The disgusting Tory letter in this weeks Ob

[garinda]

Apparently certain people do read Accy Web.

It would be nice, instead of being a passive participant, they could join in a bit more, and make a post saying, it was, or wasn't me, who penned that letter guv.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Less

Will the real Marlene please step forward?

Just googled her and look who's alias it is on page 2 of images?


Marelene Haworth - Google Search

It's like Psycho meets Silence of the Lambs.



I've now got his nightmare image of someone dressed up in a rocking chair, wearing someone else's skin.



'Call me Momma Marlene honey, and don't use the shower in bungalow three. We're waiting for a plumber to unblock the congealed drains.'



'Now give Momma's chair another li'l rock, honey.'

[MargaretR]

Nice find - what we suspected anyway, now proved as near as dammit


PS just noticed that the pic of PB labelled Marlene Haworth comes from the website of the notorious person 'Life'(now banned)
Pity - thought you had a scoop

[LYNX1]

Sorry less, tried to look at the pics on the link but unfortunately there was a rather delicious male torso on the same page so cannot comment on the pic I should have been looking at

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

PS just noticed that the pic of PB labelled Marlene Haworth comes from the website of the notorious person 'Life'(now banned)

Another coincidence ?

[Less]

Originally Posted by LYNX1

Sorry less, tried to look at the pics on the link but unfortunately there was a rather delicious male torso on the same page so cannot comment on the pic I should have been looking at

I'd done belt and braces, I'd put the link and I also put the piccy underneath, yet you still couldn't fettle it!

[LYNX1]

Originally Posted by Less

I'd done belt and braces, I'd put the link and I also put the piccy underneath, yet you still couldn't fettle it!

The pic I was looking at was much better

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by andrewb

As much as I agree that the letter should not have been published.. I think you've been hypocritical.

You've used this to your political advantage and are essentially smearing me, by making things up about me at the end of your blog post regarding this letter. It makes it sound like there is some prolonged Conservative smear campaign, which weakens your argument when half of it is a false, incorrect, made up conspiracy without any shred of evidence.

Neither the letter in the Observer nor your blogpost comments regarding me should have been published. As I said at http://www.accringtonweb.com/forum/803130-post49.html they're all as pathetic as each other.

The letter should never have been wrote, and neither should the blog comments. I can see why Graham would be angry at the letter, for insinuating falsities. See no Labour members as yet have come out to condemn the blog comments which insinuates falsities.

[g jones]

Originally Posted by andrewb

The letter should never have been wrote, and neither should the blog comments. I can see why Graham would be angry at the letter, for insinuating falsities. See no Labour members as yet have come out to condemn the blog comments which insinuates falsities.

Andrew. We are dealing with a Tory letter. I know you want thread drift but to most people you are demonstrating evasiveness which is something you do frequently.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by g jones

Andrew. We are dealing with a Tory letter. I know you want thread drift but to most people you are demonstrating evasiveness which is something you do frequently.

Don't wish to drift the thread. No evasiveness, have said I condemn the letter. I also brought this up with you privately beforehand asking you to retract, which you refused.

You felt it important enough to insinuate falsehoods about me in your blog post about the letter. I know it has nothing to do with the letter, but you've managed to somehow falsely link it in, so I think it belongs here. I'm still awaiting the retraction of the comments that falsely claim I tried to smear you. I somehow doubt you will retract it though, as it (falsely) adds to your argument against the letter.

Utter hypocrisy that you (rightly) call foul over the letter, but are happy to entirely make up a smear (at my expense) against yourself in order to make it look like you're a target of several attacks. You were the target of the letter, and that's it.

Honesty Graham. You know in your heart of hearts you have no evidence at all to suggest that I smeared you. It's all just make believe.

Do the decent thing and please remove the comments that insinuate falsities please. Your argument against the letter is far stronger when you're not making things up against me in the same breath.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by andrewb

Don't wish to drift the thread. No evasiveness, have said I condemn the letter. I also brought this up with you privately beforehand asking you to retract, which you refused.

