And Another Thing…

But Tom, surely you know by now some of your colleagues aren’t as open and honest as yourself. Perhaps the real reason is he just feels it rather beneath him to mingle with us hoi polloi.

Or maybe he can’t type.

Excellent blog post Tom and I look forward to the report.

I’ve blogged about MPs and the internet myself (http://www.fetlersblog.co.uk/archives/433), not exactly a proper study but I found it interesting to do nonetheless. My MP (Lindsay Hoyle) keeps appearing and disappearing from Facebook for some unknown reason, and it baffles me why. Either have a presence or don’t – don’t keep flitting between the two! I think I’ll ask him why.

Personally I think your presence online is excellent, Tom, but you need more photographs. I’m guessing the majority of internet users in the UK are on broadband now so a few more images won’t hurt.

graham watson would be pushed to try and justify the non audited books of the e.u. within the space twitter allows so he doesn’t try !

Every person who follows Graham Watson on Twitter will now know that they’re not actually following him, but his wife pretending to be him.

Without wishing to appear sexist perhaps that explains this message on his twitter:

Graham is trying to figure out how this all works.

Glad to see you’ve been longlisted for the Orwell prize.
Nothing to do with your passion for 1984 is it

Amused to see that the politicshome ticker briefly said Osborne: Gordon should renounce his “obscene” pension.

It’s now changed to Osborne: Goodwin should renounce his “obscene” pension.

Personally I agree with both.

I did Facebook to keep track of my kids at one point, and then gave up because very busty women wanted to be my friend.

Twitter is just daft.

What words does the name “Graham Watson” conjure up when it comes to internet media. Sincere is not at the top of the list, is it? How can anyone be so blankly honest about being such a mountebank?

The anonymity issue is a point of netiquette.

It is not the done thing to address someone by their real name if they have a blog nom de ordinateur. My name is not a secret, but I chose not to use it because it separates my blog persona from my actual one, and although it is basically me, it is not me in totality. (I like to think I am much nicer that Wrinkled Weasel)

Sadly, Damien Thompson has decided to out Archbishop Cranmer. His column in today’s Telegraph is a masterful paen to Thompson’s own career as a journeyman axe-grinder with a long memory and a sideline in backstabbing.

Most MPs don’t get blogging. Certainly most New Labour MPs don’t. So they should stay away and do whatever it is that flicks their switches.

Why doesn’t the esteemed Dr Tony Wright MP have a blog?

desultory rant ends.

“If you should do new media you should do it properly.”

I think you do it very well, Tom, this blog is engaging and there is good discussion in the comments thread.

I think that generally, though, MPs see New Media as ways to get across a ‘message’, and as a bully pulpit, rather than as a way to engage people in discussion.

Also, people in Labour seem to be falling over themselves to ‘learn the lessons of Obama’s New Media campaign.’ They then set up a Twitter account and let everyone know what they had for breakfast and the funny thing their cat did.

Just because something is ‘new media’ doesn’t mean it is intrinsically by itself useful. I really, really don’t see the point of Twitter. Do undecided voters follow MPs tweets or just political obsessives who would either vote for you anyway or never vote for you regardless?

Finding a way to communicate well with existing supporters, and get them out on the streets talking to voters face-to-face – Labour using the internet to get people who don’t own a computer discussing issues with their activists who do use the internet – that would be using new media properly.

Hes a Lib/Dem.

Says it all.

Who writes Prescotts blog.?

@Tom Harris
the points I made about the need to respect bloggers’ and commenters’ preference for anonymity

This is what makes the internet great, and i’m pleased to see that you seek to respect that Tom.

As a whole, the internet has been great for the free movement of thoughts, feelings and ideas. Thoughts that would never dare surface face to face, are openly typed online in a variety of sources. Obviously this has led to some objectivly offensive thoughts flooding the interwebs, but it’s arguable that it’s a good thing as it’s stumulated debate and challenged many of societies unwritted rules about social acceptability in particular.

I am also pleased that the posts that result from anonymity have also gone some way to challenging the moral waterboarding that we are now subjected to as a society. I have found on numerous occasions, that people who seek to adopt such a “holier than thou” approach online get a very bad recepton indeed. Good. What’s offensive is a very subjective concept, and I don’t see how my view of what’s offensive should be imposed on anyone else, just like I won’t have anyone elses view imposed on me. My view is, “I may be offended at what you say, but i’ll fight for your right to say it”.

