I think we can safely say if the assault had been the other way around, Plod's response would have been different. A point made by Mr Holmes himself:
Asked whether he would press charges against the publisher and LBC
presenter, Holmes said "it is up to the police to do their job. You've
got to ask what would you do if the roles were reversed and if I did
that, I'd be in a police cell."
And deletes his "absurd bravado" post. Sorry 'tough boy' it don't work like that on t'internet. And he deletes the post even though writing this as part of his apology:
On the first point [of removing the blogpost], I felt it important people should be able to have
their say. I will have to live with the justified criticisms for a long
time.
There's usually nothing more undignified than a physical altercation between two chaps who are clearly not used to it, and so it proves with Iain Dale confronting a protester in the video above.
However the "comedy" aspect of the confrontation belies a more serious point that, as Richard North notes, Iain Dale has taken it upon himself to attack a lawful protester in the street - in essence carry out common assault. An allegation over which Dale is being questioned by Police.
Astonishingly, in a complete lack of self-awareness, he makes light of it on his blog, beginning his piece with the words;
"I knew I shouldn’t have had three weetabix this morning…
This describing a situation where a pensioner is assaulted by 6 ft 5, well built bloke nearly 20 years his junior. A pensioner who was exercising his right of free speech, lawfully, peacefully and harmlessly in a public space over an issue that is not without merit. One wonders if Dale would have been so keen to act if the protester was a chap who was younger, fitter and more able to look after himself? One suspects if he had done so he would have needed more than Weetabix. It certainly shows Dale for the bully that he is.
Dale concludes his piece:
Everyone has an inalienable right to protest, but no one has a right to
make a continual nuisance of themselves and interrupt interviews like
that.
Well actually yes they are, if they do so in peaceful and lawful manner which was clearly the case here. Interestingly Dale has a different take when it came to Walter Wolfgang at the 2005 Labour conference or more recently Ian Tomlinson, which had far more serious consequences (my emphasis):
I know in these situations one shouldn't prejudge until the IPPC reports
its findings, it is difficult to see how anyone could be anything other
than revolted by the pictures. It's not what we expect from the British
police force. Mr Tomlinson was not involved in the G20 protest. He was
trying to go home after working on his newspaper stand. He wasn't
abusing the Police, he wasn't doing anything wrong.
It's worth remembering that in 2009 Dale applied to become a Tory Parliamentary candidate (and failed), if this is his reaction to a law-abiding "nuisance" what would he be like when dealing with not always complimentary members of the public when out campaigning knocking on doors?
What is largely being overlooked is that Dale did not respond like this out of "public duty" but instead for commercial reasons - personal profit - protecting an interview by Damien McBride who is plugging his book which happens to be published by Iain Dale's company.
Oh the irony, that a former Labour thug is protected by...a Tory one.
Andrew Mitchell, the Government’s chief whip, is in the sticky stuff for apparently being rude to a Police Officer. Unfortunate timing given that two Police Officers were shot dead this week.
Blogger Max Farquar has this quote from Tory cheerleader in chief, Iain Dale, attempting to defend the Mitchell's actions:
If we’re going to say that all politicians should resign if they, in a momentary lapse of judgement, lose their temper then we won’t have many politicians left
So it's worth noting that Mrs Dale hasn't always been so tolerant of politicians' momentary lapses of judgement particularly of the Labour variety, an example entitled "Gordon Brown's Top Tantrums":
We're all eagerly awaiting the serialisation of Andrew Rawnsley's book
in tomorrow's Observer, and I, relishing doing the BBC News Channel
paper review at 11.20pm tonight, followed by the Radio 5 Live on at
midnight. To prepare us for the revelations the book will no doubt
contain about Gordon's temper tanties, I thought it might be good to
refresh our memories about existing account's of the dour one's
demeanour.
....how on earth did the Labour Party allow this man to become PM?
Quite why the Labour Party are happy to have a proven bully defend
Gordon Brown against charges of, er, bullying, is a little bizarre to
say the least. He completely lost his temper with BBC News Channel
interviewer Ben Brown this morning.
