WORSTALL BLOG NO. 2
Trucker123 // Apr 25, 2011 at 4:19 pm
He’s so dim, isn’t he Tim?
No wonder even his colleagues called him ‘Norman Risdon.’
So let’s take this in baby steps for the slow of learning.
You have claimed to be a fan of ‘evidence’, Tim.
We’ll test that assertion.
A search of the internet reveals that, apart from Peter Risdon’s comments on his own rather sad blog, the only apparently ‘independent’ source for the claim that Risdon “broke the optician’s monopoly” as he puts it and as you have repeated it, is a comment in an article about a certain Patrick Trevor-Roper made on Wikipedia.
In itself not an auspicious beginning.
But just how ‘independent’ is this source? And just how thorough was your own testing of Risdon’s claims, Tim?
Bearing in mind that Risdon is a proven liar and fantasist one might have hoped for a little probing.
At this point cast your mind back to various postings on your blog made by Risdon which related to a convoluted conspiracy theory of his involving Wikipedia and IP addresses.
Interested readers can see these for themselves in Exhibit 52 of http://www.nobodylikesagrass.com.
In particular, though, remember these following words from our Norman for reasons that will become clear as the story unfolds:
“the pillock has actually used different aliases FROM THE SAME IP ADDRESSES” (our emphasis).
Now the last thing in the world anyone would want is to appear like Peter Risdon, but the following explanation is made simply to illustrate the sheer hypocrisy and stupidity of the man.
No JFK-style conspiracy theories required. In fact, it’s as simple as a, b, c.
- Go to http://www.wikipedia.org and search for Patrick Trevor-Roper
- The final paragraph reads: “In 1983, he (Trevor-Roper) helped finance Peter Risdon in his successful challenge to the opticians’ monopoly in the UK, a challenge that led directly to the legalisation of the sale of reading glasses without prescription” – without an iota of evidence in support, it should be added.
- Now click on the ‘view history’ tab at the top.
- Scroll down to the date of 1 June 2006 and compare it to the entry made immediately below it of 1 April 2006
- You will note that it is here that the addition referred to in paragraph 2 above is made. The question though is who made it since, whoever did so, did so anonymously?
- Now for the interesting part. Just to the right of the date you will notice an IP address: 188.8.131.52
- Click on it, remembering Risdon’s own words regarding IP addresses quoted above (“the pillock has actually used different aliases FROM THE SAME IP ADDRESSES”)
- Lo and behold! The only other entries made from this IP address relate to… DG!
- Coincidence? Now think back to the question asked in paragraph 5 above, ie. who made the anonymous entry regarding Peter Risdon in Patrick Trevor-Roper’s Wikipedia page? Because whoever it was, it was the same person who made the entries relating to DG. So, let’s dig a little deeper.
- You will notice 5 different entries made in November 2006 from this IP address. Click on anyone of them where it says ‘User:Colonel Warden/DG.’ You will be taken to a new page.
- On this new page at the top right, click on ‘view history.’
- You will then be taken to another page which goes down to 17 Feb 2007. At the bottom click ‘older 50.’ You will notice the 5 entries made in Nov 2006 referred to in paragraph 10 above.
- By now even you will have guessed who we are talking about but nevertheless, read the entries.
- That’s right, Tim! It’s our very own Norman Risdon who wrote the comment about himself on the Trevor-Roper page!
Even you Tim, with your almost Risdonian inability to objectivise, must realize that we are dealing with a genuine, bona-fide moron here.
In short, as always occurs with this dimwit it is HIS OWN WORDS which catch him out: a “pillock” posting “from the same IP addresses”, as he puts it!
(Now the entries regarding DG referred to in paragraph 12 above are not strictly relevant here. But we can still note the following:
- They are a clear indication Risdon’s tendency to become obsessed with certain types of individuals – a character trait that was attested to by his business partner in an affidavit reproduced in Exhibits 2 and 3 of http://www.nobodylikesagrass.com
- They constitute in effect a series of simply farcical excuses for his grassing on DG and BM that are comprehensively annihilated in Exhibits 47, 48 & 49 of the nobodylikesagrass website – excuses that are embarrassing they are so stupid.
