On Blogging: Finding the right web hosting service

I've been running 'Militant Ginger' since June 2006 - and it's evolved considerably since then.

The most notable change is probably the design - when Militant Ginger started up, it was just a standard 'blogspot' template, with a text banner at the top and one column on the side.

Since then, I've fiddled around enough to customize my blog completely - with a funky banner, two columns of features and a central bit to post all my blogs. (I also think my writing has improved considerably, but I guess that's subjective!)

Customizing a blog is probably the most important thing you can do to make it stand out from the crowd - as it shows a commitment to your readers that a boring old template simply doesn't. Quality posts and writing skill is very important - but many visitors to your blog simply aren't going to make the effort to read what you've written unless the layout grabs them.

Take this as an example - my blog, compared to that of Neil Clark. Neil is a 'serious' writer, as he contributes regularly to The Guardian, the Daily Express and many other newspapers and magazines (none of which, unlike my journalistic endeavors, have pictures of naked women in.) However, his blog really doesn't do his successful writing career any justice - especially not when compared to mine (which perhaps promises more than it can deliver!)

Militant Ginger, on the left, looks more appealing than Neil Clark, on the right.

The good news is that customizing a blog isn't that difficult - for example, I know virtually nothing about coding in HTML or anything technical like that, but I've managed to push the limits of blogger's technology and come up with something I'm pretty proud of.

To really take it to the next level, though, it's time to look beyond the free hosting of blogger.

I've experimented with a couple of 'official websites' in the past - however, I've also had some pretty poor luck with them. In the wonderful world of the Internet, not all web hosting services are created equal and I the one I used (Easy Space) turned out to be less than cooperative.

Which is why it's great to discover a website like Web Hosting Geeks.

These self-confessed 'geeks' have put down a comparison of some of the top web hosting sites and services and compared them, so you can see exactly what you get for your money. Even better, they offer links to independent reviews of these hosts so you can see for yourself what people's experiences were.

If you're not technically minded - much like myself - than doing a bit of research on a website like webhostinggeeks.com can save you from a lot of headaches.

It's worth thinking seriously about what you want before you spend your hard earned money on web hosting. Successful blogs and website tend to have a 'concept' - a consistent thread which runs through each and every post. Establish that thread first, then decide what services you'll need (a domain name, specific email address or lots of bandwidth) and then, finally, use a service like Web Hosting Geeks to pick the provider that's right for you.

The best thing about Web Hosting Geeks is that you can use them for multiple domain hosting - so if you have more than one website or blog on the go, you can host them all from one convenient location, making editing and updating them a breeze.

Is Capitalism to blame for the economy?

Scrappy socialist Neil Clark is clapping his hands in glee at the economic woes befalling Wall Street - which is pretty typical, since Neil is one of Britain's leading champions of Schadenfreude.

But does his take on the economic situation stand up to examination?

"We are now back in 1989- but the system that is collapsing before our very eyes is not Soviet communism, but Anglo-Saxon turbo-capitalism™. In the end, this most rapacious of economic models was destroyed by its own greed. It's time for everyone... ...to pop the champagne corks."

Greed, dishonesty and a very short-sighted agenda certainly contributed to the crisis on Wall Street - but they aren't exclusively to blame. Capitalism isn't the problem - the government's meddling is.

One such example is the Government's involvement in mortgage giants Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac - entities Neil Clark incorrectly identified as private industries. In reality, they were anything but.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, hence 'Frannie Mae') and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC, hence 'Freddie Mac') are both Government Sponsored Enterprises - corporations created by the government and intricately linked to activities on Capital Hill.

Frannie Mae was created as part of Franklin D. Roosevelt's 'New Deal' in 1938 and was an entirely nationalised industry right up until 1968, when it was turned into a allegedly private corporation (enjoying a virtual monopoly on America's secondary mortgage market.)

Freddie Mac was created in 1970 to expand that market and offer competition to the newly privatised Frannie Mae. (No, two government sponsored companies in competition with each other doesn't make much sense to me, either.)

Despite being hypothetically privatised, both Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae enjoyed many things other private corporations didn't - including an unwritten reassurance that the securities it issued would be guaranteed by the Federal Government. What The Economist called; "the implicit government guarantee."

In addition to that, other private financial institutions had to maintain a capital/asset ratio of at least 3% to the mortgage backed securities they sold. Freddie and Frannie were exempt from that requirement, only having half as much cash to back those securities up.

The final icing on the cake? Both Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae were exempt from local and state taxes, giving them another massive advantage over 'real' private industry.

So Neil's suggestion that Freddie and Frannie were private corporations is pretty short sighted. They weren't - and that makes their collapse even more inexcusable.

Where did Freddie and Franny go wrong?

Neil Clark blames the entire collapse of Wall Street on the 'turbo capitalist' model (no, I have no idea what that means, either.)

With Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae, the blame can actually be directed towards politicians.

The management and accounting practices of Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac were known to be pretty shifty for at least a decade before their collapse.

The House Banking Subcommittee On Capital Markets, Securities And Government Sponsored Enterprises were holding hearings on Frannie Mae as early as 2000, to question how the companies were being run.

In 2001, the Bush administration called for more accountability because Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac posed 'a potential problem' because 'financial trouble of the large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.'

In 2004, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight published a report highlighting accounting 'errors' that shifted losses around the balance books so the senior executives could award themselves millions of dollars in bonuses.

The Bush government again called for more regulation: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.”

John McCain himself highlighted the crooked management back in 2006, telling George Bush: "Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management" to justify those enormous bonuses.

In 2003 and again in 2005, Bush's government tried to bring about legislation that would make the management of Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae more accountable and transparent - and both times, this legislation was shot down by Democrats in congress.

Why?

Because the Democrats received enormous campaign contributions from Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae to help make sure no legislation like that ever came into being - legislation which could have put an end to the Government sponsored cash-cow that allowed them to cook the books and rake in millions of undeserved bonuses.

The evidence is pretty clear: Did you know that Barack Obama raked in over $126,000 in campaign contributions from Freddie and Frannie? In just two years?

Or that Hillary Clinton collected over $75,000 herself?

Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - one of the most vocal opponents of Bush's legislation - took over $56,000 in campaign contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

What does this mean?

The disastrous collapse of Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae had very little do to with the capitalist system and a lot to do with two government backed organisations being driven into the ground by crony management.

The left-wing politicians who were meant to be rallying against such forces of 'unregulated capitalism' sat idly by and let all this all happen (counting the money they'd accepted to turn a blind eye.)

Neil Clark might blame 'turbo capitalism' for the Freddie and Frannie disaster - I think the opposite is true. These two mortgage giants illustrated the flaws in the socialist system he advocates. When a government monopoly is backed by taxpayer's money, the inevitable result is corruption and profiteering by the minority in charge.

