One day in the life of a blogger – kittysjones
WARNING: CONTAINS VERY STRONG LANGUAGE.
Many of you should recall VP’s article A few words about respect, in which Yr Obdt Srvt appealed for a little more common decency from commenters – especially those claiming to be supporters or representatives of UKIP, the SNP or the Green Party.
That article was prompted partly by personal experience and partly by that endured by fellow blogger kittysjones, whose Greens: the myth of the “new left” debunked attracted an unprecedented amount of vitriol. When Ms Jones pointed this out, some of her more vocal antagonists challenged her, claiming in effect that she was making up claims about the strength of the attack on her.
One day in the life of a blogger is the result – and makes both grim and humorous reading.
It can’t slip under readers’ radar that spurious claims of libel by Ms Jones (“You’ve defamed the character of an identifiable group of which I am a member”) sit next to genuinely questionable claims by commenters themselves (“And the ‘spook of the year award’ goes to Sue Jones (below). She hosts a blog under the name of ‘kittysjones’ which she uses to disemminate fabrications against organisations on the left. She appears to being ‘run’ by Scotland Yard’s Confidential Intelligence Unit. Remember her role is to collect information about you and to spread lies and plant false stories about the British left, as can be seen in her latest blog entry. Now she’s been ‘outed’ her capacity to do harm will soon thankfully be over – hope she spent her ’30 pieces’ wisely”) – that’s the humorous part.
Also – perhaps unintentionally – humorous is the comment “you deserve a kicking and thats what you get. its overdue. many of us hate you and your lame posts about labour but you never stop. labour are fascists with neoliberal policies and your to stupid a bint to see it. now shut the fuck up”, made by someone hiding behind the pseudonym ‘growsome’. Perhaps this person should take their own advice, ‘grow some’ him- or herself and post under their own name next time.
Other comments from pseudonyms included “You think you seen bulling and threats but you aint seen nuthing yet. thats a promise. you cant hope to get away with drivel like this and not expect a payback. they are coming” from ‘copthis’, and “You dont know when to shut up do you. People like you get what they deserve and you will. We will make sure. Best put your time in looking after that Jones family. You never know whats around that dark corner do you” from ‘peekaboo’.
It seems Ms Jones had to turn to Facebook for comments under the posters’ real names – such as this gem from Francis Farmer: “Sue Jones your full of shit …. fuck you, you lying shit cunt.”
Finally – you’ll be stunned to read this – Ms Jones noted: “Other comments were rather more crass and vulgar, I’ll spare you those.”
So there you have it. Point made, it seems.
However there is another aspect to these comments that needs to be drawn out, which is simply this:
Not one of the comments quoted here had anything to say about the content of Ms Jones’ Green Party article.
And that tends to indicate that the VP article made a very good – and timely – point too.
On that bombshell, VP wishes those of you who are capable of it a very happy – and civilised – New Year.
Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
bringing you the best of the blogs.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Mike – whatever one’s political views – and you and I do not always see eye to eye – I agree that there is never any justification for the disgusting and vitrıolic disrepect as exampled in this article.
Happy New Year!!
‘Twas ever thus. The vitriol poured upon major parties by the press, public, facebookers and commenters far outweighs those heaped on bloggers or the ‘smaller’ parties like the Greens. Take a trip to David Cameron’s Facebook page, for example. I agree, its disgusting and beyond the pale, comments motivated by tribalism instead of criticism. The only difference now is that an equality has been created, one where bloggers and the Greens take just as much flack as a Prime Minister. Its moronic and sad but not new…
Do you think Cameron ever sees any of it?
Happy New Year Mike and to Mrs. Mike, I do hope you have the best one yet!!!
Thank you for the advice you have helped me with!!
jo
Happy New Year to you and yours, too.
Sorry this is long, I’ve split it into 2 parts. 1st on abuse and the 2nd replying to the points in the original blog post that triggered the abuse, I never saw it until now and normally I ignore ridiculous flame bait stuff because I have better things to do. I do this now due to the crap responses. I am a Green Party member but hold no position in the party other than that.
