Hey Webmasters! New Photo Album Service Launched - Check it out!
|
|
|
DO YOU 'REALLY' KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON (BEHIND THE SCENES) IN SOUTHPORT'S POLITICAL CIRCLES?
Libdem candidate banned from the web for making abusive postings?
The 'Truth'
(as presented by several 'unconnected' sources)
concerning Southport MP's senior case worker and others
John Pugh's assistant - Tony ('Tonio') Dawson 'before' his exposure for internet abuse by the Oldham press
My, oh my – how many residents of Southport have looked behind the scenes to access what lies beneath the surface of local politics? More importantly, how come the Oldham media covered the following story in detail whilst editors in 'Southport' apparently did not?
Outrageous tales of embarrassing shenanigans have recently come to the attention of SW, concerning claims of odd goings-on involving a Southport political activist, Tony Dawson, ex-vice chairman of the Libdems and others.
---------------------
The Labour Party in the region of 'Oldham' last year have reported that Tony Dawson was 'banned' for numerous 'abusive' postings on the popular Southport SGB website. Mr Dawson is, we are told, currently Senior Case Worker for Southport MP, Dr John Pugh.
John Pugh was booted off a local hospital cuts pressure group (CARES) some time ago and allegedly Dawson too. Subsequent to this action Dawson was said to have started his relentless 'abusive message campaign' on SGB threads, savaging any other posters who challenged his strange and highly offensive tirades.
The regular Oldham media also reported this situation too around the time that Dawson stood as Libdem candidate for that town. He later lost his bid for the seat in that area.
Mr Dawson seems to have a very bizarre thing about 'donkeys' too (yes - it's true, you read it right - 'DONKEYS') as the Oldham Chronicle reported:
The internet service provider barred Mr Dawson from the chatroom, after a series of messages that fellow contributors complained were offensive. In one exchange, Mr Dawson wrote: “Which dumb, helpless animals would you like us to abuse besides donkeys? Abuse a donkey or two for me in an imaginative way, won’t you.”
According to the Labour Party broadsheet Mr Dawson made “1580 messages” before he was "banned".
In May 2005 the Rochdale Observer reported :
Alleging a ‘dirty tricks’ campaign, Mr Dawson – who has referred Mr Woolas’ final election leaflet to the police – said voters had deserved a better level of debate.
Mr Dawson may have indeed made such an action against Phil Woolas (his political opponent and Oldham's standing Labour MP) to the Police regarding this leaflet, but was it in any way inaccurate? Was Mr Woolas perhaps warned or possibly prosecuted subsequent to the presentation of this leaflet? Eh well no - to the best of our knowledge it stands as a 'testimony' to the truth of the situation.
A supportive source has sent SW extracts from what is presumably' the Labour leaflet which Mr Dawson objected too. SW had no input into this document and we also note that it has appeared on political website forums, apparently without any effective challenge being made.
Oddly, there also seems to be some sort of dispute over Mr Dawson's first name yet this appears to be the way that the story apparently entered the homes of many Oldham's residents.
How the Labour Party apparently questioned Tony Dawson's veracity in what we believe was their Oldham leaflet
On the sheet for the General Election 2001 Candidate Expenditure for City of Chester he is named as ‘David Anthony Dawson,’ yet the results page for that city election (wherein he lost his bid to win) refers to him as ‘Tony Dawson’.
On Libdem literature he appears as simply ‘Tony Dawson’, whilst in Oldham it seems uncertain what his actual name is supposed to be and this had created some confusion according the the local media and his political opponents therein. Dawson’s political rivals have also challenged whereabouts he is actually supposed to live – in Southport or Oldham!
Bewildered? Well yes – so are we!