Right now, the collapse of Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae has resulted in the American taxpayer being saddled with up to a trillion dollars in 'bailout' money - and the crooks who'd 'cooked the books' and walked off with millions in crooked bonuses?

Well, former Chairman and CEO of Frannie Mae, Franklin Delano Raines, is an advisor to Barack Obama's presidential campaign on economic matters.

In the capitalist system, a scandal like this would have resulted in criminal investigations that would have made those of Enron pale into insignificance.

But thanks to the pseudo-socialist system that supported Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the crooks who collected millions in bonuses (more than $20 for Franklin Raines) didn't get busted and imprisoned - they got recruited by the Democratic party to help with their election campaign.

["Turbo-capitalism" trademarked Neil Clark, 1996, all rights reserved. Quotes butchered and taken out of context to maximise effectiveness - Kitty Copy Editor]

The Last Word on Georgia...

I don't think there's much point in me writing anything more about the crisis in Georgia. You can read more accurate fact and opinion elsewhere. I'd only originally started blogging about it because I was annoyed at certain bloggers delighting in Russia's rampant aggression.

The fact is, what started off as pro-Russian pandering by a few misguided bloggers has now descended to little more than farce. This morning, scrappy journalist Neil Clarke decided to launch the 'Russophobe of the Week award,' attacking journalists who criticized "Russia's perfectly legitimate and proportionate action to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide in South Ossetia."

Honestly - there's no need for me to try and repudiate that rubbish. It's just so utterly blinkered that anybody with an ounce of journalistic integrity is rolling in the aisles after reading it.

Even Mancunian-in-Mexico The Exile, who has been successfully wading through the facts and fiction of this war (and less successfully, trying to put a pro-Russian spin on it) admitted today that "the war over South Ossetia was an old fashioned land grab."

You can interpret the origins of this crisis any way you want - but you can't deny how it's all ended up. Russia is occupying Georgian territory and clearly has no intention of leaving until their aims are accomplished - specifically the absorption of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Whatever feeble higher moral ground Russia might have had has been abandoned now they've got their eyes on the prize.

Comment is Free?

WARNING: This is a boring post about utterly self-important bloggers.

In the very introspective world of Internet journalism, there's a debate raging about commenting policy.

Most blog systems, such as the one I use, Blogger, allow other Internet users to leave comments on posts bloggers make. Take a look at Why People With a Peanut Allergy Annoy Me to see some doozies.

It's very similar to the old fashioned 'Letters to the Editor' except commenting allows feedback to be instantaneous. It's one of the major reasons why Internet journalism is so much more dynamic than the regular printed kind.

Like all things, commenting can be abused - offensive posts or 'spam' are a regular problem for blog owners. But for the most part, commenting sparks earnest debate from the issues raised in a particular post.

Responsible bloggers allow uncensored commenting on their blog. This means that whatever facts or opinions they post are opened up to consideration by the readers - and any mistakes or dissentions can be posted for all and sundry to see.

However, a surprising number of bloggers either censor comments on their blogs - or refuse to allow any at all. Just ticking a box in the Blogger menu allows you to cut off any comment or criticism of your postings.

This kind of Stalinesque policy is pretty cowardly, as far as I'm concerned. I'm always surprised at the bloggers who adopt any form of restriction on commenting. They often claim to be the biggest advocates of 'free speech' but are enthusiastic in stifling it at a grassroots level.

Prime examples of these have been Telegraph contributors Oliver Kamm and Neil Clark. Oliver Kamm is more than willing to adopt a pompous, self-righteous tone regarding free speech when it suits his purpose - but until recently, rigidly refused to allow any form of commenting on his blog at all.

Neil Clark, on the other hand, ruthlessly censors any posts on his blog to eliminate what he calls 'criminal defamation' - which in reality means deleting anything drawing attention to previous actions he feels particularly embarrassed about.

It's all pretty pathetic, really. The first rule of journalism is not to write anything you're not prepared to stick behind and face the consequences of. Instead of addressing debate, like we should do in a society that embraces free speech, Kamm and Clarke end up smothering it.

Much more responsible are the opinionated antics of Jenn of the Jungle and The Exile. Both are outspoken bloggers on opposite ends of the political spectrum (Jenn is a right-wing Republican in anything-goes California, while The Exile is a pseudo-Socialist living the Bourgeoisie lifestyle in Mexico city.) Both of them allow uncensored commenting on their blogs and will tackle any criticism head-on. Good for them.

Allowing uncensored commenting on your blog means more than just opening the door to debate. It's a commitment to following through on the blogging principles that got you posting in the first place. A blog gives anybody the platform to spout their opinions. It's nothing short of hypocritical not to allow people to respond to them.

To that end, I've been surprised and impressed by Oliver Kamm's recent decision to allow commenting on his blog. Typically, he manages to drown this decision with a nauseating wave of self-righteousness - but at least it's a first step towards really taking ownership of his opinions.

I look forward to Neil Clark, who holds slightly higher moral ground than Mister Kamm, adopting a similar policy in the very near future.

The Neil Clark Story

UPDATE: Score change.

KAMM 1 / CLARK 1

Game is tied - with so much left to play for!

PLEASE SEE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS POST

They say being magnanimous is one of the 'measures of a man.'

I'm not sure I entirely believe that - but I will say one thing. I'm big enough to come clean when I've been wrong about something.

And when it comes to scrappy journalist Neil Clark, I won't admit being wrong about my opinion of him - but a recent discovery has put my opinion of the Guardian contributor into a new perspective and I think it bears repeating here.

I first discovered Neil Clark through the blog of Jenn of the Jungle, who runs rightwing website Screw Liberals Dot Com and manages to combine the outspoken opinions and total babe-like hotness of Ann Coulter with that oh-so-rare quality called sanity. And she loves dogs.

Neil next popped up on my radar during the 2007 Weblog Awards, where I wrote a long piece explaining in excruciating detail why his blog was totally unworthy of winning the prize as best UK blog.

Further proof why democracy is overrated was given when Neil went on to win the award with an overwhelming majority.

Since then, I have continued to wage a guerrilla war against the forces of 'Neildom' by highlighting his most idiotic posts (or why people who wear hats are more civilised) and grudgingly agreeing with some of his more Eurocentric posts. At the end of the day, as much as I dislike his politics, we are both self-publicists with an occasional cute turn of phrase.

In tackling Neil's ridiculous politics, I've occasionally resorted to mentioning a rather nasty incident between him and Times contributor Oliver Kamm. Neil has the dubious distinction of being the first man to attempt to sue a 'blogger' for slander and defamation of character on the Internet.

The court case itself was thrown out and a good job too - free speech must be protected when courts often accomplish what legislators can't. But the fact that Neil handled the matter with spectacular incompetence doesn't detract from the reality that he has a legitimate reason to consider himself a victim.

So since new evidence has come to my attention - and I've grudgingly shifted my position in Neil's favor - I think it's worth doing what I can't do anywhere else and set the record straight.

