A regional daily newspaper has exposed a council leader who posted anonymous comments on its website in praise of the authority.
Bournemouth’s Daily Echo revealed that Cllr Ray Nottage, Conservative leader of Christchurch Borough Council, had made comments using the name “doomdodger” and initially failing to identify who he was.
His comments, posted on a story about the potential sale of the Civic Offices, said that the council was “doing a great job” and criticised another commenter for being negative.
However after Echo reporters established his identity, the newspaper decided to expose him because he was a high-profile local politician.
Echo news editor Andy Martin told HTFP: “It is not something we would ordinarily do in terms of anybody else. Clearly he is in a position as leader of the council and we thought it was a matter that readers should know about. With politicians, there should be a different set of rules.
“There are a number of high-profile issues in Christchurch at the moment involving his leadership of the council, and some fairly controversial planning applications, so there are a lot of people who are involved in the debate about what is going on in Christchurch.
“Ray is a fairly high-profile character at the moment. Most people are saying that if the leader of the council is posting on a website, he should be doing so in his own name.”
But when questioned by the Echo about the comments, Cllr Nottage defended himself and argued that he should be allowed to post anonymously as other users of the website are.
He told the paper: “This is not something I am not saying on my blog. I was using the system as it is set up on your website, the same way as everyone else has. I was responding to an extraordinarily cynical view online about the working of the council.
“It is supposed to be anonymous and if someone is allowed to say the chief executive David McIntosh doesn’t care for Christchurch under anonymity, I should be allowed the same rights.
“I have used the system that you have set up in the way that you have set it. What I was doing was following through the process which you have decided is acceptable to your newspaper.
“I thought that signing up to your system in the Echo was anonymous. If you should expose me, then you should expose everybody.”
One of Cllr Nottage’s comments said: “Where on earth does all this doom and dispondency (sic) come from. Christchurch is a great place, the council is doing a great job in a great community.
When questioned by another poster called “Victor” about whether he was a senior member of the council, Cllr Nottage did not answer but instead claimed to know Victor’s true identity.
Independent councillor Fred Neale has criticised him, saying: “I would have thought that as leader of the council, Cllr Nottage, would not want to hide behind anonymous comments.
“I would have thought he would have no qualms about posting comments about the council’s work in his own name.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
I can’t help but feel a bit uneasy about this story, and I’m not sure the fact he’s the council leader justifies stripping him of the same rights other posters enjoy. If he was blatantly posing as a member of the public then fair game, but it seems he was simply employing a user-name in the same way we all do. For sure, he could have posted under his own name but he wasn’t under any obligation to do so.
I trust the Echo is now busy examining the IP addresses of any other anti-council posters in case elected opposition members have also been using anonymous log-ins.
I’m sure plenty of senior managers post on htfp under assumed names, but it would be ethically unsound if this site one day decided to ‘expose’ them all.
The justification that there is ‘another set of rules for politicians’ – which I hope the Echo makes clear in its T+Cs – is pretty weak. You could apply the same logic to police officers, head teachers, traffic wardens – anyone so long as it suits your needs.
In short, I think it’s a slightly immature story – making a song and dance about exposing something that wasn’t really worth exposing.
Report this comment
Flipping eck, the man was exposed for saying ‘Christchurch is a great place’ anonymously. Ridiculous. Cancel my subscription
Report this comment
Excellent decision – and a logical extension to the general policy over readers letters.
You can’t allow people to masquerade as Joe Public when they have a devious agenda.
Would the people denigrating this decision be happy if they read what a marvelous job their local MP was doing if it was written by his wife using a pseudonym? Or the chairman of the local party?
On the flip side, would they be happy to see their MP slagged off anonymously by the Opposition candidate together with half a dozen party officials in a concerted campaign to rubbish him/her?
He’s been caught trying to pose as an ordinary member of the public and I applaud the decision to publish and expose him.
Report this comment
I think that Ray Nottage is right, if your going to have different levels of rules for different users who place comments you are on a very slippery slope.
You should either make it so that anyone who places comments can be anonymous or that everyone has to have their real ID and make it explicit in the terms and conditions on the website.
How you’d enforce a real name policy though, I haven’t got a clue (unless you had a credit card based ID system)
But you’d wonder if every newspaper website tried to work out who the real people were behind sockpuppet accounts just how many politicians, policemen, businessmen etc that you would unearth.
I bet quite a few where there would be an interesting story behind revealing them, but if you did this on a widespread basis then no-one would have any confidence in their commenting systems anymore.
Report this comment
Politicians emphatically do not operate under a “different set of rules” when it comes to internet anonymity.
If they do, then the title should have made that highly unusual clause perfectly clear in its terms and conditions.
If the editor has such a bee in his bonnet about it, a more measured response would have been for him to email the leader and advise him of his intention to “expose” him if he didn’t desist or begin posting under his own name.
Report this comment
If a newspaper is going to ‘expose’ someone in this way, it should have a very strong motive for doing so. I think the Echo got it wrong here. The paper has ended up looking weak and slightly malicious. I actually feel sorry for the councillor – not the outcome the paper intended, I’m sure.
Report this comment
I agree with Andrew and Steve. Whole story seems a bit childish (frankly, he appears to have said nothing newsworthy or controversial). But what is really worrying is that at random, it would seem, the paper can choose to strip people of their anonimity.
Report this comment
Can’t help but feel the paper has missed a trick here. It would be safe to assume that this guy was a regular visitor to the website and has commented on other stories too. Why not wait until he says something outrageous on another story before unmasking him? I’m sure the Echo would not have had to wait too long.
Report this comment
And so departs the trust people using its website would have. Hope it was worth it.
Report this comment
It seems like it’s yet another abuse of power – not by the councillor but by the editor. The paper creates a system where you can logon anonymously then punishes someone for doing so. Trust is a real issue for papers now and his does not help one iota.
Report this comment
The paper thought it was okay to remove someone’s privacy and apply a different set of rules – for what? Because the gentleman said the town was nice? I wonder if as much effort is put into determining the identity of the naysayers who run the town down? Might they not, also, be political figures with an agenda? Seems like press bias to me. Contemptible.
Report this comment
I wonder if the public would be interested to see how many comments on stories on newspaper websites are actually from the papers reporters and digital teams posing as members of the public?
Note: I am NOT accusing the Bournemouth’s Daily Echo of this just saying it is rife in the industry.
Reporters where I am were asked a few months ago to create fake Facebook pages to get the paper’s ‘likes’ up to get it verified.
I have also commented on any number of stories under assumed names to “stimulate debate” at the request of people higher up the chain.
Report this comment
Well that’s completely the wrong call.
If he was saying something interesting it might be worth considering, but this is pathetic.
If other people are allowed to anonymously attack the council, why aren’t supporters of the council allowed to anonymously defend it?
Report this comment
terrible idea
Report this comment
Very dangerous ground. Now everyone knows that the paper canmnot be trusted.
Report this comment