Take the moral highground? Judging by the the Liberal newsletter I got through my door, I can't honestly say that this site and it's author can be deserving of such an honour. How does she get all her articles into the Echo? I tell you why, because that paper is biased and only supports those who are not of a right wing nature. Even if the opponent took her site offline, she only did so because of this author's petty behaviour. Go away and concentrate on your tactical voting instead 'cause you might need it again!
Richard Allcock | Email | Homepage | 10.22.04 - 12:48 pm | #

Interesting comment in the RA that the "diary comparison" in the so called Hampshire Extra was "tongue in cheek". A lot of research went into that "tongue in cheek" half page! Done no doubt, not by Sandy, but her staff - for which we now know she claims her full allowance. We soon learned how to get ones snout in the trough with the rest of them (see www.parliament.uk for a full account of what Sandy claims).

So how many of the 36 new items of casework did Sandy actually deal with herself? How many of the 40 invitations to speak etc. did she accept?

And why does the Hampshire Extra get delivered to 120,000 households when there are only approx 80,000 voters for the Romsey seat?
blogwatcher | Email | Homepage | 10.22.04 - 5:59 pm | #

I agree. I've found some of the comments I've read very snipey and petty. Very unbecoming of an MP.
Montano | Email | Homepage | 10.22.04 - 10:20 pm | #

I wonder whether Richard Allcock has ever read the Daily Echo or it's sister paper the Romsey Chronicle, both of which have a blatant rightwing bias.

He might also like to know the probable reason Ms Nokes has taken down her blog is so it can be re-edited to get rid of any of the offending comments Ms Gidley meantioned.

Also, in the mean time you can get anonymous Tory party activists to log each day and leave snide remarks in the comments box.
Neosoc | Email | Homepage | 10.23.04 - 3:55 pm | #

Some of these comments border on the libellous. Suffice to say that a Lib Dem MP attracts a number of worthy volunteers and any comments emanating from Libdemwatch can not be described as neutral. Commentators might also be interested to know that my caseworker has been on long term sick leave but I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me for working an 80 hour week to try and keep on top of things - seeing as we all clearly get paid far too much any way (according to some of the more colourful commentary) but I simply ask what other organisation would have secretarial etc expenses accounted for in a way that looks as though an individual was benefitting rather than the company?
Sandra Gidley | Email | Homepage | 10.23.04 - 10:21 pm | #

I wander if Neosoc has ever worked for the Echo because I have and I can tell him that it is far from being right wing. My role in the advertising department was hellish enough as they forced me into a trade union, being a closed shop. Then they intimidated me for the way I spoke and thought that I was privately educated when I did in fact go to one of those bog standard state schools which is what some in the liberal establishment call them.

As for offending comments well, I'm sorry but the liberals have had the upper hand in this by a mile. During the 2001 general election, Mrs Gidley accused the last candidate Paul Raynes of parachuting himself into Romsey when he did at least come from Hampshire. If he parachuted himself into Romsey then did Shirley Williams do the same in Crosby or Roy Jenkins in Glasgow Hillhead?
Richard Allcock | Email | Homepage | 10.24.04 - 12:42 am | #

My take on this is that if you choose to enter public life, then you shouldn't say anything publicly that you are not willing to stand by. I am pleased that more and more of our elected representatives and prospective elected representatives are making themselves more accessible by the use of weblogs. But if you write something in a weblog and then take it offline it does look like you've said something you shouldn't - and that's the conclusion people will draw.
Steve Guy | Email | Homepage | 10.24.04 - 1:07 pm | #

There's also another reason for taking a site offline and that is to prevent further sniping from the person who started it, notably Mrs Gidley and her staff. Mr Guy should look at some of the stuff that she produces ie. the Hampshire Extra whereby she unfairly compares the work of an MP to that of a PPC. It just isn't possible and people will draw the conclusion that Mrs G is going too far this time. She even unfairly called Mrs Nokes a "footballer's wife." If that isn't below the belt then what is?
Richard Allcock | Email | Homepage | 10.24.04 - 10:28 pm | #

Mr Allcock - whoever you are - I did no such thing but even if I did why do you assume that that is an insult - you have probably just insulted footballers wives everywhere.
Sandra Gidley | Email | Homepage | 10.25.04 - 1:28 am | #

"We think Cazza (who does have a wonderful footballer's wives style quality about her) is referring to Sandra's posting on Tuesday October 19th (My Opponent Blogs Too!)."

"posted by Adrian Sedgly at 13:15"

(extract from Gidleywatch - her other Blogsite!)

Don't be so silly Sandy! Was the above meant to be complimentary? I don't think so!

Adrian Sedgly? Andy Salridge? Will the real Sandra Gidley please stand up!
blogwatcher | Email | Homepage | 10.25.04 - 11:07 am | #

Richard Allcock - I'm very sorry to hear you had such an unpleasant time whilst working at the Echo. You're quite correct there is a definite leftwing bias in the adverts in the Echo.

blogwatcher - a liitle history. Gidleywatch was set up by two romsey constituents inspired by Tim Ireland's 'stalk your MP in 15 minutes a day campaign' to encourage MPs to start blogging. This in turn encouraged Sandra to establish her own blog.

I'm sure if you e-mail Messers Salridge and Sedgly at gidleywatch@hotmail or visit www.bloggerheads.com this will be easily and quickly verified.

That just leaves the question of who is the anonymous 'blogwatcher'...
Neosoc | Email | Homepage | 10.25.04 - 7:05 pm | #

Was "messers" an intentional typo there Neosoc? ;O)

And, why just the "blogwatcher" to be "outed"? Do you know the identities of the other 90% of nom-de-plumes who've commented here then?
Andrea Digsley | Email | Homepage | 10.26.04 - 8:06 am | #

Andrea: If you make statements like blogwatcher has and you need to be able to stand by those words to be taken seriously.

But we know nothing of blogwatcher and who he/she represents, therefore we cannot take what they say seriously. Especially when it's an accusation regarding pseudonyms.

Compare and contrast with Caroline Nokes, who is a real and identifiable person, but chooses to delete her words rather than stand by them.
Tim Ireland | Email | Homepage | 10.26.04 - 10:16 am | #

Nothing I have read on this site justifies Caroline Nokes comments.

The only people to lose out from her withdrawal from blogging are the electorate.
Amy | Email | Homepage | 11.21.04 - 7:12 pm | #