Stop being sanctimonious about the McBride emails. Make your own minds up

Peter

The trouble is it's not democracy at all. If people don't know what to believe, and if those with power, influence and access to the media say things enough times, then what is said becomes what is true, and there's no democracy involved at all.

Brian

Surely not jealous, Rod?

Jabez Foodbotham

I think you are being rather disingenuous by suggesting that the McBride-Draper Email exchanges are on a par with your late night scurrilious emendations of Wiki entries.
Just a jape, eh?
That was the initial Downing St line but it could not hold.
This was no jape, but the serious planning of malevolent smears.
What's in it for you to suggest otherwise?

teledu

Bloody Hell Rod! Are you trying to say that Gordon Brown ISN'T an alien lizard?

Bill Corr

That stuff about the Harperson and the geese is thrillingly exciting; rather endearing actually, like Leda and the swan. If we surf the zoophilian sites thoroughly will anything saucy show up?

The ridiculous Alibhai-Brown has a cameo role in the list of Peter Simple's 'Way of the World' characters on the notoriously inaccurate Wikipedia.

Actually, if it weren't for the 'net we wouldn't have heard of the weird New World Order murals at Denver International Airport or about the ongoing Common Purpose conspiracy.

KB

What comes out of all this is how fantastically lazy and incurious the so-called 4th estate is. Guido, a citizen clad only in his pyjamas, has now taken three big beasts down. That should have been the job of journalists. But they've grown too complacent, happy to be spoon-fed pap by McBride and his like, indeed actively conpiring to kill the latest story.

It seems clear which way the wind is blowing for the MSM. You couldn't "man up" so you may as well bugger off now and let the semi-literate and scarcely even semi-accurate get on with real reporting.

David Gerard

A note for you and all those with a problematic Wikipedia bio:

Biographies of living people are our biggest headache, for obvious reasons. But we do prefer to get stuff right rather than wrong.

It's usually considered unkosher for the subject of an article to edit it directly, but commenting on the talk page of the article is entirely in order. Listing third-party sources that you feel more closely reflect reality, so uninvolved editors can improve the article.

There's a useful guideline (note the cautionary example of the Petronella Wyatt article):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography

In cases of unacceptable rubbish in an article, the best thing to do is email info@wikimedia.org noting "Serious problem in Wikipedia article about me" - it's manned by volunteers around the world who are experienced in dealing with bad living bios. There's also a noticeboard for quick action:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN

I apologise on behalf of the editing community that your article isn't what you see as up to scratch. But we'd rather have it good than bad, and the subject's help in this is most welcomed!

David

The difference is that when Rod has his bottles (sorry glasses :) ) of wine in the evening and goes and messes with Wikipedia, we the taxpayers aren't paying him to do so (or for his wine, I presume!). This Labour twit was being paid as a "civil servant" to do something or other, not make up silly stories about Tory politicians. If Labour want to invent stuff about their opponents, they should pay for it themselves (oh hang on, they've next to no money....)

Fred Bauder

The proper thing is to leave a note on the talk page of the article on you. Vandalizing other articles just gets you kicked off. It takes some patience, but Wikipedia editors will, with some help from you, get it right. Well not right, but more or less conforming to what has been published about you.

Kevin

If it's defamatory, it shouldn't be written anywhere.

Cogito Ergosum

"You read, you decide." Maybe, but that is not the same as proof.

mark

Whats so good about democracy anyway its just tow wolves and a sheep voting on whats for lunch...
Trouble is with this whole sorry saga is people ie McBride being paid by us ie the taxpayer, to engage in the sort of mindless, attack dog style politics...

Adam

You generalise about the Internet, but it is the source of information that is important. The Internet is merely a medium, and is not more or less intrinsically trustworthy than paper (as a medium). I am reading this article, and commenting on it, through the medium of the Internet. I trust that Rod Liddle wrote this piece because the source is one that I recognise. Some sites may approach anarchy and some may approach authority, the reader should decide which to trust.