Clark Vs. Kamm

I should warn you that this is a post-modernist tale and there's no clearly defined 'good guy' or 'bad guy.' In fact, both our leads act like unrepentant dicks during various stages of this story, but that's the stuff the best French cinema is made of.

Back in 2005, Oliver Kamm published a book called "Anti -Totalitarianism: The Left-wing Case for a Neoconservative Foreign Policy."

By all accounts, it's an excellently written book - even better when you see through Oliver Kamm's facade of being 'left wing' and realise he's a moderate/conservative like the rest of us. No true self respecting British 'left winger' would have left the socialist Labour Party in disgust, as Kamm did in 1988, only to rejoin it when Tony Blair arrived with his suitcase full of hijacked Tory policies in 1997. You're a shameless Tory, Kamm. Own up to it!

Oliver Kamm's book was reviewed by Neil Clark in the Telegraph in December of 2005.

Apparently.

Both Oliver Kamm and Neil Clark link to this review despite that fact that UNLIKE ANY OTHER BOOK REVIEW IN RECORDED HISTORY it fails to actually mention any of the books it's meant to be reviewing.

Hey, I warned you this story wasn't pretty. It involves self publicists with political delusions wallowing in their own self impotence [I think you mean 'importance' - Editorial Bear].

Now Neil Clark managed to achieve wonders. Not only did he 'review' a book without mentioning it's title or contents in any way - he also managed to piss Oliver Kamm off in the process. Not by calling him unconvincing or dishonest - which he did in his article - but by apparently not reading his book.

That's what Oliver Kamm alleged in his blog. After reading Neil's article in the Telegraph, Oliver suggested that the reason Neil hadn't mentioned many specific details of his book (like, ummm, the title) was because he'd never got further than reading the blurb on the back before scribbling his article.

Which is a LIE and SLANDER. Because The Telegraph would never publish such a dishonest and fraudulent contributor (for example, they don't publish my articles.) We hope.

In any event, Oliver Kamm also alleged that Neil's review features a misrepresented quote in it. Specifically that Bosnian leader Alija Izetbegovic used to recruit for the SS during World War II - long before he battled against genocidal Serbs in war torn Yugoslavia.

[Note to Oliver Kamm. You call that misrepresentation? Have you actually read any of the articles in newspapers? Militant Ginger gave an exclusive interview to The Sun once and they still managed to get his name and age wrong on the front cover. - Editorial Bear.]

The claim that Izetbegovic was an SS recruiter is clearly fictional - as Kamm points out, the late Bosnian president was only a teenager when World War II ended. However, whether the claim is true or not is irrelevant to the journalistic bickering that occurred regarding it.

Neil Clark quoted his sources for the Izetbegovic allegations as being the "Institute of Strategic Studies Organisation." Oliver Kamm, in researching Neil's sources (geeze, doesn't this guy have a life?) discovered that this organisation didn't exist.

If you google it, through, you come up with the International Institute of Strategic Studies - a world renowned strategic studies group with a reputation for honesty in what is basically seen as a ridiculously dishonest business (please see Thank You For Smoking to explain what Strategic Studies are - basically official studies designed to reach a predetermined conclusion.)

Kamm's further research (for God's sake, this guy needs a hobby) revealed the truth. Neil Clark's source for the Izetbegovic allegations came from a similarly named International Strategic Studies Association. Their impartiality on the whole Yugoslavia situation can be called into question by a 2003 report which suggested that the Bosnians had made up the whole Srebrenica massacre thing.

Yes, this situation IS as retarded as it sounds. Neil wrote this. Oliver wrote that. Basically it ended up as a pissing contest [Ohmygod that sounds disgusting - Editorial Bear] between two self important journalists who thought somebody out there actually gave a toss.

By that point, the higher moral ground was somewhere lower than the Mariana Trench, but somehow Oliver Kamm actually managed to sink even further.

Soon after this incident flared up, the editors who commissioned Neil Clark's articles started to get emails from a mysterious fellow called George Courtenay. They were sent (with minor variations) to the Guardian, Australian, First Post, Morning Star, New Statesman, Spectator and Daily Express - all the papers Neil contributes to.

To: The Editor
Subject: Neil Clark sources

Dear Sir,

I see you have published an opinion article by Neil Clark today. That's all good to print a range of views but you may be interested that Oliver Kamm of the London Times has been investigating Mr. Clark's use of sources.

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/02/more_on_balkan_.html
http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/02/balkan_claims_r.html

Mr.Clark doesn't say the same thing in his new article but as he's lied to other editors I'm bringing it to your attention.

G. Courtenay

Research into a couple of other disputes involving Oliver Kamm revealed a rather worrying trend - George Courtenay was a name that cropped up again and again! Much like The Saint's pseudonym Sebastian Tombs or Adventure Eddy's adopted alter-ego of Nedwood Dewbolt, the self-publicist in Kamm clearly extended to his AKA as well!

NB: Please see discussion below, where the allegation that Oliver Kamm wrote the 'George Courtney' emails is disscussed in further detail.

Oliver Kamm was pissed off with Neil Clark and apparently out on a single minded and mean spirited crusade to cause his rival journalist as much professional mayhem as possible.

Things don't get pretty [They were pretty before? - Editorial Bear]

There was no way to respond to these supposedly 'anonymous' emails, but Neil Clark decided to respond to Oliver Kamm's blog allegations.

There were various options. 'Turning the other cheek' as Jesus did. Writing a brutal response to show up and humiliate his rival - or turn to the age-old American classic and 'sue his ass.'

Which is just what Neil Clark did.

In April 2006, he filed legal proceedings with his local county court, claiming the maximum damages of £5,000 for slander and defamation. He made Internet history as the first person to sue a blogger for libel.

Unsurprisingly, his case was laughed (not thrown, laughed) out of the court by the judge - but not because his allegations were invalid. More because only somebody of supreme legal ignorance would think of filing a libel case with a small claims court.

Even worse, Neil had marked his letters to Kamm's solicitors 'Without Prejudice' which sounds all good 'n legal, but actually means that a party's legal rights have, in fact, been determined and lost. Had the case gone to trial, Neil would have lost on the grounds that he'd dismissed his own case in his allegation letters.

Trial and Error

But the point is not Neil Clark's spectacular legal incompetence! In fact, if anything, his astounding courtroom cock-ups are a message of hope to greedy lawyers everywhere.

And despite going to court and railing against free speech, Internet autonomy and the basis of everything he (as a journalist) stands for, Neil Clark still manages to come out of this as the 'good guy.' [There's a good guy? Editorial Bear]

Because Oliver Kamm is a shit.

Disagreeing with Neil Clark is one thing - in fact, it's mandatory. Reading his 'review' of Kamm's book, I think it's perfectly valid to wonder if he'd even actually OPENED the book before he opinionated about the contents.