Part 1:
I think while there’s social progress being made (gay marriage) we are living in a nasty hostile time of economic regression (or class war) , and I think that affects all of us, whether we would admit it or not. I contend with rage at injustice and fear for the future, I feel angry, I am angry all the time and to be honest, lashing out at something, anything, would be a temporary relive. The others on the opposite side are getting more extreme with their hate and anger, despite that they are on top and have won, it’s not enough, they are still angry at people they don’t know and have nothing. Add in propaganda, conspiracy theories and poor education, we therefore live in angry and confused times.
Internet hate is nasty, women tend to get the worst of it too, whatever the political side they stand for. It is the internet and people cannot seem to control their emotions or bigotry very well. Look at #gamergate for a particularly nasty chapter of internet history. I’m ashamed that fellow party members gave abuse. Really, do better than to stoop to hate-group level of trolling. If any one of them reads this, please apologize even if you did find that blog post in poor taste. A well refuted argument is 100 times more effective than a death threat.
And to be honest, on the other side, I do find that article disgusting, I mean associating the Green Party with eugenics, Nazism and David Cameron (the photo) is really, really low. I’m sorry but I feel quite disgusted at that piece, while at the same time hating the abuse received. I have Jewish family so it is also offensive on a personal level too.While I may find it in distaste, I would never wish to shut someone up via abuse, who is making an [awful] argument. I am not a Labour supporter but I do defend Labour and Ed Milliband where they deserve to be; I found that Daily Mail piece on Ed’s father to be revolting and will point out the leadership problems Ed faces in reality. I am not blindly partisan.
Part 2:
She is twisting Green Party as if we are a bunch of monsters, here’s some points, in regards to general environmental political discourse rather than what I think is KittyJones’ badly associated rubbish:
The science on environmental damage and dangers is rather alarming, we have two choices, live as we are and face potential catastrophe or begin to adapt, cope to the situation and live in a sustainable manner. There are all sorts positions on this from the extremes of lets go back to nature, to just ignore it and carry on as normal, most who are concerned about environmental issues are in the middle and hope to seek a means of establishing progress with environmental stability. If you don’t believe environmental problems exist, go ahead, ignore scientific research, ignore the data, stick your head in the sand, one of us will be right.
It is generally held that smaller families are more ideal and less likely to end up stuck in a cycle of poverty. Also that fewer people means less strain on resources, less environmental damage and so forth. Though there is also a class issue where the richest minority are more destructive than the poorest and the capitalist system rewards the destruction of the environment, for example many poor communities have no choice but to destroy the environment around them or they’ll literally starve and rich corporations don’t care what they destroy as long as they get their profits.
To reduce populations you don’t have to instigate horrific eugenic policies, rather via stability and education (especially of women) the population reduces naturally towards smaller families . Small families are more likely able to enjoy a better standard of living so this has always been an aim of anti-poverty groups. If we increase the educational levels while providing opportunities to make use of that education, the population levels will shrink and the well being of the population as a whole will improve. That is roughly not far from what she says is her’s/Labour’s view right? But, to her, from a tiny paragraph that barely outlines anything other than an aim, the Green Party, rather than sharing a similar sort of view, likely formulated from the same research (that the Labour party may have or may not have taken into consideration), are instead on par with Nazis at the very worst, David Cameron at the very best?
(The problem is what appears to be taking shape is a new neo-eugenics movement that views the poor as subhuman, naturally stupid and needs to be controlled. We see in this current government and if it gets any worse than the mild form it takes currently, we could be looking at real nightmarish future. If you are against Eugenic thought then really point the finger at those who really have those views. I heard one of Murdoch’s papers in Australia recently wrote a pro piece.)
To go back to that article, I find disingenuous that the author of that piece would tie the Green Party into the Conservative led austerity. Yes there is what you could call a move towards “austerity” in the environmental movement, but it is not the austerity of the Conservative government, rather one rooted in equality, stability and sustainability. One where the rich would have to take their share of the sacrifice rather than blame the poor for everything. It would prioritize public services like the NHS, it would ensure people live at a good standard of living but we would likely have to give up/reduce our consumption of certain luxuries and we would have to restructure ourselves away from the disposable consumer culture we currently live in. It doesn’t view you as a resource, to be thrown in the gutter if you are not economically productive, like the Conservative imposed austerity. It basically wants to end disposable culture, be self-sufficient, a value will still be placed on science and the arts. Think of it more like cutting useless packaging than cutting hospitals.
