take to get it into their thick skulls that you do not send controversial stuff around the office via email? Especially as NuLabour is so unpopular at the moment that many journalists, Tories and even Blairites are constantly on the scrounge for even the merest hint of scandal. So the last thing NuLabour need to do is hand them a story on a plate...
Here's a novel idea - instead of propagating fake stories about their rivals, why don't NuLabour play them at their own game by sniffing their rivals for genuine signs of sleaze / corruption / division / whatever.
Sidenote: I initially misread the domain "theredrag" as "there drag" rather than "the red rag"...
Hopefully they will be provided to give their actual name according to the domain registration rules.
Although, I fail to see the need for blogs like these (and the Red Rag that has been in the press). If people want to put out smear stories then clearly they have no political policies of their own of any merit.
The people in the UK are busy trying to do things like buy food and therefore have a short level of care for things like this. They should be sorting out the country - not running propaganda campaigns.
I'm so very glad the Reg is free from smears and political influence.
Thank you for your email regarding theredrag.co.uk
We take complaints of this kind very seriously and we are currently investigating the domain name and the registration. Having reviewed the details that have been provided to us, I have started the process whereby I will work with the registrar and registrant to correct the details that are held.
If there is no response and the details are not corrected, then the domain name will be suspended in approximately 30 days and cancellation will follow 30 days after that.
Title of article - "Smear site leads back to Commons"
Text in article - "But The Times reckons a Commons contact address was used "
RECKONS is not the same as DID , reckons, means they think , its an opinion!
GG for another example of shoddy reporting reg, oh any chance of not moderating me this time, you let all the standard reg readers spout on about rubbish and flame apple/ms/sony/nintendo
But someone points out that your reporting is a bitoff and dear god the heavens fall down!
McBride wasn't a Civil Servant. He was in fact a Special Advisor, which means that his salary comes not from the taxpayer but from the Labour party. There is a difference. And it's a total folly for GB to suggest that he wasn't at least aware of what was being planned - as most special advisors work through their Minister or in this case the Prime Minister.
The IT angle? Because they just don't get IT! See what i've done there?
"If there is no response and the details are not corrected, then the domain name will be suspended in approximately 30 days and cancellation will follow 30 days after that."
Because for obvious reasons, they didn't check the credit card details that were used to pay for the hosting and/or domain name in the first place?
If it was up to me, I would charge the credit card several thousand pounds "administration charge" for shutting down the site. That way someone would have to come forward and complain... (or that person would at least get kicked in the knackers by their uber-meisters!)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019