Ritchie stops blogging!

He\’s banned comments.*

Thus it ain\’t a blog anymore, it\’s a website.

Ho hum.

This did amuse me though:

It  is increasingly, and unfortunately,  clear that the vast majority of those who do seek to comment come  from way beyond the fringes of political electoral credibility and seek only to harm and undermine society. It is not my duty or desire to assist them.

I am one of those who seek to comment on his pieces, as you know. Indeed, there are constant (well, some) references to myself and my views on his blog.

But this beyond the fringes of electoral credibility bit….hasn\’t anyone told him that I stood as a candidate for UKIP at the last national election we had? You know, UKIP, the party that came second? Beating the Labour Party into third place? Lib Dems to fourth?

That sort of beyond the fringes of electoral credibility?

* His post was brought to my attention in an email headed \”You made Ritchie cry\”. Dib dib dib, I\’ll try and think up another good deed to perform tomorrow.

17 thoughts on “Ritchie stops blogging!”

  1. Tim, don’t want to beat my own drum but I wonder whether it was my own comment here from yesterday wot done it.


    He is one odd dude and I think there is a piece missing in the jigsaw somewhere. And I don’t say that because he is left of centre, but just the very aggressive manner he approaches conflict. His style of argument isn’t so much rigorous as petty name calling – something you’d expect from a 4 year old.

    Now he has realised the only voices he attracts to his blog are dissenting ones, he has become so insecure he can’t face it any more and has therefore shut down his comments.

    Another theory I have about him: as a young man, he was a good boy, did all the right things. Studied hard, behaved himself. Maybe a bit nerdy. His photo is ‘nice boy’ from central casting.

    But he missed out the Dave Spart Che Guevara-poster-on-the-wall rebellion phase that is cute and fun when you’re 20 but kinda pathetic when you’re 50.

    He’s now making up for it. Sort of a mid life crisis.

    And notice how he is always name dropping the organisations he is visiting, media experience, CV etc. Is he insecure or what?

  2. “Interestingly, few from mainstream perspectives bother to comment: most have better things to do.”

    I think Ritchie will find that those of us who consider ourselves libertarians (I don’t consider myself of the right) have plenty to do, being commonly business people and professionals. However, we feel sufficiently strongly about the likes of Ritchie preaching that we are evil capitalists and should be relieved of most of our hard-earned to fund the idle left that we are prepared to lengthen our days (not in the sense of lifespan, obviously) in order to squeeze in a bit of commenting. Often these guys’ blogs would be like Tumbleweed Junction without us.

  3. Juliet: “His photo is ‘nice boy’ from central casting”.

    That’s the funny thing – actually he uses an old photo’ of Pete Waterman 🙂

    Plus, what’s his problem if most of his commenters disagree with him? Surely blogging is much more fun that way than blogs where everybody just agrees with the same old prejudices (of whatever politicial couleur)?

  4. It isn’t so much that he argues badly, it’s that he doesn’t argue at all. I did, for a short while, comment at Ritchie’s site under my real name. I was polite (or what passes for polite in me) and spent my time pointing out factual errors, usually relating to accounting and taxation matters, as opposed to politics. He simply wasn’t able to process the criticism I was passing along. When he made horrendous error regarding accounting as applied in the USA, and it was pointed out to him, he simply ignored it and marched on as if nothing had happened. Finally, his response was to simply stop posting on technical accounting matters altogether.

  5. “Update: Thanks to those who have already emailed saying how much they approve of this change of policy”

    What!!? Both of them!?

  6. This is my favourite bit:

    “Interestingly, few from mainstream perspectives bother to comment: most have better things to do. To those who have, I offer my thanks.”

    So accepting his definitions, normal people ignore his blog, but loons flock to it. Most people would view that as a cause for concern and consider why it might be.

  7. So Tim, it appears that you “seek only to harm and undermine society”. Expect a visit from the Ritchie Police any time now.

  8. Having had the misfortune to come across Ritchie in his practising days, Dennis’ critique is errily accurate.

    By removing the comment facility from a blog such as Ritchie’s, there is an acknowledgement that the content is only for those who already agree with the author. Vanity publishing and, given the drivel so often espoused, at its worst.

    It’s almost possible to feel sorry for the man. All that effort, and for nowt. He hasn’t brought anyone round to his way of thinking and has now tacitly admitted as much.

  9. I can’t think when of anyone, anywhere, anywhen who has made such an arrogant statement. It certainly dwarfs anything Blair, Brown Campbell or Mandleson has ever said.

    You have to have ELECTORAL CREDIBILITY to comment on something he has written? Leaving aside the absurdity of such a statement, it lacks internal consistency. Does he have ELECTORAL CREDIBILITY? No.

    Banning comments is from the “lala not listening” school of debate.

    It’s also reminiscent of the climate change prophets. If you disagree you must be silent, for what you say is blasphemy.

    And finally, isn’t the best way to show someone up for being a stupid, ignorant, ELECTORAL INCREDIBILITY to shoot them down in flames with one well resourced fact?

    Still, it has stimulated me to set up my own blog, so it’s not all bad. But don’t bother to visit “The Sun is a big Hot Banana” because I’m not allowing comments there either…

  10. how on earth did he get a column on Forbes ??
    God – I bought his book !
    can we blog on his non-blog web-site here ?
    (Actually I used to enjoy his ‘guardianista’ splutterings).
    yes its all your fault Juliet!

  11. You’d think he’d have realised that if the vast majority of the voices attracted to his site were disenting, then his ideas obviously weren’t very popular.

    Then again, maybe he did and all this “It is not my duty or desire to assist wah wah wah” malarky is just a smoke screen to hide his dented ego.

  12. “It is increasingly, and unfortunately, clear that the vast majority of those who do seek to comment come from way beyond the fringes of political electoral credibility and seek only to harm and undermine society. It is not my duty or desire to assist them.”

    It’s Erich Honecker reincarnate

  13. I’m beginning to feel sorry for the guy. It can’t be doing this deeply insecure man his health any good, maybe he needs an appointment with his GP wife.

    There is a highly dubious “update” this morning saying how traffic blog has increased substantially since he banned comments. This, despite saying that only 10% of traffic to his blog actually read the comments! I smell a rat…

  14. Peter, for a bloke who used the TJN as a testimonial for his own book, that post regarding increased traffic was very fishy, as was the praising email he quoted.

    As if the world is flooding to read a website (not a blog) since he has switched the comments off.

    Even if it is true that people were turned off from the nature of the comments (and I think its unlikely – most people read blogs looking to read a good scrap) couldnt the dimwits just avoid reading the comments?

    I think he is the sort of bloke that got sand kicked in his face as a young man, & has dreamt of being admired. And when he finds he just gets laughed at, he just can’t take the humiliation any more. Agreed, I think there is a bitterness in there somewhere which perhaps deserves compassion.

    I am sure he put that post up as a response to the ridicule he got here. Sure of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *