Freelance journalist and Independent political activist, open to offers in both capacities. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org. Accepts PayPal.
What's all this about PM Dawn being a fake, David?
Oh yes. But a very obvious one, and anyway he was stupid enough to link here and to Neil Clark, Peter Hitchens, Ken Bell (twice) and Christopher Hitchens Watch.
Quite. As you yourself so rightly put it in one of your many comments on his blog here:As for taking spoofs seriously, would a spoof link to Peter Hitchens, Neil Clark, Ken Bell (twice) and this blog, to name but a few? No, it would not publicise its targets views in their own terms like that. The spoofer (if that is the word) would not be that stupid. Would he?
But, of course, he is. Or, at any rate, was.
Did you really suggest to him that he moderate comments, as he claims?
Oh yes - I'm afraid that he'd allowed things rather close to wind even for a spoof.But, like all other correspondence with him (notably the offer of a parliamentary seat), it was basically a joke.If can''t see that, thne he would seem to have even less future as a humourist than was in any case apparent.
You offered him a parliamentary seat???Which one?
Oh, none in particular.
So, if linking to people you disagree with is a bad idea, could you remind us why you linked to him?
He never actually expressed an opinion with which I disagreed. He linked here. He linked to several other good sites. And he was an obvious spoof, but probably thought that I and others took him seriously.
Yes, he was an obvious spoof who was poking fun at you and your fledgling party. Not to flatter you with the comparison, but you do think Tony Blair used to tell people to watch Rory Bremner?
He can't have had much success if he did. Does ANYONE still watch Rory Bremner?
Do you imagine that was the point of my question?In general, is it a good idea to point people towards material which exists solely to attack you? Either you didn't realise it was a spoof, or you did but wanted to give an audience to attacks on your party.
I wanted to give an audience to just how infantile and incompetent those attacks were.And I succeeded. The emails that I have had about that blog have been quite a revelation.It is no wonder that Kamm now finds it so difficult to be published, if he is quite THAT disliked in media circles...
But David, why not just write a post linking to it, saying something like "Look, here's an infantile spoof blog pretending to be a supporter of the British People's Alliance"? Why make it look as if you were taking it seriously?I just don't understand.
He still links to you. He says things you agree with. So why, on your own I-link-to-people-who-link-to-me logic, have you stopped linking to him?
Because he's not even as funny as he was (which wasn't very much), now that he has "revealed" himself.If I were feeling especially charitable, then I might think his "revelation" a joke in itself. But it isn't. He really does believe that some people took him seriously.Bring back grammar schools, and then these people, beginning with Kamm himself, could go back to the obscure P G Wodehouse lives to which they are properly suited.