(c) Doc Hackenbush 2014
What happened yesterday can be put directly: Ms Mensch suggested that Labour leadership hopeful Liz Kendall was being smeared by supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, but the Twitter autocompletes she showed were from her own search history. She was then mocked for her idiocy. Articles appeared in both the Guardian and HuffPost detailing her faux pas. So did she retract, or apologise? Er, no. She blamed the Guardian.
You think I jest? The fateful Tweet claimed “Twitter's autocomplete on Liz Kendall MP. This is the sewer that is Jeremy Corbyn's support”. But the results shown in her accompanying photo - not, it seems, screen shot - were from her own search history. This the Guardian reported. “.@KevinJRawlinson I assume you are the author of the piece stating that I tried to "smear" the Jeremy Corbyn campaign, which is false” she protested.
And there was more: “.@KevinJRawlinson Can you sustain that I ‘did not respond to a request for comment’? I have no emails, calls or tweets from you”. Rawlinson had sent her a Twitter DM, to which she had not replied. This he reported. She was still unhappy, though: “.@KevinJRawlinson are you the same Kevin Rawlinson credited with utterly false piece about my ‘bid to smear the Corbyn campaign’?” she demanded.
She didn’t try to smear the Corbyn campaign? “It is a complete lie to say I made any bid to smear the Corbyn campaign @Guardian; as is the falsehood that I refused comment”. He didn’t claim she refused comment, and she’s been slagging off Corbyn’s supporters for several days now. “I archived the @Guardian's utterly false piece stating both that I tried to ‘smear’ the Corbyn campaign and refused comment”. Er, big deal.
“I actually even double checked my spam folders to see if they asked for comment. No”. Try checking your DMs, then. And while you’re at it, explain why the Guardian article does not contain the word “smear”. But on she ploughed: “Is utterly false. Will take advice tomorrow. No ‘bid to smear Corbyn's campaign’. No refusal of comment”. Is she going to sue? On what grounds? Hey, get the popcorn in!
But she wasn’t finished: “The @Guardian's piece about me is totally, utterly false. They also did not seek a comment from me. I have no emails or calls”. Check your DMs (again). “Again, I made no ‘bid to smear Jeremy Corbyn's campaign’ and it is a gross traducing of my character. Utter falsehood”. Nobody used the word “smear” - except you.
I trust this minor spat will not imperil her chances of a Nobel prize for literature. I understand that the judges are smiling favourably on her major works of fiction.
The word 'smear' was in the original headline and can still be seen in the URL. http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/1002730/diff/0/1
@Simon, but "Smear" looks like a pretty good description of what Loopy Lou was trying to do.
Mensch....shmensch....what's it matter so long as you take the piss out of her?
She gets more loony by the day. Maybe she sees the men in white coats hovering off stage for when she's finished.
Even after taking into consideration her normal level of idiocy, this one is very, very special. It took a while to stop laughing before I could comment. Just pure gold comedy wonderful. Zelo St, take a bow on the presentation.
And thanks Louise, as allowing yourself to be ridiculed and then doubling down on the stupid is a great service for humanity.
Post a Comment