tim ireland : search engine optimisation : viral marketing : weblog marketing
to front page
to date archives
to category archives
national service
© Tim Ireland 2009
Design by Wibbler
RSS | RSD | Atom
« Alex Hilton = Derek Draper | Main | The Media Watch Project »
February 17, 2009Eight(ish) items about Derek Draper and Paul Staines
1. The Draper 'Downfall' video comes to us anonymously. It a situation like this, I suspect sock-puppetry. The video gets no linky-love from me.
2. Given Draper's wider antics and the excuse he provides for his use of the term "window lickers"...
Derek Draper - Apologies and regrets over the use of a derogatory term: At that point I thought the phrase meant someone looking in a window, like a kid at a candyshop, wishing they were inside.
... I thought you might be interested in this article from 2005:
Guardian - The lady and the scamp: Looking back on his "idiot years" now, after seven years of therapy - the last three in daily analysis - he attributes the self-destructive impulses to an unconscious need to get out of politics. "I believe now, as a psychotherapist, that most of what we do is motivated by the unconscious. And I think slowly, over a period of time, not being at the centre of power but having my face pressed up against the shop window, I'd unconsciously decided I didn't really like what I saw. But it was very hard for me to recognise, because it was all I'd wanted to do since the age of 11."
That article is linked prominently from Draper's Wikipedia page, so the connection with that excuse could be coincidence, a product of the subconscious, or a lovely bit of weaselling.
3. Draper put himself in a position where he had to apologise for use of the word that Paul Staines throws about without a care in the world. He's a fool, on top of everything else.
4. Paul Staines got in touch today to (finally) help with the ongoing uncertainty about his bankruptcy. He claimed (in a lofty, dismissive and contemptuous manner one normally expects from a bloody politician) that he was fully discharged from bankruptcy on 23 December, 2005, and that this is a matter of public record.
a) Pity nobody told these people about it.
b) We still only have Paul's word for this. He refused to produce anything to back it up. The sniffy bastard.
c) He seemed so put out that I would dare to ask questions about it. FFS, his grand plan involves a two-bit banner-advertising network exclusive to political weblogs. WTF did he think would happen? Did he seriously think no-one would ask any questions, or does he still live in that fantasy world where everybody has to be held accountable except for him and his mates?
d) Anyone might think from his reaction that Paul doesn't subject people to far worse treatment on the basis of even less evidence every damn day on his Guido Fawkes non-blog.
e) Staines even uses his anonymous free-for-all comments system to help baseless rumours evolve into 'open secrets'. And he's moaning because I've got some questions based on hard evidence? Forget him.
5. I've been thinking about it, and I can't for the life of me work out how exactly a key member of a two-bit banner advertising network expects to benefit from a regularly-risky widely-damaging comments free-for-all that is constantly refreshed... in more ways than one. Unless it's a matter of profit before principle/politics, of course; then it makes perfect sense.
6. I've noted elsewhere and wish to repeat here that Paul Staines appeared online earlier than 2005, failed miserably in his attempt to gain a worthwhile audience, and returned with a new identity. In short, he has such a boring and unpleasant personality that he had to invent a new one for his website. So far, people prefer Paul Staines' invented personality to Derek Draper's real one, but some might argue that this doesn't make for a fair fight. Paul has had far more time to perfect his spin, smear, comment manipulation and censorship techniques, too.
7. Do take some time to think about how much Paul Staines and Derek Draper have in common, because there's a lot; the early career-ending mistake, reinvention, crawling back into politics by faking it as a blogger, the endless cheating under comments, selective faux-outrage, a multi-faceted resemblance to David Brent... Staines even insisted today that he more than anyone was above scrutiny. I had to check the 'From' field to make sure I wasn't getting my meatheads mixed up.
8. Finally, to close, a quick note about Derek Draper's funding*; he's New Labour, used to write for the Express newspaper, had his wedding snaps featured in OK! magazine, (reportedly) isn't averse to a little adult-oriented entertainment... if anyone's drawing up a list of possible LabourList backers, you might want to add the name Richard Desmond. Just a thought.
(*Paul Staines assures us that he's had no secret backers. Ev-ah. He just magically emerged from a financial black hole with the capacity to blog pretty much full-time... and that seems a reasonable enough claim to me.)
Posted by Manic on February 17, 2009 6:54 PM in the category The Political Weblog Movement
Pings (Trackback)
For trackbacks, this is the URL:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/cgi-bin/mt-tbbh_20x07.pl/2214
Comments
It's not entirely clear how much Smithson makes from his site:
"For Politicalbetting this has been a godsend - and the prospect of regular advertising revenue was a key reason why I gave up my day job and full-time salary in December 2007 to work full-time on the site. I'm now seeing a reasonable income stream that should this financial year cover all the site costs and hopefully provide me with, together with the bookmaker commissions, a net profit of maybe £750 a month. "
£750 a month doesn't seem like much of a salary, I wonder if this is on top of what he earned before.
