Archive for the ‘james purnell’ Category

Tameside Ted #8

October 1, 2007

Sean is back to the MEN articles, posting under his Tameside Ted alter-ego. He’s commenting today about the James Purnell ‘fake photo’ row:

The real story is: Why is this story (which is as a result of the hospital) so big that it pushes the Burma protests to 2nd billing?

Even worse the M.E.N. do a poll on it!!


Tameside Ted

We’re sure we don’t have to remind you that Purnell is Sean’s boss…


Wikipedia: James Purnell #7

July 24, 2007

Turning to his employer’s Talk page, Sean removes comments about him posted by someone else.

Wikipedia: James Purnell #6

July 3, 2007

Sean turns to the wikipedia page for his boss, James Purnell. He removes sections of the biography which discuss Purnell’s affair with an editor for BBC Newsnight, Thea Rogers, and the subsequent less than challenging interview that Jeremy Paxman gave him. Sean’s comments are as follows:

as prev stated by moderators – not sourced/relevant LOCK will be req for this article

Tameside Ted #5

March 16, 2007

Sean’s back at the MEN, posting as ‘Tameside Ted’ to comment on an article about how ‘green’ MPs are:

i think this is a very good insight.. would be even better if the tameside green party representative also gave his own answers!!!

As a resident in Hyde I will be keeping my vote with the best man for the job… James Purnell.
Tameside Ted, Stalybridge

We’re sure you all know that James Purnell is Sean’s boss…

Wikipedia: James Purnell #5

February 8, 2007

As if to add insult to injury, Sean returns to his master’s article to add the same erroneous reference he inserted in another part of the same article.

Wikipedia: James Purnell #4

February 8, 2007

Sean today returns to his employer’s page on wikipedia. Newsnight had been accused of giving the junior minister an easy time with a recent interview, and it subsequently emerged that Purnell had had a brief affair with a Newsnight editor at the same time. Sean came along to help out, but missed out a word, and so the article is made worse!

Next to a reference to the story, Sean unhelpfully adds “The Department for Work and Pensions confirmed there was wrong doing“.

Wikipedia: James Purnell #3

September 1, 2006

It’s September 2006, and Sean is back to edit the record about Purnell’s involvement in the Liz Davies affair. He removes the word ‘court’ from ‘out of court settlement’, and changes ‘allegations’ to ‘misunderstanding’. It’s almost as if it had never happened…

And once again, the description of his edit gives away more than the edit itself: Red Pepper story is inaccurate – no record exists in the High Court of this case, hence an out of court settlement was not a possibility”. It also reveals his ignorance of the law & legal process – an out of court settlement is, by definition, not in Court, but this doesn’t mean it never existed in the first place. 

Wikipedia: James Purnell #2

August 17, 2006

…and a few minutes later, he’s back to James’ profile, with more info. He provides context for the post, but it reads like total nonsense, and surely only he and a few other Labour Party nerds would understand what it all means?

But the parliamentary connections are given away by his description of his edit Added correct events from court case as found in latest Dod’s Parliamentary Companion – where else but the office of an MP would you be more likely to find such a reference book?

Wikipedia: James Purnell #1

August 17, 2006

Sean works for the Stalybridge and Hyde MP James Purnell. Today’s edit is the first in a long line of edits which attempt to whiten the reputation of his employer on wikipedia (they will all be chronicled here).

This edit is an attempt to clean up Purnell’s involvement in the alleged libelling of a fellow Labour Party member Liz Davies, back when Purnell was a councillor in Islington. Sean makes it look like she’s not only disloyal to the Labour Party, but a ‘not-to-be-trusted Trotskyite’ with this edit.