Giving Neil a hard time about his opinions or articles is also to be expected (yet he still manages to get things published, so give Clark his due.)

However, writing under an assumed name to all his editors in order to kill his journalistic career is both cowardly and despicable.

So for the record LET ME STATE THE CASE CLEARLY.

Oliver Kamm and 'George Courtney's' allegations are false. Fake. Fabricated.

Neil Clark did not misrepresent his 'source material' in his articles or blog. He didn't claim his quote about Alija Izetbegovic's alleged SS connection came from the International Institute of Strategic Studies when they actually came from the International Strategic Studies Association.

As it happened, he was apparently incapable of identifying his own sources and claimed they were the Institute of Strategic Studies Organisation - which doesn't exist. But being such an poor researcher is A LONG way from fraudulently presenting one source as another.

And even if it wasn't - writing anonymous emails to try and wreck somebody's career is just really shitty behavior. Whatever the allegations thrown at Neil Clark, they tend to pale in comparison to that.

So, what now?

For the sake of Internet prosperity, I've set the record straight.

Both Neil and Kamm have written their sides of the story - but only in a neatly controlled format. Oliver Kamm is too cowardly to allow any comments on his blog while Neil Clark rigorously edits or censors any which mention the scandal.

Personally, I think Neil's doing himself a disservice here. Instead of buggering about with the legal system (and ending up looking like a knob) he should have ranted and raved to his heart's content and shot down every criticism with the one weapon he has and Oliver Kamm doesn't - The Higher Ground.

In any event, I hope any interested parties will finally be able to look through the censored versions on their sites and find something approaching the truth here - from an unbiased source unswayed by bribery [Neil, Oliver - the bribery window is still open - Editorial Bear]

In Conclusion

So Neil Clark's clearly in the right here. But I don't have to like it - and I still stand by everything I've written about him.

In the last few months, I've gained a grudging respect for Neil. In general, he's been patient and gentlemanly with my robust interference with his blog. I might disagree with the opinions in his writing, but the guy can spin a yarn pretty well and we both agree the smoking ban was a bit fascist.

But just because I've gained a respect for him as a person doesn't mean I have to soften my opinion about his blog. I still say it's ugly. I still say he writes pompously and throws in ridiculous socialist propaganda - coining phrases like 'turbo-globalism™.' *

I think he's cruel for betraying the Iraqi translators. I think he's a fool for defending Milosevic for his genocidal imperialism. I think his socialist ideology is hopelessly outdated (although it's pretty cute and old fashioned.)

But I kind of like the guy now I've got to know him - and I think it's about time somebody stood up and said 'straight up' that he's 'in the right' in the Neil Clark/Oliver Kamm debacle

* Turbo-globalism is copyright Neil Clark 2006. Used without Permission

FURTHER DISCUSSION

In response to this post, commentor William McB raised some issues that I feel need addressing.

William McB: You have adduced no evidence to support the proposition that Kamm was directly responsible for the e-mails to Clark's commissioning editors. Neither, to my knowledge, has Clark adduced any such evidence. Yet you both write articles which leave the reader inevitbly to infer that that was the case. It is not remotely unbelievable to suggest that it was supporters of Kamm's who, unknown to Kamm, e-mailed editors of their own accord. I have contacted editors when I feel they have employed innapropriate journalists for certain tasks and have received thoughtful replies.

I think this is a very valid point. I merely repeated the allegation that Neil Clark had made suggesting the George Courtney was none other than Oliver Kamm himself.

The evidence supporting these allegations was an internet link on Neil's page - a link which has since become defunct. It claimed that in several other Internet arguements, the name of George Courtney has cropped up with disturbing regularity to support Oliver Kamm's position.

However, coincidence is very far from certainty. I think your suggestion that it was one of Kamm's supporters who actually wrote those emails is perfectly valid.

In either event, the emails themselves cast a grave shadow on Oliver Kamm's journalistic credibility. He was entirely justified in being unhappy with Neil Clark's terribly written 'review' of his book. However, there is a marked difference between writing a letter of complaint to the editor of The Telegraph and launching a systematic campaign trying to wreck somebody's journalistic career.

Whoever set out to contact each and every one of Neil Clark's commissioning editors was acting very maliciously. It's fair to suspect it was Kamm itself. It's just as or more likely that it was one of his 'supporters.' In either event, it's very unprofessional conduct and Oliver should be deeply ashamed to have links to his blog in an email set out to destroy a fellow journalist's career.

Clark was directly questioned by his editor on the Telegraph about the factual basis for some of his assertions in his review. He led the editor to believe, whether inadvertently or not, that the basis for the allegations was firstly an international body of some repute or, failing that, some international organisation. It was neither. The source for this scurrulous lie is the work of racist, fraudulent cranks.

As far as I can see - encompasing both Neil and Oliver's recollection of events - the quote in question Neil claims came from the Institute of Strategic Studies Organisation.

In actual fact, the quote was sourced to the International Strategic Studies Association - which is not a company of 'racist fraudulent cranks.' It's a company of thoroughly ruthless, manipulative and amoral fraudulent businessmen, producing cynical 'studies' reaching predetirmined conclusions despite overwhelming factual evidence to the contrary.

For example, 'reporting' that Bosnians lied about and invented the genocide they suffered at the hands of Milosevic's ruthless Serbs.

I'm not sure what boggles the mind more. That Neil didn't even have the journalistic competence to accuratly copy the name of his source - or that he bothered including the ridiculous allegation that Alija Izetbegovic was an World War II SS/Nazi recruiter in his review at all. The kid was only 19 when the war ended!

The utterly ridiculous claims are not the issue. What is regards Oliver Kamm's very specific allegation that Neil misrepresented his source as being the International Institute of Strategic Studies.

Kamm has no track record of obfuscating his identity on the internet. On the other hand, Clark has a recorded history of doing so under a number of different names. Kamm has always published under his own name, has made no attempt to hide his views, and in his writings properly attributes sources. In these and many other respects he is the moral opposite of Clark.

Now this is an interesting topic.

It is a clear and documented fact that Neil Clark has been busy on the Internet behind invented personas such as City Lights Girl and Green Goddess. Stephen Pollard caught him bang to rights in an article here.

However, Neil alleges that Oliver Kamm has specifically set out to manipulate Wikipedia and comment on blogs under the assumed identities of Elena Zamm and Slim Virgin.

I will admit, I can't prove Neil's allegations. However, it is very interesting that these two identities seem to crop up ONLY in relation to Neil Clark or Oliver Kamm. Visit Oliver Kamm's Wikipedia Page and you'll see them both making positive changes.

Visit Neil's Wikipedia page and you'll see Slim Virgin and Elena Zamm in action attacking him as well.

And, just for a giggle, you'll see Neil editing his own page under the name of City Lights Girl!

Now I have no proof of this, but I peronally think it's fairly clear. The circumstantial evidence points to Oliver Kamm doing exactly what Neil does and hiding behind (of obfuscating - good word that) a fake Internet identity.