The beleaguered CARES campaigners apparently felt the brunt of Tony Dawson's rage on SGB forums and this statement from this link apparently indicates just what they had to put up with subsequent to his and Dr Pugh's expulsion from the group:
"Following his expulsion Mr Pugh quickly made local front page news by attacking a CARES member and bringing her private religious beliefs into the scenario. Personal beliefs had no place whatsoever in the campaign and it was extremely wrong of this MP to resort to such tactics in public. Ordinary residents including ones that vote Libdem have expressed concern over this unwarranted and seemingly discriminatory action by John Pugh. Around this time, Mr Pugh’s assistant and then Vice Chair of the local Liberal Democrats, Tony Dawson, mounted what was to become a lengthy one-man crusade of appalling abuse under the pseudonym of ‘Tonio’ on SGB website forums. Mr Dawson was later exposed by the Oldham press for writing bizarre things on the SGB website against CARES members. CARES brought all of these matters to the attention of both Mr Pugh and Libdem leader Charles Kennedy yet nothing was apparently done to halt the abuse. The press in Southport have largely avoided on reporting this situation to the public at large. "
Apparently the messages to Mr Kennedy and Pugh concerning Mr Dawson's incredible abuse against ordinary constituents, were never reported (as alleged by CARES) by the Southport media. Why not - what were they actually afraid of?
MP booted out of group who then brought private 'religious' viewpoints into
the scenario - why?
John Pugh MP, who was expelled from the CARES group and soon after brought the personal religious views of
one of his own constituents into the situation
The local press did however report on how John Pugh MP had incredibly brought the private religious beliefs of one CARES members into the public arena, following his expulsion. Incidentally, Pugh was formerly a Religious Studies teacher.
The gist of the story was that Dr Pugh suggested that this member could not be trusted to run the CARES campaign because she had previously had "Major fallouts" with other people within her religious circle. After his democratically agreed CARES removal he also called for this member (Cath Regan, a co-chair) to be 'sacked'.
Devoted mother of four, qualified NNEB and long standing CARES hospital campaigner, Cath Regan
SW ask - what the heck has old religious disputes got to do with a secular hospital campaign today?
Perhaps Dr Pugh's odd grasp of logic means something special to him yet we are at it loss to understand his comments!
SW believe that Dr Pugh was totally out of order for attacking one of his OWN constituents in such a fashion. Could this unusual action indicate personal bias and a breach of human rights?
Private religious views had no part in the hospital campaign, so whatever was he trying to 'achieve' by bringing them up so publicly, subsequent to his removal from the campaign group?
--------------------------
What's in a name?
Tonio - angiesbaby - who?
We also hear that some believe that Mr Dawson is 'still', even after all this unbelievable nonsense, posting on SGB forums, albeit under a 'different' pseudonym ('angiesbaby' perhaps - according to the Southport Party [TSP] website) than the one that previously let him down so badly. How accurate this info is we are not 'yet' certain.
We don't know whether to laugh or cry though at this disconcerting situation yet we do believe that it is rather disturbing to discover that such an abusive political activist is still apparently assisting an MP to make important decisions in a large tourist town - don't residents have a right to know about all this? We are also told that the MP is 'fully' aware of the Tonio abuse situation (as mentioned above) and apparently did little or nothing to stop it. CARES' mentions of enlightening Charles Kennedy are also revealing and indicate that this situation was know about fully right from the top of the Libdem tree. Documents and letters etc are, we believe, available to prove all of this too.
Why was it allowed to continue?
Why did the Libdem leader not step in to stop such odious behaviour from soiling his party?
The local press were, we believe, fully informed too and simply ignored these serious issues - WHY?
The mind boggles at the ‘judgement’ of some so-called leading politicians and lack of insight displayed by the media.
This matter is also reported on the local Southport Party website wherein they state:
"Enclosed are a series of newspaper cuttings and excerpts concerning the antics of Tony Dawson (or should it be "David Anthony Dawson"?), assistant to Southport's Member of Parliament, John Pugh, during the 2005 General Election campaign. If he is capable of this unruly behaviour, e.g. talk of "abusing donkies" on a public chat forum, incorrectly entering his name on his nomination paper (he had no trouble putting his correct name on his nomination form for the 2001 General Election in Chester), then what was he capable of doing during the local elections in 2003 and 2004 when he worked in the Liberal Democrat office in Shakespeare Street, Southport? It must be borne in mind that John Pugh was fully aware of Tony Dawson's activities on the chat forums."
During Dawson's Oldham election campaign claims were also made that he "doctored" certain pictures taken in Southport to use on his 'Oldham' Libdem leaflets. This is how the national press reported the story:
The above picture, we are reliably informed, was taken in 'Southport' and later used on Dawson's Oldham election news sheets - the small signs held by students have clearly been blanked out for some reason! SW has an original copy of the Oldham election leaflet and this is quite true - the writing on the smaller posters in the picture HAVE apparently been blocked out - WHY?
