1. Posting on a blog under a pseudonym generally implies that you wish to remain anonymous. No intention was made on my part to make it seem as though I had uncovered this fact through hard work – I was merely saying to my readers that at first glance it appeared as though the author was anonymous, but that it quickly became obvious that they were not.

2. It is hard to disprove someone who makes such a claim about how a web page appeared in the past, which makes it difficult to be able to rebuke that point, but I would offer up one question: if the webpage appeared to say “Rochester and Strood” when I checked last night (and again today), and it said “Rochester and Strood” on 22 November last year (Google cache, screenshot), why would it have said anything else, particularly anything that was incorrect, between those dates?

3 & 4. In terms of these issues, my post was primarily aimed at Mr Osborne. No claim was made that any of the data itself was made up by you or anyone else. As stated in the post, you revealed statistics freely available from My Conservatives. However, Mr Osborne, in citing his “online source”, claimed that the documents were leaked (on his blog, and on twitter) and tried to use them to claim that there was an overall fundraising deficit.

I am well aware of the definition of deficit, and with regards to the targets on My Conservatives, which you referenced, there are indeed “deficits”. The rebuke was with regards to Osborne’s spin of the facts, claiming that there is an overall fundraising deficit – which, to my knowledge, there is not.

Peter – thank you for your comment, but please do be careful on how far you stray into the realms of personal insults. True or not, I cannot approve any comment which becomes too insulting towards an individual.

That said, I had not heard about the Cameron Direct incident.

Osborne posted on various websites that he had attended the Cameron Direct event at Princes Park last year, however when it was pointed out to him that attendees all had to be on a police security checklist and his name was not on the list, he suddenly went very quiet on the issue.

Osborne is a living example of why people are tired of Labour. He is trite, insignificant and morally corrupt.

A few points by way of reply…

1) I have never claimed to be anonymous. All links to the blog were posted from my personal twitter account. Therefore any attempts you make to sound like you have uncovered this fact make you look, to say the least, foolish.

2) All names, constitutencies and monetary amounts were copied VERBATIM from MyConservatives at the time of research (8th January). I did this for this very reason, knowing someone would rebuke the research.

3) The documents were produced by me, but only in a sense of data collation. The data is freely available to the public and there is no made-up data here.

4) I don’t quite know how you or your ‘source’ suggest that saying there are deficits is “rubbish”. There are target amounts. They have not been met. Ergo, there is a deficit. Would you like a dictionary?

Regards,

Tom