It's amusing since the word 'Virgin' is often linked to Oliver Kamm via The Exile's slightly obsessive quest to spread his baseless accusation that Oliver Kamm was a virgin all through university.

I think The Exile's obsession with Oliver's virginity says a lot more about The Exile than in does against Kamm!

In any event, I strongly suspect that Oliver Kamm does exist under several anonymous Internet identities, but I can't prove it. I will say this, however. The harder you defend him and deny such accusations, the more egg you'll have on your face if (or when) he gets caught with his hand in the virtual cookie jar (like Neil did with Green Goddess.)

Remember - I could well believe that Oliver Kamm is the moral opposite of Neil Clark. However, morality is a circle and the fast they fly away from each other in one direction, the sooner they come together on the opposite side.

This is a serious accusation and one I would not throw about lightly. Kamm has a number of supporters willing to come to his defense.

Now, I could be wrong, but I reckon I detect a certain threatening undertone in that message. I'm not very impressed by that at all. Remember what I said about 'friends like these...' I'm sure Oliver Kamm wouldn't like to think people are trying to intimidate others in his name.

However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not what you meant.

To appear to take Clark's side in any dispute between him and Kamm speaks volumes about your character.

No, but the very fact we're having a dicussion about it does illustrate that I'm open minded, interested in other opinions have haven't decided my loyalty based on gut feeling.

Kamm has never posed as anyone else online.

As we have discussed above, I suspect that he might have done exactly that. I can't prove it, but there is a growing pile of circumstantial evidence and that swings my opinion.

Kamm has never lied about sources to hide a historical untruth.

That's true, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, Oliver Kamm is a terrific writer and I enjoy many of his articles - especially the one about Huckabee (which agrees largely with what I say, except with more long words in it.)

When I first 'met' the writing of Clark and Kamm, I instantly jumped into the Kamm camp because I agree more with his politics and I think he's clearly a better writer.

However, in this specific skirmish in the long-standing internet feud between Clark and Kamm, I was willing to be open minded based on the evidence.

Kamm has never had his personal friends appear in order to defend him on websites without revealing their true identity.

You're contradicting yourself here. You said yourself the emails to Neil's commissioning editors could have been written by a 'supporter' of Kamm's.

And assuming that Oliver Kamm isn't a rockstar with coke-fueled groupies stalking people because 'my poster of Oliver Kamm told me to,' whichever 'supporter' of Oliver Kamm wrote those emails to Neil Clark's commissioning editors (assuming it wasn't Kamm himself) was at least an aquiantence of his.

Listen, I'll be open minded. I'll mention the possibility that he was entirely gleefully innocent, but the weight of circumstansial evidence (and those links to his blog in the email itself) are pretty damning indications that he's involved somehow.

Throw in the likes of Slim Virgin, who apparently only visit the internet to damn Clark and praise Kamm, and you've got a pretty strong case for thinking something's screwy.

And, most importantly of all, Kamm has never made excuses for a would-be genocidal, anti-democratic racist.

I agree with you 100% here. As you've see from my various posts about him, I'm very far from a supporter of Neil's politics. At best, he lives in a delirious fantasy world in which socialism was a viable system and didn't make everybody poor and miserable. At worst, he's advocating the betrayl of our Iraqi allies and trying to dismiss the allegations of genocide and corruption aimed at Milosevic as 'pro-western propoganda.'

Funny how it's always 'pro-western propoganda' when it's attacking his cause, but he's more than happy to link to it when it's supporting him.

However, disliking Neil's politics doesn't detract from the fact that Oliver Kamm made allegations against him that are worthy of slightly deeper examination.

Your article above constitutes a smear against Kamm and one I suggest you reconsider.

Again, I'll assume that's not a threat! But I am open to reconsidering things.

You make one very valid point that I think it's worth including in this article. I don't have any proof that Oliver Kamm wrote the letters to Neil's commissioning editors. I have changed my post to reflect that (and sent them down here to read further discussion on the matter.)

It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to think Kamm is guilty of writing those emails, but since I can't prove it and the circumstantial evidence certainly isn't conclusive, I'm willing to notch one up to the Kammster.

In many respects, he and Neil are each as bad as each other, constantly bickering and referencing each other in their blogs like an old married couple.

But despite incessently mentioning it, niether of them have really opened up the floor to 'set the record straight.' Oliver Kamm refuses to allow any comments on his blog, while Neil Clark has an agressive Stalinist policy of censoring and editing any mention of the scandal.

There are interested parties out there, so I'm hoping to use this as a forum to consolidate all the evidence in one place and let people make up their own minds.

Your opinion about the 'Courtney' letters is very valid. Therefore, I think it's time to change to scoreboard and admit that Kamm's got one firmly between the goalposts.

SCORE
Kamm 1 / Clark 1

The game is tyed, with everything to play for.

Is this the most stupid thing written on the internet ever?

I've made my fair share of stupid blog posts, but this one is a beaut.

You can find it here, on the website of scrubby journlist Neil Clark.

Listen to this. It's wonderful stuff:

"Not wearing hats... ...has become an unnatural national obsession [in the UK.] If you go to any other country in Europe, you will see people wearing a wide variety of hats; in Britain it is somehow deemed 'fashionable' not to wear one."

From this canny bit of social commentary [Is that what it is? - Editorial Bear] Neil then goes on to draw the only natural conclusion from Britain's shocking disdain for appropriate headgear. It's clearly "evidence of how dysfunctional normal social interraction has become."

I'm not making this up. He admits Britain's obsession with social networking sites like Myspace and Facebook is 'further evidence' - but his primary source is Britain's reluctance to wear stuff on their heads.

"The Spanish, French, Belgians and Italians," he concludes, (who you'll remember are often seen "wearing a wide variety of hats") are: "busy socialising in the real world. And because of this, they know, far better than the British seem to do, the difference between a 'friend' and an acquaintance."

So THAT's what's wrong with British culture today! There I was, blaming it on the rise of the wretched Chav underclass - or the social dysfunction that leads British born muslims to blow themselves up in the London Underground. But I was way off.

It's all because we don't wear enough hats.

So do your country a service this Christmas! Buy somebody you love a hat!

British Betrayal

"Let's not overlook a practical military issue here: Who will ever work for the British army in a war zone if they know that later they will be tossed aside like a spent cartridge?" Adam LeBor, The Times 9th August 2007.

Do you remember Goldeneye? It was the 1995 Bond movie, in which Pierce Brosnan tackled international terrorism in the first of the 'post Cold War' Bond films.

Thrilling stuff - and interesting too.

The bad guy in that movie, Alec Trevelyan, was revealed to be a Lienz Cossack. His plot was intended to wreck vengeance against the British for their betrayal of his people back in 1945.

Lienz Cossacks

Not familiar with that particular bit of history? I'm not surprised. It's hardly Britain's finest hour and so it doesn't make it into the history books that often.