Andy Nicholas

Unnatural sexual acts on geese? ahahahaha, Wikipedia, who can do without it!

Obnoxio The Clown

Are you the "Roger Liddle" mentioned in this article? If so, you can hardly be considered an impartial source of comment in this little matter.

ET

Gordon - it's about time you phoned home - and followed it up with an extended visit.

Lucy PF

What a pathetic attempt at excusing the emails by a Labour luvvie (oh the Tories are just as bad, it's all just silly japes, the blogger is a disagrace). But of course a cheater would side with the liars.

J

The internet is eating up local newspapers, spitting them out, and then doing a shit on them.

Grant Barrett

"Urban Dictionary" is based in the US, not the UK.

GlenDragon

Thanks for your definition of Rod Liddle!

Editors reviewed your entry and have decided to publish it on urbandictionary.com.

It should appear on this page in the next few days:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rod%20Liddle

Urban Dictionary

-----

Rod Liddle

Rhyming slang for a 'piddle'.

"Hang around, will you, I'm desperate for a Rod Liddle."

jon livesey

I guess I see why they said "odious" but they missed "stupid".

The point, you moron, is that this filth was composed by McBride on taxpayer time.

I realise you want to pull the old "I'm more sophisticated than you poor old punters" thingie, but this wasn't some acne-spotted teenager in his bedoorm. It was one of Broon's paid cronies; one of his "advisors".

Missed that bit, did you?

Rupert Fotherington-Smythe

‘Rod Liddle — an odious, untalented, bigoted, low-level Sunday Times journalist who engages in buggery with Nazis such as Nick Griffin.’ That's my boy! That's why we love you Rod! (Also, not scared to tell it like it is, not scared to stick his head above the parapet, excellent sense of humour, prpeared to go out on a limb .... )

logdon

Modded for what, I ask?

paul gilboy

i normally agree with every thing you write and people can post any thing they wish to write. As long as they are willing to accept the consequences in libel law. But this man is paid by the state in a supposedly neuteral civil service post, attempting to defame peoples families.Only because they are political rivals of his boss.
If you read bloggers you decide for yourself but this case is different and we should always remember the difference.
Attacking osbourne & cameron is fair game it goes with the territory, and lets be honest most of us think they are not above reproach, but to smear their wives is dishonourable in every sense

A. MacAulay

English Press and Politics have a relationship of the type that, "dare not speak its name". McBride toiled in the Dep't of Sh*t Shovelling which provides manure for journeille muck-spreaders. Pen poised over cheque; think of a number. So what?

McBride's chief fault is that he is a blithering idiot in writing down, in whatever form, this so called, nefarious plot.

That Rod Liddle is a humbug hunter is our luck. To criticise him for lack of political consistancy, moral uprightness, etc. etc. is to miss the point completely. Moral values are rarely to be found in persons who make a display for professional purposes of their moral superiority.

rod (not Roger) Liddle

Obnoxio - no, that ain't me. That's Roger Liddle, a long-term wonk. Not related, so far as I know.

Livesey - grow up, you idiot. Do you really think the same sorts of things are not being kicked around CCO right now, and always have been?

Wikiman - your dictionary is factually useless, but always interesting. More power to your elbow etc.

laurence cartwright

"Emails sent from one person to another are not government statements, rooted in fact".

Surprised to find this sentence in your article, Rod.

Nick Chambers

Spot on, again Rod. Anyone who takes notice of the drivel written on the net about themselves, ought to get out more. I recently added my comments on a few 'conspiracy theory' sites. My argument being that their theories were crap and that they were intellectual pygmies- BIG MISTAKE! The invective I received was truly astounding. I was essentially accused of being 'one of them', whoever 'them' are meant to be? I thought about replying with some abuse of my own, but realised what a futile gesture this would be. Go out and enjoy the sunshine instead, life is too short.

Jez

You're a reptilian aren't you Nick C.

Nice try repto boy.

Saw you coming a mile off.

Jimmy

Probably the first sensible thing written about this whole nonsense.