On a personal level, i’m very keen to be anonymous online. Not for any god forbid, sinister or underhand reason you understand, I just don’t want things I may say online to come back and bite me in the arse, now or in the future, especially as societies attitude to thinks like social acceptability changes over time. In person this is not a problem of course, but online anything and everything you say is indexed by Google, and it’s like making a permanent announcement to the world.

For example, at some point in the future i’ll probably look to leave the legal profession and get into politics. If I was to use my full name around the place however, any full and frank discussion I may take part in now, could well bite me in the arse later. Also, even if I decide not to, i’m unlikely to work at the same firm forever, which means that any future employer using google could well stumble upon a picture of me drunk, or an opinion that i’ve expressed that they vehemently disagree with etc… which could well impact on my chances of future employment.

So anonymity online is pretty essential if the internet is to remain as it is, the free flow of ideas where the person communicating the idea can do so without risking damage to their name or reputation.

I hope this hasn’t made me sound underhand in any way btw. I didn’t mean it to come accross like that if it has (

Imho consistency of identity is the important thing.

Johnny Norfolk at 3.16 pm: “Who writes Prescotts blog.?”

Er… that would be John Prescott:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8GK0HaiHG0

I fully agree with John. Anonymity is crucial. It’s more polite to other bloggers, of course, if we stick to the one nom de blog when and if we’re trying to make serious points. I happen to post under the name of a famous, sadly late, footballer who played for, er, a Glasgow team. I do not support his team or any other – I hate football. I met him once and have met people who knew him and they say that, whatever his talents, he was also a total nutcase. Seems apt enough I suppose.

We can also, should we wish to be mischievous, adopt several noms de blog. If your opponent is choleric, irritate him, or at least make a mockery of him. I have had violent arguments with myself using different ISP addresses so that the Blogmeister will have trouble spotting what I’m up to, on blogs that I dislike. The NAMES that I have called myself…

Pretty much like the names some of you call me, put it that way.

Does John Prescott have a sense of humour?

He wrote on his blog: “From the comments section, it seems people like the mix and get to see me as a person, not as a media stereotype.”

To which I replied: “I think you’re right there, Two Jags.”

I even added a smilie, but he hasn’t approved it.

Miserable old toad.

@Stewart Cowan

Heh! You should try commenting over at the Daily Mail. I have yet to have a comment approved over there.

It seems they don’t like you pointing out the factual mistakes in their articles, or that they have glossed over the salient point in favour of a sensationalist headline….. D

I even tried a different approach, and took issue with them referring to the BNP as a “far right party”, when as far as I can see, they are clearly a far LEFT party. I thought they’d like that one, but that wasn’t approved either :***( D

Going by the comments they have approved, it seems I have two choices. Agree wholeheartidly with the article, with bonus points for highlighting that the country has gone to the dogs, or disagree without explaining why, and get your comment downvoted to oblivion! D

‘Miserable old toad’.

I would like it to be known, for the record, that Stewart just caused me to spit diet coke all over my keyboard.

Cheers mate. But, it was worth it.

Prescott has yet to post one of my comments.

On reflection referring to him as a “class traitor” probably didn’t help my case.

You think?

@ John

I used to have a 40-50% success rate at the Mail and then it went down and down to the stage where hardly anything was approved, so I gave up. It’s turned into a celeb rag these days anyway by the looks of things.

There are certain comments the Mail is guaranteed to approve:

“It’s political correctness gone mad.”

“I had to check it wasn’t April 1st.”

“I’m glad I left the UK when I did.”

@ Jim

Send the bill to JP. On a serious note – check the ingredients in your soft drinks. Avoid aspartame.

Or you could ignore Stewart and stick with real science done by actual scientists with proper degrees rather than some loony who decided to torture a bunch of mice.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Hello! It’s pesky Richard again. It’s a game we play, folks. I say something – anything – and Richard says the exact opposite.

Even though I manage to refute everything he says, he just keeps coming back for more.

It’s late and I can’t be bothered this time.

Richard – enjoy your aspartame and your tumours.

@stewart cowan

Dang.

Thanks for the warning. So, drinking 120 tins of diet coke a week for the past year aint been such a good idea then?

Ambulance for Baxter. Richard, see you down the oncology unit…

…Oncology Unit. Yes. That was a book by that, that… oh, the Russian bloke that handed in his samovar last year.

Snappy title.

@ Jim Baxter.
I don’t think that Stewart’s ever let a fact slow him down.

Let’s see if I can actually make his head explode;

Chocolate causes cancer shock:
http://biohermit.wordpress.com/2008/08/22/chocolate-causes-prostate-cancer-draft/

Chocolate prevents cancer shock:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050417213604.htm