At any rate it would seem that if Smithson can do it on his own, Staines can too.
As for Draper's funding, hasn't it been said that some Union are footing the bill? Desmond would seem a suitably grubby candidate nonetheless.
Posted by: mikkimoose at February 17, 2009 7:53 PM
-
The sums I hear with regard to MessageSpace? Chicken-feed. I don't call it a two-bit operation just to have a go at Staines. Paul, as the blogger with likely the most traffic in the stable, may be making enough money to get by on advertising revenue alone*, but that would be a very recent development.
(*Oh, let's pretend that he is. Just for fun. After all, Paul did it in front of a judge. Where's the harm?)
On funding, I was just *Desmond* reading that 2005 Guardian article *Desmond* and I kept seeing *Desmond* this same name popping up. It's a passing mention for the record, and nothing more.
Posted by: Manic at February 17, 2009 8:28 PM
-
Downfall mashups are so 2008. Oh, and discharges from bankruptcy are supposed to be notified in the London Gazette.
Posted by: David Boothroyd at February 17, 2009 10:29 PM
-
Perhaps Paul was too busy thanking Santa at the time to get that little job done. Or maybe there was a typo, so it doesn't turn up in relevant searches. Or maybe some big boys took it and ran away.
Posted by: Manic at February 17, 2009 11:04 PM
-
Not so, David.
"The former bankrupt may wish to advertise the fact that he/she is no longer an undischarged bankrupt. The official receiver may be asked to arrange for an advertisement to be placed in the London Gazette and/or in the newspaper in which the bankruptcy order was advertised. The bankrupt must pay for these him/herself and no arrangements should be made until the appropriate remittance has been received."
It is curious why Staines was not dischrged automatically on 1 April 2005, apparently one is only not given automatic discharge if one is a second-time bankrupt or for failing to cooperate with the receivers instructions.
Staines is definitely NOT currently a bankrupt, because he is not on the list at http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/eiir/
It should be in the court records, his application.
Posted by: mikkimoose at February 18, 2009 1:11 AM
-
So we can safely assume that Paul chose not to advertise his discharge. For some reason.
Posted by: Manic at February 18, 2009 9:09 AM
-
re: 7. The similarities with Draper and Staines.
Regardless of what you may think of the political activities of these two individuals, Draper is a psychotherapist in a position of responsibility over vulnerable children and adults who seek his services. His dishonesty and lack of clarity raise serious concerns about his professional conduct and his recent behaviour online raises questions about his professional abilities. Staines has no such professional responsibilities.
Posted by: gimpy at February 18, 2009 9:13 AM
-
Hey, if I get my hands on the relevant bits of data/paper, can I/we do this for him? Just to let the city know that Bruce Wayne is back on his feet and ready to fight crime again.
Posted by: Manic at February 18, 2009 9:15 AM
-
Oh, hello gimpy. Almost tripped over you there. Welcome to Bloggerheads.
I question bringing something with knee-jerk potential into the argument (think of the children!), especially when Draper's practice is not a factor in his blogging, not even so far as funding it to any degree. Also, Staines seeks to direct our democracy, even though he claims to be a harmless rascal when it suits him.
Can we agree to disagree and leave it at that?
Posted by: Manic at February 18, 2009 10:49 AM
-
Thanks Manic. This is probably an argument best covered elsewhere, but with respect, the 'think of the children' argument is actually relevant when children are concerned. I was just wanting to make the point that the actions of an individual in the political sphere can be relevant elsewhere in their professional life, especially when, as Draper does, they use it as a shield to deflect criticism.
Apologies for the slight meandering off topic.
Posted by: gimpy at February 18, 2009 1:52 PM
-
"the 'think of the children' argument is actually relevant when children are concerned."
Yes, but there's great potental for emotion winning over reason. Not a risk I'm going to take on a tangential matter, but your point is taken. Cheers.
Posted by: Manic at February 18, 2009 2:09 PM
-
The reason not to advertise is fairly obvious, it costs money and doesn't seem to be particularly useful, given the insolvency register shows whether one is still bankrupt.
Anyway, I've just registered on courtserve, and am trying to find the relevant court notices for that day.
Posted by: mikkimoose at February 18, 2009 2:19 PM
-
Good on you, mm.