Tribal politics eh? A bubble existence obviously not for the benefit for the rest of us...
I can't believe I am even writing this, but it is no longer an impossibility to imagine this scandal bringing down the Prime Minister or even the government. OK, some of you reading this may think that last sentence is a deranged ranting, and you may be right. Indeed, I hope you are. But Sir Paul Stephenson launched a thinly veiled attack on David Cameron in his resignation statement and the Prime Minister is already on the ropes about the propriety of his relationship with Andy Coulson.
But for the first time since 2005, some people are thinking about life after Cameron. And that's not good. Not good at all.
Unsurprisingly I beg to differ with the last sentence.
I don't want give this gloating man any more publicity than necessary, but he is helping the 'exit out of Europe' cause no end. It's only for this reason I post this (via Ian Dale) It truly is excruciating:
Listening to Nick Clegg's speech I am struck by the fact that I could imagine David Cameron giving more or less exactly the same speech, almost word for word.
And:
It was a good speech, delivered well. The Number 10 team will be pleased.
At least we know where we stand, although this message is still only very slowly permeating through the 'vote blue at all costs' vote.
Earlier in the year, there was a great egg scandal where the Mail and others reported that the EU was going to ban selling of eggs by the dozen. Not true, cried...well just about everyonewhoactually bothered to read the relevant document.
Not so Iain Dale, who took the story at face value and got stuck in with gusto only to be taken to task in his comments which among other things (accurately) described the claims as 'pure cack'. This prompted a legendary Dale temper tantrum:
I wrote about it HERE. Ever since I have been plagued by Europhile idiots calling on me to apologise for essentially making up the story. I haven't because I didn't.
And:
Read the whole article HERE. This is not written by a tabloid journalist or a partisan blogger. It's written by the editor of The Grocer. Think on that.
So perhaps I should now ask for an apology from those who wanted one from me. I might as well whistle in the wind.
And:
I dont think a single commenter so far has read the enire Grocer article.
It says it all that one of them would prefer to helieve Sunny effing Hundal rather than the editor of the sector's leading trade mag.
Ray Merrell complained to the Press Complaints Commission that the [Sun] had published an article about the European Union's plans to sell all food by weight which was misleadingly headlined "Euro ban on eggs by dozen". The complainant pointed out that it was not the case that British shoppers would no longer be able to by a box of six eggs or a dozen rolls: merely that the items will be priced by weight. He was concerned that the article - which appeared on page ten of the newspaper and online - represented an attempt to stir up anti-EU feeling among readers.
And the resolution? The complaint was upheld and The Sun printed this retraction:
Eggs by a dozen are safe
Brussels has vowed it has no plans to ban Brits buying eggs by the dozen. Controversy erupted in July following reports that the EU wanted food to be only sold by weight. Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman pledged to fight the plans. And the Food Standards Authority watchdog also voiced concern. But the European Parliament has insisted it never intended to stop people buying eggs or bread rolls by the dozen. A spokesman said: "Selling eggs by the dozen will not be illegal under the terms of the amendments adopted by the European Parliament to EU food labelling proposals. "Labels will still be able to indicate the number of food items in a pack, whether of eggs, bread rolls or fish fingers."
The above appeared on page four of the newspaper.
Date Published: 03/09/2010
Perhaps Mr Dale should now be graciousness enough to apologise to all those that he described as idiots (even worse, he effectively accused me of being a Europhile). But we might as well whistle in the wind.
...of the day apparently is whether William Hague is gay or not. Guido has been running with innuendo laden posts for a couple of days now, which have been 'repeated' in the media and even Iain Dale has waded in.
You know what? I couldn't give a stuff if the dome-headed, beer guzzlingsilly cap-wearing foreign secretary is gay or not; what he does in his private life is up to him. What is important is that he's foreign secretary at the very time we are giving up our armed forces to the French.
But no, the only priority it seems for the 'big hitters' in the UK blogosphere, is someone's sexuality. Sometimes I wonder if the citizens of the UK don't deserve to live in a sovereign democratic nation.
