The results of an investigation handed exclusively to this
blog have sensationally revealed that Chuka Umunna may not have been the only
Labour MP to have been caught out editing his own Wikipedia page.
Simon Danczuk the
Labour MP for Rochdale, who clashed with Owen Jones over the welfare system, also
appears to have potentially been spending his time editing his own Wikipedia
page. The findings of the investigation
handed to this blog detail numerous examples of Parliamentary IP addresses
being used to edit the content of Mr Danczuk’s page.
The most recent Parliamentary edits show the construction of
a comprehensive record of the articles authored by Danczuk. On five occasions between 31st
March and the 7th April the page was edited from a computer in the
parliamentary network. The edits show Mr Danczuk’s extensive collection of
articles for media outlets being publicly displayed just before the launch of
his publishing career. #ThingsElliottSays
finds it very odd another MP, or their Staff, would so meticulously and
publicly catalogue his articles almost immediately after they went live.
Doesn't Mr Danczuk have other things to do whilst being an MP.
Perhaps most damningly in 2010 the same parliamentary internet
id was used to remove an allegation made about him covered by some media
outlets in the run up to the 2010 General Election. Danczuk, whose office describes the
allegation as “frankly libellous”, refutes the allegation in the strongest
terms. After being threatened with legal
action by a member of Mr Danczuk’s office and consulting legal advice this blog
has decided not to publish the
substance of this allegation removed from Wikipedia by parliamentary computers.
This already bizarre series of events only got more so when
we reached out to Mr Danczuk’s office. One of Mr Danczuk’s staff suggested that
our reporter was a “very strange person and that they received a lot of calls
from very strange people who defend paedophiles”. Upon discovering the political persuasion of
this blog he changed his tone, we were then “protecting Tory Establishment
paedophiles”. He argued that at “a time where Simon is uncovering an
institutional paedophile” we could only have one motive. Asking questions about Labour MPs breaking
rules is not defending paedophilia. We didn’t appreciate the insinuation.
#ThingsElliottSays would like an apology from Simon Danczuk.
The one thing above all Mr Danczuk’s staff were sure about,
despite not knowing if Mr Danczuk had made the edits, was that even if he had
edited the page “he’s not done a Chuka”. #ThingsElliottSays is not so sure
about that.
Wikipedia’s own rules on this subject are very clear:
One rule for us another for them.
Also isn't this a
waste of parliamentary time. Hasn't Simon Danczuk got more important things to
do than big himself up on Wikipedia?
Of course Mr Danczuk
could claim it is not him, or his staff, that has been editing his Wikipedia
page in parliament. But who else in Westminster would want to do that,
especially up to such a meticulous level? Who is it likely to be?
 |
| Simon Danczuka? |
Mr Danczuk’s office
said they’d get back to us as to whether he or his office had “done a Chuka”, they haven’t so we’re
publishing anyway. That’s what you get
for being aggressive.
courtesy of @samwarmstronghttps://twitter.com/samwarmstrong
courtesy of @samwarmstronghttps://twitter.com/samwarmstrong