Dawson left high and dry by disgusted 'fellow' campaigners - once again!
Following the expulsion of John Pugh and Tony Dawson from the CARES hospital campaign group an effort was apparently made to save face by the Libdem group in Southport.
Obviously trying to reinvent the wheel, the copycat SOS (Save our Services) group was formed apparently under Libdem guidance and Dawson, under his 'Tonio' pseudonym, apparently promoted this effort to the hilt whilst at the same time venting his spleen on the SGB forums against CARES members who he constantly referred to as "splitters". Sadly for him though the public members of SOS, who he seemingly 'thought' to be his allies, apparently got thoroughly sick of his obnoxious posts (1580 according to the Labour Party ) and so they sought to distance themselves from this persistent abuse.
message to cares
"Todays date is Wednesday 10th December. It has come to myself
and Louise Beavers attention today about an e mail campaign against members of
CARES. I would like to state as both being committed Christians we cannot be
involved in this bad feeling or condone this behaviour. No time or ever have we
been party to this, as non political people this is all beyond us. We have
always no matter what our differences always wanted the full return of Services
to our town, we have always wished CARES all the best in whatever they set out
to do. It is time to lay all this bickering to rest. Peace and love to you all
this Christmas.
God Bless "
Karen Hardy and Louise Beaver
10-12-2003 07:32 PM
This above message from SOS public members, Mrs Hardy and Beaver, on SGB chat rooms was just one that must have made Mr Dawson want to crawl under the nearest stone. Clearly these ladies were less than impressed with his efforts.
SW would be pleased to hear more about the 'concerns', regarding this matter, from either SOS members or anyone else with genuine input into the background of this odious situation.
It would appear, from the above, that the Oldham branch of the Labour Party are certainly 'not' the only ones having serious concerns about John Pugh's current senior case worker's unusual behaviour at that particular time.
Other more moderately inclined Libdems have expressed deep concerns about this black stain on their party's good name, in much the same fashion that the SOS campaigners have, as reported above.
More provable abuse from another source - ignored by the Southport media!
Another Libdem activist SIMON SHAW (now Cllr. Shaw of Birkdale, Southport) also made a bit of a stir around the same time that Mr Dawson was making an 'ass' (pun perhaps intended) of himself. Shaw went to one of CARES public meetings, which were presented in good faith to help regain lost children's emergency services. Rather than help out with any constructive comment, Mr Shaw apparently shouted the house down resulting in him getting thrown out of the meeting for disruptive behaviour.
This disgraceful event was reported on the Southport Party site and CARES site yet once against the Southport press fought shy of the story - WHY?
This is what the Southport Party had to say about Mr Shaw:
These views are the same in relation to Simon Shaw, who was expelled, accompanied by Fred Weavers from the CARES meeting held at Trinity Church Hall on the evening of 24th September 2003 for disruptive behaviour. Simon Shaw has now, quite incredibly for someone capable of that sort of behaviour, been elected as a LibDem Councillor, as too has his friend, Fred Weavers. Is it any wonder that the officers of Sefton are reported as holding councillors such as these in very low esteem and taking advantage of their ignorance by forming the current "Officer Party" on Sefton Council? Simon Shaw and Tony Dawson have now started their own personal vendetta against this party and some of our prospective councillors on the Southport chat forums. You are invited to view their posts to see how malicious, spiteful and vindictive some individuals are when anyone opposes them. Simon Shaw posts in his own name, Tony Dawson posts in the names "Tonio" and, we strongly believe, "angiesbaby".
Shaw seen in action amongst the audience before his expulsion from a CARES meeting for disruptive behaviour
Incidentally, the Southport Party was attacked and has been compared to the 'BNP' by a poster called ‘Simon Shaw’ on the SGB website. Naturally, TSP will be greatly offended via being tarnished as racists by this poster and we believe that they have complained to Mr Rodwell (SGB site owner) several times asking for the offensive comments to be removed. SW is told that these requests have fallen on deaf ears and that the comments are still on the thread in question.