You felt it important enough to insinuate falsehoods about me in your blog post about the letter. I know it has nothing to do with the letter, but you've managed to somehow falsely link it in, so I think it belongs here. I'm still awaiting the retraction of the comments that falsely claim I tried to smear you. I somehow doubt you will retract it though, as it (falsely) adds to your argument against the letter.

Utter hypocrisy that you (rightly) call foul over the letter, but are happy to entirely make up a smear (at my expense) against yourself in order to make it look like you're a target of several attacks. You were the target of the letter, and that's it.

Honesty Graham. You know in your heart of hearts you have no evidence at all to suggest that I smeared you. It's all just make believe.

Do the decent thing and please remove the comments that insinuate falsities please. Your argument against the letter is far stronger when you're not making things up against me in the same breath.

I'll give you your dues, Andrew, you're shaping up to be a fine Hyndburn Tory politician.

You're clearly a bright young lad who likes to think he's got his finger firmly on the pulse but you're full of hypocrisy and never answer a straight question. You may win a bit more respect on here if you started posting in a more concrete way, such as backing up your statements with facts when asked for them. You also need to develop a thicker skin if you think a vague mention in someone's blog is smearing your name, particularly as no one else could give a toss and it's you who keeps bringing it up.

You're spitting feathers about a veiled reference in Graham's blog yet he's having to deal with the local Conservative Party dragging his dead grandmother into a very public and rather nasty political point scoring exercise.

Just take a step back and get some perspective.

[Hiddlebit]

Seems to me there was no smear in terms of the blog as it mentions no names.

Unlike the letter.

I for one would tend to believe I was being targeted after interestingly timed FOI requests and dodgy letters being published, and would fight back.

[Less]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

I'll give you your dues, Andrew, you're shaping up to be a fine Hyndburn Tory politician.

You're clearly a bright young lad who likes to think he's got his finger firmly on the pulse but you're full of hypocrisy and never answer a straight question. You may win a bit more respect on here if you started posting in a more concrete way, such as backing up your statements with facts when asked for them. You also need to develop a thicker skin if you think a vague mention in someone's blog is smearing your name, particularly as no one else could give a toss and it's you who keeps bringing it up.

You're spitting feathers about a veiled reference in Graham's blog yet he's having to deal with the local Conservative Party dragging his dead grandmother into a very public and rather nasty political point scoring exercise.

Just take a step back and get some perspective.

Well said, now put it on the 'to be ignored pile', along with all the other posts from people that have tried to tell him.

[garinda]

Some, unnamed people, don't need to be smeared, as they come ready basted, covered in their own cheap grease.

[andrewb]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

I'll give you your dues, Andrew, you're shaping up to be a fine Hyndburn Tory politician.

You're clearly a bright young lad who likes to think he's got his finger firmly on the pulse but you're full of hypocrisy and never answer a straight question. You may win a bit more respect on here if you started posting in a more concrete way, such as backing up your statements with facts when asked for them. You also need to develop a thicker skin if you think a vague mention in someone's blog is smearing your name, particularly as no one else could give a toss and it's you who keeps bringing it up.

You're spitting feathers about a veiled reference in Graham's blog yet he's having to deal with the local Conservative Party dragging his dead grandmother into a very public and rather nasty political point scoring exercise.

Just take a step back and get some perspective.

Hiddlebit it wasn't interestingly timed, the FOI was more than a year ago.

I think it's quite shameful that Graham has to make things up, without a single shred of evidence. Shameful that not a single Labour member has come out and said 'wait, Graham, there is no evidence, at all, maybe you should re-think'.

All you're interested in is the letter. I put right and wrong before party. Have said the letter is wrong. Seems no Labour member is going to come out and say Graham's comments are wrong. Says it all, so I'll leave it at that.