The Lienz Cossacks were 'white Russians' who'd fought bitterly against communism and the rise of the Soviet Union following the Russian Revolution. During the Second World War, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the Lienz Cossacks sided with the Nazis in order to try the topple the communist regime and bring 'freedom' to their country.

Which didn't happen.

First off, the Russians defeated Germany and communism reigned in Russia for another half a century. Secondly, the Lienz Cossacks made no friends by siding with the brutal Nazi regime and committed countless atrocities during the battles on the Eastern Front.

So when the war ended, things got messy.

The Lienz Cossacks who'd fought with the Germans were rounded up by the British. It was up to the United Kingdom to decide what to do with them.

The Cossacks hoped that Britain would protect them. Even though they'd fought on the side of the Germans during WWII, the Cossacks were not Nazis themselves - merely enemies of communism who figured that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.'

Britain and America were staunchly anti-communist and the Lienz Cossacks hoped that they'd be considered allies in any upcoming conflict against communism (what would later be called 'the Cold War.')

But it was not to be.

Because of the brutality of the Cossack soldiers, who had murdered and raped their way along with the SS and the German army, the British wanted nothing to do with them and 'repatriated' these 'Russians' to the Soviet Union, where they 'belonged.'

Trains and trucks were pulled up and Cossack soldiers were forced into them. As were their wives, families and children - many of whom were not even Russian, having been born in the years after the Lienz Cossacks had left Russia.

The Cossacks didn't go willingly. British troops had to beat them into submission with billy clubs and rifle-butts. Eventually, almost 35,000 Cossacks were transported to their 'mother country' where the Soviets 'welcomed' them.

The vast majority of them were sent immediately to labor camps in Siberia, which were little better than the death camps the Nazis had built. Almost all of the Lienz Cossacks 'repatriated' back to Russia died in brutal suffering.

The 'lucky' ones didn't even make it that far. Because many of the Cossacks weren't born in Russia (their parents had left following the Russian Revolution) they were unable to be tried for treason as Soviet Citizens. Therefore the Red Army saved themselves the hassle of a military trial and executed them on the spot, with a bullet through the brains.

In the end, the British decision not to protect the Lienz Cossacks led to the deaths of over 30,000 men, women and children. Their blood is directly on British hands.

Although, as Valentin Dmitrovitch Zukovsky said in Goldeneye: "A brutal people. They got what they deserved."

The History Lesson

The reason I'm dredging all this up is because Britain and America are facing a similar problem at the moment. Hundreds of Iraqis who work for the British and American forces in Iraq - as drivers, translators and the like - are requesting asylum in the West to protect them from the bloody retribution they'll face from Iraqi insurgents.

And Britain's giving them the same answer as they gave the Lienz Cossacks.

'Nyet.'

The difference is, of course, that the asylum-seeking Iraqis begging for protection aren't brutal Cossacks. They're average men and women, trying to make a living for themselves. And the reason they're facing a death sentence from brutal Iraqi terrorists is because they deigned to work for the British.

We Brits placed a death sentence on them and now we're turning our backs.

The true horror of this is pretty hard to stomach. Take Mayada Salihi, for instance. She was a red-headed, divorced mother of two who had grown up in Baghdad and taught herself English by listening to American music growing up.

When the American and British soldiers arrived, she took work translating for the foreign servicemen, helping to communicate between the 'invading' forces and the people of Baghdad. All part of winning the 'hearts and minds' of the Iraqi people.

Doing so earned her a death sentence. In May of 2006, a terrorist cell called Ansar Al Sunna kidnapped Mayada off the streets of Baghdad and drove her to a remote location. There, she was brutally beaten, raped and horribly tortured with an electric power drill (the calling card of Ansar Al Sunna.) Eventually, many hours later, the insurgents 'put her out of her misery' by drilling directly into her skull.

Her broken body was dumped on the streets of Baghdad - a 'warning' to any who dared work with the American or British troops.

Is that the fate faced by hundreds of 'collaborating' Iraqis forces?

Betrayal

Although peace seems to be coming to Iraq (deaths of both servicemen and civilians are at some of their lowest levels at the moment) the 'war' is not won and terrorists and insurgents are still a constant danger.

Once the British and American soldiers leave, those Iraqis who assisted the soldiers and diplomats face the same fate as Mayada Salihi. Death, if they're lucky. Torture if they're not.

Unless Britain offers them asylum or protection of some description, many of them - if not the majority - will die. It's as simple as that.

And it's funny (although not 'ha ha' funny) that so many people are ranting about these asylum seekers - talking about all sorts of issues except the single most important one. The decision to let them live or die.

The Issue

Scrubby journalist Neil Clark, for example, wrote a heated piece in which he declared: "let's do all we can to keep self-centred mercenaries who betrayed their fellow countrymen and women for financial gain out of Britain."

The Exile is deliciously blunt: "Keep the buggers out!"

It's funny how two bloggers who bleat about liberalism and the evils of capitalism turn out to be so quick to condemn hundreds of people to death!

Comparison

If we'd been blogging sixty years ago, I'm sure Neil and The Exile would have been very vocal about rejecting the Lienz Cossack's pleas for protection, too. After all, the Cossacks were a brutal people, who murdered and raped alongside our country's most hated enemy.

But the Iraqis requesting asylum in Great Britain are not Lienz Cossacks.

They are not soldiers or revolutionaries. They are drivers and translators. Folks who want to provide for their families. They're people who put themselves at risk to work for the British forces in Iraq because we asked them to.

Just look at Mayada Salihi. Not a brutal criminal or a bloodthirsty Cossack. She was just a divorced mother of two. I can't imagine any of the rest of the asylum seekers are any different.

And that's really the issue, isn't it? While Neil Clark calls the Iraqis who assist British troops 'quislings' and compares them to collaborators from World War II, he's really just trying to justify why he doesn't want a bunch of brown skinned people getting asylum in England.

The Exile is much more honest about things. He demands to know why hundreds of Iraqis are going to get first dibs on council houses and benefits when there's a long line of working class British people who've been waiting ages for them.

But in their anger over keeping the Iraqis out of Britain they ignore the truth - that turning them away is akin to a death sentence. Level that charge and both The Exile and Neil Clark leap behind the flimsy defence of 'I didn't support this war!" and "Their blood's not on my hands!"

But it is. Because whether you consider the Iraqi asylum seekers regular folk trying to make the best of their lives in war torn Baghdad - or back-stabbing quislings collaborating with an invading army - the end result is the same. If you campaign to keep them out of Britain, many of them may die.

I'm not arguing with their right to protest the asylum. I'm just wishing they'd avoid the hypocrisy and bite the bullet. You want them kept out of Britain? Fine. But they'll die - and you'll have tortured and killed them as sure as an insurgent with a power drill.

You are complicit in the betrayal.

