Paul Nuttall’s latest attempt to squirm out of responsibility for his Hillsborough guilt is, apparently, to claim that the article – ‘accidentally’ created by UKIP press officer Lynda Roughley – was posted before the BBC article that quotes him making his ‘close pals’ claim.
In other words, Roughley put up an incorrect article on his website and the BBC copied it – creating a false impression that he had personally made the claim, therefore he wasn’t lying when he denied making the claim to Radio City yesterday.
Inventive. Completely false. And there’s proof – which he today tried to remove.
The Content Management Systems (CMS) of both the BBC website and Paul Nuttall’s website buries the exact date and, more importantly, the time of creation for their entries within HTML markup – even though the pages don’t display the time .
In the source markup of the 2011 BBC article, we find the following string, created by their CMS:
So, 2.44pm and 48 seconds on 17 Aug 2011.
Mr Nuttall or his colleagues deleted the original post from his website. Fortunately for us, the archiving website Wayback Machine saved an exact copy that included the source markup of the offending blog entry.
That archived copy was stored here.
But Mr Nuttall or his colleagues today had that deleted too.
You’d almost think they wanted to hide something.
Fortunately for us, they weren’t quite quick enough and the enterprising ‘Shades’ who provided the explanation of the markup data to this writer had saved his own copy locally and it’s also still available in Google’s Cache, which you can download if you wish. He also took a screenshot of the time-stamp:
Here’s the time-stamp we find in the CMS of Nuttall’s page, both in full and just the time-stamp for ease of reading:
If you want to check that the WayBack Machine’s server isn’t doing anything to the content (other than obviously changing the URLs to point to its own servers, as it has to) this is a comparison of the date/time string created by the CMS for another blog entry around the same time that is (or was until now) still available directly from Nuttalls live website:
The dates and times are unquestionably being preserved intact in the facsimiles.
As you can see, the creation date/time of the BBC article is 17 August2011 at 14.44pm and 48 seconds.
The creation date/time of Nuttall’s entry is 17 August 2011 at 15.39 and 56 seconds – almost a full hour later.
In other words, Nuttall gave his quote to the BBC, who then put it on their website. And and 55 minutes later, Nuttall or his ‘staffers’ (cough) copied it to his blog.
Mr Nuttall’s latest, feeble excuse is exposed as yet another lie – in spite of his attempts to be clever by removing the evidence. Don’t you just love the internet?
The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.
Like all UKIP prats this man is a complete and utter waste of time. But lets see how many morons vote for him.
Reblogged this on Britain Isn't Eating.
Spot-on!
A quick glance of her LinkedIn page shows Linda Roughley was a journalist for none other than the Liverpool Echo between 1971-91. As far as I know, she still gets the odd story in the rag as a freelance. She’ll be only too aware of the feelings of the people of the city more than had she been from, say, Hull or somewhere. She never wrote them entries at all.
And why is it Nuttall seems so vehement and passionate about Hillsborough, but doesn’t even bother to oversee anything written on his website about it?
Oh, that’s right – He doesn’t talk about it, does he? When it suits…Except now it’s come back to bite him on the arse.
The man’s an odious, self-serving snide.
Positively outstanding work, sir. Do keep it up!
A quick glance of her LinkedIn page shows Linda Roughley was a press officer for none other than Paul Nuttall between 2009 and the present. As far as I know, press officer’s write the press releases on Paul Nuttall’s website.
Skwawkbox failed to mention that the BBC article was UPDATED on the 17th of August 2011 at 17:19 and 43 seconds. Almost 2 hours after the press release first appeared on Paul’s website!
From the source code (reformatted date strings for easier reading):
datePublished: 2011-08-17 17:19:43
last_updated: 2011-08-17 17:19:43
first_created: 2011-08-17 14:44:48
This was an intentional omission on his part, as the date the BBC article was last_updated follows directly after the date the article was first_created in the source code.
Positively shit work Skwawkbox! Do update your shitty articles!
Dream on, Josh. You still haven’t produced any evidence that your fantasy sequence of events is anything but that.
So, Josh…Leaving the baldy bootle meff aside, what’s Roughley’s mitigation – seeing as she’s been a reporter in these parts since at least 1971, and was still with the local rag in April 1989?
Roughley’s was and IS as much aware of the local sentiment regards Hillsborough as the ‘Tom Pepper’ Nuttall should be – but because he’s aloof even of his fellow Liverpudlians, he’s obviously miscalculated…And now the chickens are home to roost.
Why? because very few from these parts have any time for the knobhead or his politics – And never have had – so there’d be very few if any people from here visiting his website….EVER.
Back to Roughley. There’s no way she’d have wrote that off her own bat if it’d been in the local rag. Even if it was a cut & paste job by her to publish on his site, she’d have at least discussed it with the plum to see if he was aware of the ‘error’ and to get his OK.
And PLEASE don’t come back with “Yes, she SHOULD’VE done but didn’t.” because like just about everything that come from Nuttall’s grid these days – It just won’t wash. Ever.
No matter who posted it on Nuttall’s website – He was aware of it; and until he got pulled up on it, was happy to let it ride –
And on more than one occasion….So what’s the excuse for TWO instances? Holidays? Pfft!! Pull the other one, it’s got a hand-made Italian shoe on the end of it.
> No matter who posted it on Nuttall’s website – He was aware of it; and until he got pulled up on it, was happy to let it ride –
> And on more than one occasion….So what’s the excuse for TWO instances?
Well according to Lynda he wasn’t aware of it, but regardless when was the 2nd instance that Paul said he had ‘lost close friends’ at Hillsborough? I hadn’t heard about that.
Well according to nutcase he never spoke about Hillsborough…But he was only too happy to make it known to media he was there..A case of when it suits.
All the more reason for the stupid mare to have checked with him before publishing – IF she in fact WAS the one who posted the false claims. She wasn’t. But she’s willingly made herself the patsy, which makes her complicit, too.
As I’ve already explained, with both their backgrounds (And nuttall’s tenuous link) she’d have at least got the OK off him on at least one of the two times to publish – given it appears to have been such a sensitive issue for him.
Both of them trying to insult decent and far wiser people’s intelligence – as are you. You’re rabbiting on with no substance whatsoever in defence of some liar. Even the familes’ group has panned him.
And you pick an argument about it but you didn’t know about the two claims of ‘Losing close friends’ he made on his website?
FYI – First claim on his site Aug 17th, 2011
2nd instance Jan 19th, 2012.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/paul-nuttall-claims-hillsborough-ukip-stoke-2017-2
Now, run along…