Comments from Labour MP Simon Danczuk comparing members of his own party to the BNP have seen him come under attack from across the blogosphere. But now attention has now turned to the veracity of his article for the Telegraph.

The springboard used by Danczuk to launch his tirade was an ostensibly “loony left” tweet he claims to have received after he defended Osborne’s harsh benefit reforms:

“One of the tweets I received last week said simply: ‘No to aspiration, yes to nationalisation’.”

But when intrigued readers searched Twitter and online archives for the message it was nowhere to be found — even on services which keep copies of deleted messages (examples: A1, A2, B1, B2).

Danczuk claimed tweet nowhere to be found

True to form, Simon has been diligently ignoring requests to explain the matter:

When Scrapbook finally managed to get hold of his office to ask whether they had kept a copy of the tweet or could provide us with the original web link, a spokesman insisted it had been deleted before adding:

“Why the fuck would I keep a copy of a tweet?”

Was it something we said?

  1. I am one of Danczuk’s constituents from Rochdale and a Labour supporter. Frequently I have heard Danczuk say that his constituent has told him something (e.g. he claimed his constituents of Asian origin made derogatory remarks about “white girls” to him, and recently he claimed that his constituents complain about welfare dependency). I do wonder who these constituents are. Non I have ever come across. I think Danczuk fabricates these anecdotes to suit his point.

    People of Rochdale are concerned about high unemployment, poor educational facilities and awful council housing. I do wish Danczuk would focus on these issues that his constituents are genuinely concerned about rather than making up issues that do not exist.

    I have a suspicion that Danczuk’s press articles are ghost written by someone else. The question is by who?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


Comments are limited to 1000 characters.