If you can live with that - just like the British officers who who had to live with their decision to turn over the Lienz Cossacks to the Soviets - then more power to you. But I think you're a pair of heartless bastards.

The Changing Face of the High Street - via Weblog Awards 2007

Well, somewhat surprisingly, scrubby journalist Neil Clark managed to win the Weblog Awards 2007 'Best UK Blog' by a surprising margin, with sterling support by some of his blogging buddies (both of whom actually deserved to win the coveted price far more than Neil!)

To give the man his credit, he won fair and square and has been fairly gracious about winning. In his victory post, he printed an article of his from last week's Morning Star - the very same article I quoted in my post below (because of it's ridiculous opening line.)

The charge sheet against the Anglo-Saxon neo-liberal model is a long one.

If you can work your way through all of it (Neil's typesetting leaves something to be desired and there aren't any gaps between paragraphs) you'll see it's actually a delightfully suburban piece lamenting the destruction of the great British High Street.

You know the drill. A Starbucks on every corner, normally opposite a McDonalds and a Pret a Manger. The big businesses swoop in and try to make all High Streets look the same. The Daily Telegraph do this sort of stuff much better and never vomit out the word 'neo-con' once.

But to give Neil his due, his article has a point. Whether I was working in lovely Winchester or gorgeous Newbury, the cobblestone streets and medieval buildings were home to a uniform list of shops. Next. Phones 4 U. HMV. Pizza Hut.

It never really bothered me that much, since Winchester and Newbury had lots of lovely independent shops around the corner and down the side streets - it was brimming with the 'Mom & Pop' places Neil is lamenting the end of.

But the fact is, both streets DID kind of look the same. In fact, so do many High Streets up and down England. The same shops. The same crap. The same pedestrian precincts and various cookie-cutter clones hawking The Big Issue.

It's all rather sad, really.

Neil points out that things are different in Europe - and that's true.

In Niort, the lovely city near where my parents live, the city ordinance has kept the big, national chains out of the centre of the city and billeted them in the 'big sheds' on the outskirts of town.

If you want to go to Conforama, Gifi, Gemo or Geant, you drive out to enormous industrial estates with plenty of parking and all the stuff you need.

The centre of Niort, on the other hand, is filled with small, independent shops, little bars and restaurants and has a lovely atmosphere. On market day, it's a lovely, bustling community full of French spirit and joie de vivre.

But the downside?

During other times of the week, it's deserted.

An absolute ghost town. You can walk down the street and not see a soul. Shops shut at weekends and often on Mondays, too. Unless people are in 'for a jolly' they normally do their shopping in the cheap, convenient 'big sheds.'

Winchester High Street, on the other hand, was always bustling. There were crowds of people at all hours, plus buskers playing their music. It was vibrant all the time - even if you sometimes had to put up with some git from Phones 4 U shoving a flyer in your face (and I refuse to read anything that replaces the word 'you' with the letter 'u')

That's purely because the big name shops - the nationals Neil was complaining about - were there, in the High Street, offering people what they wanted.

And what people want is the crux of the issue - and why we can all lament the demise of the High Street, but short of a fascist revolution, there's not much we can do about it.

People go where they'll get what they want. And the sad fact is that companies like McDonalds and Starbucks became international superpowers because they cater to that.

If somebody could convince us all to give up our double mocha choca lattes overnight, the likes of Seattle's finest would soon disappear into the ether - but the fact is, we need our overpriced caffeine hit and we'll go wherever we can get it.

The problem exists in America, just like Britain and France.

Just this Saturday, Tina and I got up early and nipped to the Post Office. On the drive back, we were feeling peckish and fancied some breakfast. We were just debating between Burger King (who do these sausage-in-croissant things) and McDonalds (with their famous McMuffins) when we spotted 'Steve's Place' on Livingston Avenue, which was an apologetic little cafe just opposite 'The King's.'

We popped in there instead of the big name places and had two delicious breakfast bagels (two eggs and cheese for her, sausage patty for me) and it was made fresh on the griddle, right in front of us. The bagels were fresh baked and the whole meal - which was about twice the size of the apologetic McDonald's portions - came to under five bucks.

Yet despite the delicious food, great service and cheap price, customers would still see the big Burger King sign and drive right past Steve's to get the processed, frozen, reheated stuff.

And that's the crux of the problem. People.

People are the ones who make the choice and when they vote with their dollars (or pounds, or Euros) they put little places like Steve's out of business to support bright, shiny Burger Kings, Starbucks and McDonalds.

The only way to solve what Neil Clark laughingly coined 'turbo-globalism' is to convince millions and millions of people to stop going for the 'cheap and easy' big-business options and support the little 'Mom & Pop' independents he's so fond of. And the problem with that?

99% of the world won't.

Oh, for stuck up Telegraph readers like me, who lived in gorgeous places like Winchester, that was fine. We'd pay a little more and establish that we supported the independents (besides, the McDonalds in Winchester is the most poorly run and inefficient in the world)

But the rest of England, Europe and the world won't.

They want things cheap and easy. They earned their money and they want to get the most out of it - and that's why places like Wal-Mart and their ilk will always survive.

So 'convincing' people is out.

The only other option is to eliminate free choice and 'make' people shop at the independents. And to a certain extent, that's what's happened in France.

Laws and ordinances have protected the city centres and kept out the big businesses. In France, with their unique and delightful mentality, that's worked well. France has deep socialist roots and such buggering about the mechanics of local business is tolerable.

I don't think the same can be said of England or America.

Besides. The very idea of 'telling' people which shops can and can't exist in our High Streets is pretty miserable. If some self-important officials start telling us where we can and can't spend our money, we're not living in a democracy any more.

People deserve the right the choose where they shop. The fact that we're all idiots and make the wrong choice doesn't change that in the slightest!

All I can say is: Ignore Neil Clark's angry socialist rhetoric - but think about his point. The answer doesn't lie in Neil's gloriously outdated socialist fantasy (in which the government wisely spends and redistributes our hard earned money for us.) But we don't have to lie down and let the likes of McDonalds and Starbucks walk all over us, either.

We have a say. We have a voice. And next time you feel like a jolt of caffeine or a quick breakfast snack, look at the five pound note in your hand and ask yourself whether you want to give it to: The smiling shareholders or a hard working guy trying to earn an honest living.

Then shop (and, in effect, vote) accordingly.

We can't turn back the clock on the big-business blitzkrieg - but we don't have to contribute to it. The choice is yours.

Celebrating Mediocrity

Blogs are the last refuge of the self publicist. That's why I have one, after all!

And I'll quite happily admit that I don't keep a daily blog for it to languish in obscurity. I check my stats every day to see how many people have visited - and what articles they've read. Back in the days of the Peanut Allergy Saga, I was getting a cool 1,000 unique visits a day!

