« New Blog | Main | The Global Warming Conspiracy »

May 19, 2006

Polly Cracks!

After years of relentless piss-taking, Polly Toynbee finally cracked:

Anonymity is the problem. Why don't all of you say who you are? Why hide your names and email addresses?

Err, it’s The Guardian set up that doesn’t publish emails.

Tim Worstall you pendant, what on earth is your life and view of the world? Do you ever see the light of day?

Amazing, seeing that we’ve actually exchanged emails, that she thought my name was a pseudonym.

And it really did have to be that word she mispelled, didn’t it?

May 19, 2006 in Weblogs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d8342b241f53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Polly Cracks!:

» Toynbee snaps from Murky.org
In the Guardian's website, Polly 'nosepegs' Toynbee uses her platform to have a rant at her critics. Perhaps it's a coincidence that this coincides with the launch of Factchecking Pollyana, a website devoted to pointing out the factual errors in... [Read More]

Tracked on May 20, 2006 8:56:40 AM

Comments

It looks like the "current voluntary option has failed" when it comes to pseudonyms. Frankly, I doubt that anonymity is the problem. The problem is that many people are simply fed up with polly's position on, oh, so many things. That will not change regardless what we call ourselves.

Posted by: JohnJo | May 19, 2006 5:00:44 PM

This business about never seeing the light of day intrigues me, being somewhat reminiscent of the anonymous attack on Scott Burgess for "spending time indoors".

I mean, what the hell do journalists at the Guardian do, anyway? Are they all bag ladies?
Being indoors is what they do, for crying out loud.

Posted by: Peter Briffa | May 19, 2006 5:05:42 PM

Perhaps it is the close proximity to ink without suitable ventilation. I mean, it might be an illness in which case we're all going to feel really bad.

Posted by: JohnJo | May 19, 2006 5:09:16 PM

Never again let it be said you're neither use nor ornament now Polly has called you "pendant".

Posted by: Harry Powell | May 19, 2006 5:18:27 PM

Hilarious. I especially love the way she picked on you.

I put up a useful link for her, I hope she finds it helpful...

Posted by: MatGB | May 19, 2006 5:55:12 PM

Maybe she just meant that you always seem to be hanging around.

Posted by: Jimmy Doyle | May 19, 2006 6:04:27 PM

Like most deviants, she looks quite normal 'in the flesh', - and the Beeb loves her!

Posted by: ernest young | May 19, 2006 6:23:27 PM

Was she trying to call you a peasant? Methinks Polly's been too close to the Nomenklatura for so long she thinks she's one of them. She's certainly loosing her marbles like a good aristo.

By the way, do you think we should tell her that insulting the pyjama clad loons of the blogosphere only gets us more excited? Or do you think she'll work it out herself?

RM

Posted by: The Remittance Man | May 19, 2006 6:29:23 PM

Maybe "pendant" is a clever euphemism for the, er... masculine appendage?

Posted by: P. Froward | May 19, 2006 7:15:56 PM

Or maybe she thinks Tim is the oldest swinger in town?

Posted by: Mark Holland | May 19, 2006 8:19:29 PM

I don't know Polly and don't always share her views. However, in her defence re. the getting-out-more point, she did write a book about low paid women workers based on her experiences of joining their world for a while. Not much journalism of that type around these days. Also, while I do not know exactly what she's paid, I'm very confident that it's a lot less than the £140,000 p/a reported by Guido. Why? Because through long assoication I know that people senior to her at the Guardian don't get that much. Best Wishes.

Posted by: Dave Hill | May 20, 2006 12:11:59 AM

Heeeelarious stuff - you know, I warming to Polly: I have this image of her sat there, sucking on a Werther's, befuzzled...

Posted by: The man from del Monte | May 20, 2006 12:28:09 PM

Dave Hill does have a point about Polly actually practicing real world (ie go out and research, meet people and take notes) journalism. And there isn't nearly enough of that about. CiF looks like a massive cost-cutting exercise; no expenses or wasted trips abroad, let's fill the pages with unresearched, mis-spelled rants about residents of Highbury.

However, his second point doesn't convince. BBC newsreaders (to take an example not entirely at random) earn more than their superiors. Gordon Brown earns more than the one person senior to him.

Posted by: Backword Dave | May 20, 2006 2:39:01 PM

When I challenged Polly about her salary (after she said we should be open about them) she challenged me (in an email exchange) to reveal my income. So I sent her my name, address and tax return details.

She went quiet after that...

Posted by: Guido Fawkes | May 20, 2006 9:52:00 PM

Why does Gordon Brown earn more than Tony Blair?

Posted by: Matthtew | May 20, 2006 11:09:33 PM

Rarely have I encountered a display of cluelessness as perfect as Polly Toynbee's rant. She may not, technically, actually BE a fat cow, but she neither writes nor thinks any better than one. Her expectations of the blogosphere are utterly inappropriate, and her understanding of it feeble at best. It is NOT like newspapers. It is NOT like radio. It is not like anything else; the way everything else works (or doesn't) actually caused the blogosphere to come into being. All those things she complains about are not problems, they are actually features.

She has also made the most basic mistake of all, mistaking pseudonymity for anonymity. Didn't Kos cover this five years ago? I use "raincoaster" because it's got a certain reputation, a certain brand, if you will. It is far more well-known than the name my parents gave me. And please, let us not pretend that "Toynbee" hasn't been a critical part of her success.

Posted by: raincoaster | May 21, 2006 1:14:34 AM

Fair point, Backword Namesake, about stars sometimes getting more than their bosses. Happens with footballers too. I think it may not apply in this case, though.

Posted by: Dave Hill | May 21, 2006 9:38:55 PM

Only problem with that Dave is that when directly asked to confirm or deny it she didn't take the opportunity to do either. Surely if you don't earn £140,000 a year you'd be quick to deny it, whether you want to say how much moolah you're getting from the Grauniad or not.

Posted by: . | May 22, 2006 6:02:28 PM

And it really did have to be that word she mispelled, didn’t it?

I believe you mean "misspelled", ironically enough.

Posted by: EWI | May 24, 2006 2:05:34 AM