Posted by: Manic at February 18, 2009 2:24 PM
-
Hmm. No sign of a Staines:
Bankruptcy Court
Friday 23 December 2005
THE DAILY LIST
IN BANKRUPTCY ROOM TM 1.10
FIRST FLOOR
THOMAS MORE BUILDING Before
MR REGISTRAR RAWSON
Friday,23rd December,2005
At half past 10
Adjourned Petition
09694/2005 Reed PJ
07499/2005 Miller SJ
09848/2005 Woodforde J
10081/2005 Bradshaw MDA
10088/2005 Batugedara J
10144/2005 Mycock SJ
08321/2005 Chamberlain DC
03753/2005 Hunt LR
08141/2005 Cooper AD
09600/2005 Hancock CK
08930/2005 Hughes MR
09864/2005 Cole R
09863/2005 Ali RNB
10068/2005 Doshi S
At 11 o'clock
Petition
04970/2005 Chichester J
09202/2005 Laverty D
09012/2005 Fuller EG
09015/2005 Dad D
10147/2005 Hulse WJ
10142/2005 Dowling SN
09191/2005 Ojie PD
Adjourned Petition
09181/2005 Newell PA
08697/2005 Wizard BA
07780/2004 Felici A
07952/2005 Llanrakis V
08146/2005 Sunthares S
04493/2005 Bradley GP
09183/2005 Mahmood A
09203/2005 Long D
00754/2005 Aiwone LB
09206/2005 Long SL
At 12 o'clock
Adjourned Application to Annul Bankruptcy Order
05566/2005 Okoroego M
Application to Annul Bankruptcy Order
02101/2005 Ofosu DB
At 12:15
Application for Possession
04089/2001 Ashraf M
At half past 12
Adjourned Application to Annul Bankruptcy Order
04024/2005 Teare AW
Application to Annul Bankruptcy Order
06436/2005 Imoh DOW
NON ATTENDANCE Pre Trial Review
10072/2005 Farrell M
00426/SD/2005 In re a debtor
10817/2004 Olaifa O
THE DAILY LIST
IN BANKRUPTCY ROOM TM 1.10
FIRST FLOOR
THOMAS MORE BUILDING Before
MR DEPUTY REGISTRAR SCHAFFER
Friday,23rd December,2005
At half past 10
Petition
10209/2005 Brunt R
Adjourned Petition
03665/2005 Ayensu MH
04717/2005 Waring RJ
04340/2005 Goff M
06406/2005 Mohammed AK
08412/2005 Wroot DM
07829/2005 Cruse JC
07832/2005 Evans R
07574/2005 Elwin PS
10439/2005 Evans S
10440/2005 Salt R
07463/2005 O'Connor PM
07026/2005 Hammond MW
10752/2005 Hubble KP
02860/2005 Panchal D
02948/2005 Olivier J
11064/2005 Perry SL
10756/2005 Hockey AJ
At 11 o'clock
Petition
09157/2005 Dyas LD
09099/2005 Morgan GW
06866/2005 Coulthard M
09722/2005 Addison J
10210/2005 Aksahin S
09779/2005 Barker J
Adjourned Petition
09173/2005 Hodgkiss R
09179/2005 Housden NJ
06859/2005 Millward BC
09227/2005 Budd R
09231/2005 Rahazaq M
08109/2005 Fowler JJM
02530/2005 Race IJ
07293/2005 Yodaiken S
05196/2005 Walker KD
At 12 o'clock
Application to Annul Bankruptcy Order
07709/2005 Martin AP
At 12:15
Application for Possession
07604/1999 Williams M
At half past 12
Adjourned Application to Annul Bankruptcy Order
06307/2003 Royston DMA
03164/2005 Akinyemi A
NON ATTENDANCE Pre Trial Review
06782/2005 Beanland MSJ
Adjourned Application to consider Nominee's Report
00130/IO/2005 In re a debtor
Adjourned Application to consider Nominee's Report
00128/IO/2005 In re a debtor
00129/IO/2005 In re a debtor
Did I request the wrong list?
Posted by: mikkimoose at February 18, 2009 2:55 PM
-
23 December 2005 was the date he gave me.
I'd ask Paul to confirm, be he declared yesterday that he's going back to his official policy of 'ignoring*' me.
(*translation: forbidding all mention of me on his website, unless it's an anonymous insult. free speech rocks!)
Posted by: Manic at February 18, 2009 3:14 PM
-
I've asked him anyway. He's being snotty and evasive. Again.
(Wish I could publish these private emails. I challenge anyone to be able to tell the difference between Staines and Draper once the mask is off.)
Posted by: Manic at February 18, 2009 4:02 PM
-
The latest is that Staines is saying these are dates of court hearings, not actual dates of discharge. He's not offering anything beyond that, probably because he pictures me obsessively hammering away at search databases for his amusement.
(BTW, he appears to have missed how this latest info appeared, mm. He thinks that I dug it up, and he thinks I did it with Google. He even patted me on the head and gave me a "run along", which was deliciously gittish of him.)
Thing is, I'm perfectly happy for matters to stand at Staines being an evasive, patronising hypocrite about the whole thing.
Posted by: Manic at February 18, 2009 4:52 PM
-
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you're new to Bloggerheads, you may need to be approved by the moderator before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)