But my blog is just one voice amongst many - in what people call the 'Blogosphere' - that's the community of thousands of varied blogs people write. And for all my obsessive stat-clicking, I have nothing on some of the dudes out there. They literally foam at the mouth over this sort of thing.

In the battle for global 'blogsophere' recognition, the only thing better than a healthy 'hit' counter is recognition by your peers. That's why there are many awards out there various bloggers grant to their fellow self-publicists. The Weblog Awards are far and away the largest and most organised of these, with 525,000 votes being cast to decide the winners of 49 different categories.

Considering that the vote is being held over 8 days - and generously assuming interested nominees limit their 'personal' voting to two ISP addresses, that puts the number of people visiting the Weblog Awards at around 30,000.

Pretty impressive.

Equally impressive are some of the nominated blogs. Donald Trump, Kayne West and Rosie O'Donnell are in the running to win Best Celebrity Blog, while The Huffington Post, Angry Black Cat and Little Green Footballs are celebrity blogs in their own right. The standard of nominees seems to be extremely high and if you're looking to find a few new interesting blogs, I'd certainly have a sniff about to see what takes your fancy.

Although you might want to avoid the 'Best UK Blog' category.

Not because some of the nominees aren't interesting. There's Iain Dale, a Liberal Democrat MP [Actually Exile has pointed out that he is a conservative. Do some research, Roland - Editorial Bear] Baggage Reclaim, which is a smart and sassy blog about dating and relationships and Kickette, which is a fun and funky blog dedicated to footballers and WAGS.

I'm not into Liberal Democrats, dating or lusting after footballers, but I have to admit that these are nicely constructed blogs, which stay on topic (the reason I'd never be nominated for this sort of thing) and compare very favourably against other higher profile blogs.

Steer clear, though, because none of these blogs are likely to win the UK award.

Inexplicably, the blog of scrubby journalist Neil Clark is leading that field, shooting three hundred votes ahead of the competition.

At first I found it absolutely astonishing - why would a clearly less professional blog be winning by such a huge margin? And then I remembered that this was the award for 'Best UK Blog' and the wonderfully consistent thing about my mother country is that we Brits adore celebrating mediocrity.

Whether it's the cult of Big Brother, making television stars out of the likes of 'Princess' Nicki or Jade Goody, or just the sheer awfulness of things like 'Pop Idol' - we Brits seem to love elevating the utterly mundane into the spotlight.

After all, we all like to feel superior to our celebrities.

It really is a pity, because Neil Clark's blog is almost entirely without merit. His rivals in the 'Best UK Blog' category all manage to blow his blog out of the water, both in style and substance.

Just take a look at them. Even similarly angled 'political' blogs like The Devil's Kitchen feature clever branding and attractive layouts. Kickette has succumbed to the lure of advertising revenue, just like Monsieur Clark - only their adverts are bright and relevant, while Clark has mindlessly clicked on the 'Google Ads' button. This merely identifies that he has as little commercial ambition as he does aesthetic flair - but he's greedy (or cheap.)

I mean, even the profile picture betrays Neil Clark's lack of effort. At Iain Dale's blog, he has a nice, clear photo superimposed onto the backdrop of the Houses of Parliament. Neil's offering is a dodgy looking passport snap that makes him look like a shaggy, unshaven repeat offender.

But there's more to life than appearances, I hear you say. After all, Rosie O'Donnell is in the running for an award and she looks like a militant lesbian prison wardress [You're half right - Editorial Bear]

Well, in response to that, I suggest you actually read Monsieur Clark's work. Actually, on second thought, don't. Just take my word for it - or base your opinion off a 'random' quote: "There are many charges to be made against the US/UK turbo-globalist neo-liberal model."

His blog is ghastly.

I will admit, I'm no great fan of The Guardian, but the fact that the national newspaper counts Mister Clark as one of it's contributors does the rag no credit whatsoever.

In amongst bitching about not being able to smoke in his local pubs, hotlinking to biographies of British actresses who've been dead for half a century and picking fights with other bloggers (yawn!) Mr Clark rants nonsensically about politics, economics and horse racing.

His entire blog is written in the style of a pompous, self important university student, who laces his posts with inappropriate and often nonsensical jargon like 'turbo-globalist.'

It is dreary. It is self important. It is entirely pointless. It's just absolutely bloody awful.

The other nominees in the 'Best UK Blog' category have so much more going for them. Nothing on Neil's terrible blog comes close to Kickette's amusing rant about pop-tart Danielle Lloyd's 'potty mouth bigotry' - and they include pictures of her in a bikini, too!

If that's too 'The Sun' for the pompous likes of Mr Clark, the EU Referendum blog, also in the running for the 'Best UK Blog' award, tackles Neil's beloved Hungary head on with an article that's written far more fluently and amusingly than anything his blog can vomit up.

And finally, if you're looking for an article that is tailored to suit a target audience (a concept Neil seems unable to grasp) there's an interesting post on Baggage Reclaim about what to do when your boyfriend still has an Internet dating profile active.

Choosing the Best UK Blog should be about one blog being technically 'better' than it's rivals. Whether you're judging on style, layout and graphical appeal of the blog (The Devil's Kitchen has my vote in this regard) or purity of purpose and editorial focus (Baggage Reclaim is the winner here) you have to consider the investment and effort that's gone into making that blog what it is.
From the shabby layout to the poorly edited prose, Neil Clark's blog is inferior to every single one of it's rivals. And yet, inexplicably, it's winning.

I wish I could accuse Neil of cheating, but I don't think he is. Even if his blog was miraculously as popular as his two closest rivals (with about 600 votes each) Monsieur Clark would still have had to run around logging votes on fifty different computers, each and every day of the eight day voting period to get to where he is.

For a man who can't be bothered to use the 'tab' key, that seems like far too much hard work.

Nope. All I can conclude is that Neil Clark's utterly awful blog has received the backing of his friends, family, party members, neighbours, pen pals, colleagues and anybody else he can corner. He's reduced the concept of the Weblog Awards 2007 - which was supposed to celebrate ability and excellence - into a warped and slightly pathetic popularity contest.

So just like the winners of Pop Idol and Big Brother, another utterly undeserving Brit gets a pat on the back for being merely mediocre. I feel rather sad, because other people will be visiting the winners of the 2007 Weblog Awards - maybe even the likes of Donald Trump - and in amongst all the shining examples of Internet Excellence will be this very sorry, utterly pathetic offering - stamped apologetically 'Made in Britain.'

It's too late to do anything about it now, but next year we'll have to make sure a decent blog gets the recognition it deserves. Blogs have proven to be the pathway to fame and fortune for some people, like Belle du Jour. It's a pity somebody else's opportunity for recognition has been hijacked by Neil Cark's utterly worthless blog.

Congratulations, Neil. I can't say you deserved your 2007 Best UK Blog award, but I won't deny you worked for it.

And in conclusion, please enjoy this article from national magazine The Spectator.

Neil Clark - Hypocrite