This is the claim by ‘Simon Shaw’:
“Do “minority Parties” include the Southport Party as well as the BNP, Duncet? The reason I ask is that the published election leaflets of Southport Party candidates include statements which many ordinary decent people would assume were put forward by candidates of the BNP. I say that in the sense that if you were to quote these statements (without attribution) to a cross-section of people in the street and ask them “which party’s election literature do you think that came from”, a fair number would answer “BNP”. I wonder what David Cameron would have to say about the Southport Party?”
http://www.southportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50359489
Has this poster gone too far?
The Southport Party have apparently NOT taken his actions lightly and have issued this warning on their own website:
"Simon Shaw has now been reminded (April 2006) by the Assistant Legal Director of Sefton Council of his obligations as a Councillor. The Police WILL BE INVOLVED, perhaps other authorities as well, if his current obnoxious and thoroughly offensive conduct does not improve."
The fact that SGB have apparently 'ignored' TSP's fair-minded requests to remove this blatantly offensive slur is rather disconcerting to say the least and appears to be at odds with one of Mr Rodwell’s earlier media statements (Champion, 17th August 2005):
“I do believe in freedom of speech, but if anything appears on the website which is racist or breaks the law, then it is removed straight away.”
Mr Rodwell has been previously featured by the local press in racist row claims. He is also standing as a 'Tory' candidate in the May elections in Southport.
Now all this may be nothing but hot air yet we also note that one moderator on that particular website called 'pedoja' has upset some posters as follows..........
An SGB poster called ‘2112’ criticised the BNP with this comment:
“Whilst I normally respect your well reasoned and sensible posts, this is just plain daft. If these people vote BNP, they are either VERY stupid or they are racist. It's not rocket science.”
The moderator pedoja retorted with this comment:
“I think that is an unfair comment 2112.”
http://www.southportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50359489&page=2&pp=30
Hot air, ignorance or alternatively clear 'sympathy' from an SGB moderator for what many believe to be a racist campaign? You decide!
Just what is going on?
SW is NOT impressed with the way in which such stories are apparently brushed under the carpet by the more faint-hearted forces of journalistic professionalism - the truth must be rooted out and reported by the press as we ALL have a right to know the facts in a 'supposedly' democratic society. Southport residents have a right to know the truth from the newspapers that are 'supposed' to tell them the facts!
In much the same way that various leading religious bodies conveniently failed miserably to report their own vile paedophile clergy for numerous years (which led to millions in compensation payments for child victims), the turn a blind eye Southport media are perhaps GUILTY of a similar thing and this is NOT good enough. Burying one's head in the sand may seem like a good idea at the time to some editors but the TRUTH will always come out, one way or another, in the end! Ignorance, fear, bias, blatant bloody-mindedness or sheer spinelessness are NO excuses for avoiding the 'Truth' - which WILL eventually be revealed, regardless of pathetic media attempts to keep the populace in the dark!
SOUTHPORT RESIDENTS DEMAND AND 'DESERVE' TO BE GRANTED WITH GENUINE 'FACTS,' NOT TAINTED PROPAGANDA EXTRACTS - WRAPPED IN THE SOILED SHEET OF SHAM RESPECTABILITY!
This information will be sent to the Southport media so they cannot claim ignorance of the above issues. Will they act on our report in good - faith or continue to bury their heads in the sand?
-------------------------
NB. Southport Watch is not in any way, shape or form a political group and has no political affiliations to any party. We present the facts of such stories as above in the name of freedom of information and fair play for the general public at large. Facts are to the best of our knowledge truthful and accurate and parties involved that have supplied us with detailed information can and have saved all relevant material to establish any claims made. If you find that we have any errors on our website then we will be delighted to correct them. SW believe that there are good and bad politicians in all political parties and that the public must have all pertinent facts (not media biased spin) at hand before making any judgements about which grouping and policies to support. We sincerely maintain that we do not seek to influence the vote of anyone and merely urge the public to be in possession of all the facts before making such decisions.
This basis is the foundation stone of our democracy and please do remember that genuine liberty cannot be either held or preserved without residents having proper access to accurate information that the media would perhaps sometimes wish to avoid.
bravenet.com