- In the end Risdon’s obsessive postings had to be removed from the page concerning DG by Wikipedia itself on account of their libelous content.
- Moreover, Risdon’s libels regarding separate allegations eventually led to him being sued for defamation by DG and to his paying out damages (See Exhibit 53 of http://www.nobodylikesagrass).
- In fact we have been here so many times, Tim. Other similar examples can be seen in Exhibit 49 of http://www.nobodylikesagrass where he is caught out using the alias ‘Unforgiven’ or Exhibit 58 where he is rumbled making yet a couple more anonymous postings on Wikipedia and where he also falls flat on his face with an hilarious post that he makes on the Sunday Telegraph’s website using the pseudonym ‘Two Zero.’ (Interestingly, in this post ‘Freeborn John’, the champion of Freedom of Expression even writes: “he shouldn’t BE ALLOWED to write here!” What a genuinely confused individual).
The truth is that everybody knows what an imbecile the man is, including you. And that unlike Risdon’s assertions which are invariably uncorroborated – including his posting about himself regarding Trevor-Roper referred to above – there is an abundance of rock solid evidence out there which shows what a deeply revolting individual Peter Risdon is.
Moreover, this evidence does not emanate from DG or BM at all. It comes from unconnected third parties most of whom have never even set eyes on DG or BM. In fact the most damning evidence comes from Risdon himself who with typical idiocy ties himself up in knots and is caught out lying so often that one actually begins to pity him. (See for example Exhibit 48 where he claims in a review written for the Daily Express that he handed DG in to the authorities a mere month after unwittingly partaking in robbery of gemstones in New York and after “much soul searching” when the evidence shows that he kept things quiet until he was caught one year later attempting an insurance fraud involving an uncut diamond in a bank and immediately squealed like the girl he is).
Returning to the Trevor-Roper assertion, it is perfectly obvious what has happened here.
Peter Risdon, the arch loser whose entire life has been a catalogue of disasters is also, as the Sunday Times put it, a “rangy Australian with a penchant for self-publicity”, a man who sets up an almost touching website to validate himself (Freeborn John), someone who likes to sell stories to newspapers such as the News of the World (See Exhibit 56), who wrote in such excruciating terms on your blog about “raising his profile” (See Exhibit 52) and who even claimed to have been a pal of Lord Harris of High Cross and to have met Robert de Niro! (See Exhibit 52)
He desperately needs to score at least one ‘victory’ as it were to salvage some honour for a life of shame and so, to big himself up, he plants an assertion – that he single-handedly “broke the opticians’ monopoly”, a somewhat extravagant claim for which, at least so far, we have seen zero evidence.
(For some peculiar reason for example, Trevor-Roper’s obituaries make no mention whatsoever of Risdon’s role in this major historical event. See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/patrick-trevorroper-755503.html or http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/may/06/guardianobituaries or http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1460505/Patrick-Trevor-Roper.html
Interestingly too, in his self-written obituary – see http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7448/1137/suppl/DC1 – while Trevor-Roper makes reference to his own launching of a campaign against the opticians’ monopoly, no mention at all is made of Risdon who as we have seen assumes a central role for himself).
But the real question is why did you, who claim to be a fan of evidence, not conduct even a modicum of research but simply took the word of a proven liar, petty criminal, police informer and fantasist at face value?
And what on earth are you doing in bed with such a total creep?
One suspects that the answer has to do with personality traits which you seem to share with him, mixed in no doubt with the fact that you probably feel sorry for the man.
But let’s not go there, on this occasion at least
In summary, when you claim to be a fan of ‘evidence’ it would appear that … well, actually, no you’re not Tim.