Beestonia: Shit Gets Real: An Apology to Soubz, and a Few Questions.

Hello Beestonians, and welcome to the 200th post on the blog. I have an utter glut of stuff to tell you, but it all has to go on hold for a second.

Why? Well, as is the parlance amongst the yoof of today, ‘Shit Just Got Real’. I’ve been running the NHS Week on Beestonia for over a week now: knowing this inconguity would annoy my more OCD readers I decided to wrap it up. I still have a piece apparently incoming from Beeston LibDem Steve Carr, which, as always, I shall print in full. Beestonia is, after all, a sounding board.

Unfortunately, I published something recently regarding the NHS that, a day or so after hosting it, I discovered to be factually fuzzy in some aspects. It was by Dr Eoin Clarke, a health blogger of some note. I was alerted to the original article by a fellow blogger, gave it a read through, thought it was relevant so asked for permission to reblog it. This was given, so I stuck it up.

I was then alerted that there were several factual inaccuracies in the article, and decided to remove it. I dropped the piece from the site and made it unavailable. I then hosted an article by Nick Palmer, and got on with stuff.

Today, I recieved this. Not as an email, not as a letter, not as a phone call; but as a comment on the last piece Dr Nick Palmer guested on:

You have removed an inaccurate and defamatory article about Anna Soubry from your web site which was written by a Dr. Eoin Clarke. He has removed the article from his web site and posted a full and unreserved apology accepting he had published wholly inaccurate figures and had made false allegations against Anna Soubry.

You are aware that Dr. Clarke agreed the apology with Anna’s solicitor but you have not posted Dr. Clarke’s apology on your web site nor apologised for publishing an article which you did not check, which was factually inaccurate and which made false allegations against Anna. Dr Clarke has also agreed to pay the costs of Anna’s solicitors.

Anna Soubry has no desire to engage in legal action against you given that you would have to bear those costs. Recent events have shown, though on a far more serious and damaging level , the need for anyone who publishes allegations against another person to verify them and stay within the law. In the circumstances please would you publish Dr Clarke’s apology which he has agreed with Anna Soubry’s solicitors.

I’d had the frighteners put on me before,  but this, when read through, came with extra pepper. Legal costs. Comparisons with those who accuse others of paedophilia. As I said before, shit got real. I was really busy today, having a set of meetings to try and get myself on my feet after my unexpected loss of job of late. Hardly the sort of stuff you need to put on the back-burner as you attempt to work out a way to avoid slipping into poverty as we approach the third stage of a triple-dip recession.

However, this blog has always had the ethos of honesty, and openess. If something is incorrect, I will correct it. If someone sends something in, I will publish it, apart from three notable examples, two racist, one by a right-wing activist accusing me of having a sexual relationship with a Labour politician (not my type, ducky). Thus, sorry Anna, for hosting an unchecked piece that I removed the moment I saw it might be factually fuzzy.

I’m glad that  I’m on your radar though. So much of my readership doesn’t seem to be. Since you will definately read this piece, may I bend your ear? Cheers. Simple answers, or retractions are all that will be required.

  1. Why did you base your 2010 Electoral Campaign on a strong ‘Local Candidate’ basis, attacking the incumbent for being disengaged with the Broxtowe scene as he lived in Mapperly, and promising stridently that you would move to Broxtowe if elected, then not doing so? I do realise that your partner, Neil, did send me a threatening email telling me to retract this line of questioning as this was due to ‘personal reasons’; but as Nick Palmer moved to, err, opposite your place in Mapperley, as he got married (a fairly personal action, no?) then it was disingenuous and hypocritical to tout for votes on this? Are you here now? If not, when are you likely to be here?
  2. I willingly retract the third-party allegations about your expenses/ income. Will you, in kind, retract the allegation that I am ‘sexist’ as you previously -and rather baffingly-accused me of (see Beestonia passim).
  3. I have, on numerous occasions, solicited your comment on Beeeston issues. While I am far from the ‘voice of Beeston’, I do have an increasing amount of readers from all ages, political stripes and other demographuc angles. You have NEVER responded to them, aside from the odd warning that I should take stuff down. As the most read blog in your constituency, why not interact? I know you’re busy, but obviously not enough to send out threateners.
  4. Will you be staying in Broxtowe come 2015?
  5. Will you reply openly to the article Nick Palmer wrote in the previous post?
  6. Will you promise to be representative to your constituents if they oppose 1) Royal Mail Privatisation 2) NHS ‘reform’? I understand the concept of electoral mandate, but you did, if I remember, promise to be ‘Broxtowe’s voice in Westminster, not Westminster’s voice in Broxtowe” ?

I await your response.

19 thoughts on “Beestonia: Shit Gets Real: An Apology to Soubz, and a Few Questions.

  1. Dane says:

    I can answer number 4. Not a cat in hells chance.
    A) because the seat isn’t safe and even conservative leaning types like myself are unlikely to vote for an absent MP.
    B) if she really is a hot shot rising star then she’ll be off to Surrey or the likes.

  2. Jane Elliott says:

    Bring it on………

  3. Dan! Dan! Dan! says:

    I think it’s pretty clear that her gaze is set on Rushcliffe. Like the Sauron of Nottinghamshire.

  4. Javid says:

    We await with baited breath.

  5. Sonny Baura says:

    Are you going to post Dr Eoin Clarke’s apology as requested?

  6. Del says:

    Good going, Matt. Exactly the questions we want answered in our house.

  7. Peter Kobryn says:

    Great posting Matt , spot on response.

    Message for Anna Soubry as she is clearly keeping a close eye on this esteemed publication…

    Tick tock ……just a couple of years now until you are turfed out of Broxtowe…..

  8. tamar says:

    Oh she’s heard. Though it’s probably read to her.

  9. Eoin Bates says:

    I rather think Donald’s anagram is more provocative.

  10. Dr Clarke is a legend for getting basic facts wrong and sweeping over inconvenient details.. He’s currently on his third public apology in a fortnight.

    See his comment boxes.

  11. treecull says:

    We really must be so carefull what we say about Ms Soubry, she does seem very sensitive and easily bothered by these things, so maybe we shouldn’t say that we have heard she is off to Rushcliffe. Oh and sorry by the way Anna (it will save time later if I just apologise now).

    • Revisiting this story today.

      ISTM that if someone is publishing prominent lies about you (Eoin Clarke has 20k twitter followers and is repeatedly picked up by parts of the MSM), then being “sensitive” is quite reasonable.

      i don’t think your preemptive apology is needed, unless you’ve done the same :-).

      The solution is easy: people shouldn’t publish actionable lies about their opponents.

  12. Chris says:

    No.6 Is spot on. I very much doubt this will get better.
    Nick converted me to Labour after 20 years of Tory support because of his local representation. There is no way Anna will win me back for this very reason.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s