Last point: The Greens hold a minority council in Brighton and Hove, that means Labour and Conservatives outnumber and can out vote them and block them. (Of course a Labour councillor or someone who wants to be one is going to portray themselves as better than the other parties, I wouldn’t expect otherwise. They want to be elected.) Plus a council doesn’t exactly make policy and are at the whims of central government. If central government doesn’t supply the funding and if the Greens can’t raise money through taxes or other means, then cuts have to be made, it doesn’t matter who is in power, it’s not really a choice and the fault is at the door of the central government, namely the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. My Conservative council has been given plenty of funds so services are not severely affected like they are elsewhere, they even have enough to waste on vanity projects, that hardly means I see the Conservative party as the defenders of social democracy, that would be madness.
PS: If I do find myself surround by a bunch of eugenicists, Nazis and/or secret admirers of David Cameron, I will quit straight away.
A good start to hopefully a positive New Year God bless you and your family and all other decent commenters on your site Kevin
Thank you, most kind. And a Happy New Year to you, too.
There only two out of 180 comments that could be called threatening. Others may possibly be termed abusive but no more abusive than the article itself.
Write a scurrilous attempt to link the Green Party with the Nazis and you can reasonably expect some angry responses. It is the absolute lowest of the low as far as accusations go. To do it in the style of the Daily Mail by writing it then attempting to deny it later takes it further beyond the pale.
The cherry on the top is the deliberate selective moderation of comments, even to the point of editing a whole section out of one of my comments where I challenged her smears of the Brighton Green council and claims that Labour doesn’t do benefits cuts. Its just a riot of dishonesty so I imagine she’s also making up the stories of Green Party bullies too, she seems determined to be a victim.
She moderated out the most offensive comments on the grounds that she would not expect her readers to want to see them (if I recall correctly). As she said, it wasn’t an attempt to link the Greens with the Nazis but an article pointing out a shared ideological origin.
Having experienced a certain amount of pressure myself, merely from publishing an article asking people to be polite to each other, I don’t think she was making up stories of Green Party bullies.
She CLAIMS she moderated out the most offensive comments but, certainly as far as my comments were concerned, she moderated those that did challenge points she made in her piece. I can only presume she did that because she was unable to answer them.
And nobody’s fooling anyone with denials about linking Greens withe Nazis. Why bring them both up if you’re not drawing a comparison?
As I said she deliberately edited the meat out of one of my comments, when I picked her up on it she said “make the points and I’ll put them up here”. So I did. Again. And they haven’t been put up, what a surprise. So that’s gaslighting, wasting my time then further selective moderation.
Either that or she disagreed with your claim that your points were reasonable.
As I think I’ve already made clear, my own perception of this affair is coloured by the response I received when I published an article calling on everybody to behave in a reasonable way. I didn’t get many reasonable responses so I have no reason to believe she did either.
I except your own comment from this observation on the grounds that I haven’t seen it and, even if you send words to me now, I’ll have no way of knowing that they are the same words you sent to the other blog (and I suggest this without prejudice either way; it’s a simple fact of the situation that I cannot know for sure). Therefore I make no judgement either way.
KSJ’s problem is that she classes anything that she disagrees with and/or cannot answer as being ‘unreasonable’ or ‘abusive’.
You say you ‘make no judgment either way’ yet you slavishly repeat her claims of bullying and the like without question, while questioning mine. Double standards methinks.
Well, you’re entitled to your opinion. I call ’em as I see ’em.
The point is, as was made, that the Greens simply have a prescriptive approach to politics and that is the point….. Your approach is to expect everyone to hold the same opinion on all issues, the opinion you prescribe as the answer.
Sounds familiar to me !
Whose approach – mine? The Greens? Ms Jones’s?
If you think that’s my approach, then you need to read a few more VP articles. I attack inaccurate viewpoints; where people hold different views based on provable information, that’s a different matter.
I would agree with your opinion with regard to the Green supporters who reacted abusively to Ms Jones’s article; that doesn’t mean all Green supporters are like that (although from the evidence, they seem rare), but their visibility and their behaviour does bring their party into disrepute.
As for Ms Jones, she’s perfectly capable of defending her own position, if she knows it’s being criticised.
Sorry for any confusion Mike. I was referring to Andy( NCCLols) comment on the link with Nazis being scurrilous.