Comments on: ‘Smeargate’ and paedo-smears

By: David Boothroyd

David Boothroyd — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:29:08 +0000

There can be no complaint about publicizing that someone has been made bankrupt: bankruptcy is deliberately given publicity because of the serious legal consequences of doing even routine business with someone who has been declared bankrupt. Some of the issues can arise even when the bankruptcy has been discharged.All bankruptcies are recorded in the London Gazette, an official publication which is practically fully searchable back to 1665.

By: Manic

Manic — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:25:57 +0000

To answer your question: when doing so is likely to make the situation worse for the victim(s) of the schemes.But what evidence is there that Tom Watson was in this position?Oh, and: "There was never any real evidence that Mercer knew of anything untoward."I beg to differ, but my implying otherwise after Jenvey went live with the paedo-smear and I finally got through to Mercer would have been (a) easy to the point of forcing his denial into print when it was certainly in my interests to be in print, and (b) just as dishonest as what Iain is doing.If Iain has evidence of Tom Watson's direct involvement in a smear conspiracy against him or anyone else, then let's see it.Until then, what Iain is dishing out is a smear, too.

By: mikkimoose

mikkimoose — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 21:18:25 +0000

Yes they stole it, that's what I said. All they had to do was put a tiny credit, but they're arrogant bastards so they didn't bother.There is a difference with Patrick Mercer. Whereas McBride's emails are transparently wrong, Jenvey's activities were a different kind of devious. Most people who read Jenvey's lies would assume they are true. There was never any real evidence that Mercer knew of anything untoward.If on the other hand you're in receipt of correspondence from one of your subordinates you certainly do have a responsibility to do something about it, moral and legal. If a boss at a company receives emails from one of his staff that he plans to libel the competition/bully one of the other staff/etc, he's 100% culpable for them.Perhaps you can answer: under what circumstances, having been sent emails informing you of a conspiracy to lie and libel, do you think it would be ok to say/do nothing?

By: Manic

Manic — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:57:19 +0000

All the person wants in exchange for use of the picture is a mention. Therefore, NOTW nicked it."The vendetta between senior Brownites and Guido Fawkes, the Westminster blogger who obtained the emails, dates back to stories Fawkes – whose real name is Paul Staines – posted about the Smith Institute and its relationship to Ed Balls, also a close friend of McBride. Shortly afterwards journalists began being offered snippets designed to undermine Staines, including news of his drink-driving conviction. Coincidence? Staines, say friends, does not think so."http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/12/da...It only appears to have come from McBride/Balls if you buy into Paul Staines' conspiracy theory.(Psst! "Began being offered"…? Who done wrote that?)I'm still waiting to see this email Staines claims to have proving an anti-Dale conspiracy at least.Meanwhile, Dale and Staines are using a number of dishonest techniques to try to link Tom Watson to this when so far there is no evidence to suggest his involvement, and Watson has issued a clear denial. They are effectively smearing him while posing as victims of a smear, AND WE'VE NOT YET SEEN EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT EITHER ASPECT OF THIS.Compare this to my treatment of Patrick Mercer; I did everything I could to try to reach the guy for a statement, and took exceptional measures when it got really ugly. (Thanks again to Iain for his 'help' on that.) I would've been all too easy at one stage to smear Mercer with Jenvey's antics while ignoring or dismissing his denials until the issue (and a further denial) was forced into print, but I'm not a partisan smear-merchant like Dale or Staines, and there was no anti-[insert party] agenda at work.IIRC, the bankruptcy data turned up a few times before I looked into it and revealed it, two of those sources were anonymous but the third was not a Labour source by any means; whenever I get into a big fight with Staines and the bastard starts finding dirty, people start handing me ammunition.

By: mikkimoose

mikkimoose — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 13:47:46 +0000

Interesting that the Staines drink driving story, which appeared first in the Independent appears to have originated from McBride/Balls.http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/12/da...Did you dig up his bankruptcy or did that come from a similar source?

By: mikkimoose

mikkimoose — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 13:14:51 +0000

They didn't even need to steal it. I mean the image is free, they just need to credit the photographer.

By: Manic

Manic — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:00:22 +0000

The link isn't about Iain's involvement, but the event which new readers may not be aware of. All I have right now is an allegation that I certainly cannot discuss with Jenvey while Iain childishly pretends to 'ignore' me while publishing false claims about me on his website. How am I supposed to even get near a reasonable judgement on if it's true of not when Iain is behaving the way he is?My bringing up the allegation in public may result in a further hissy fit from Iain and maybe even a legal threat, but bugger it… he needs to talk and if that's what it takes so be it. I emailed and called him dozens of times yesterday (he'll no doubt make that out to be stalking at a later date, as he has before in situations like this that he has created) but he didn't get back to me with anything. He made the time to make another misleading claim about me on his site, though. The long and short of it is even if he isn't actively involved, he's willing to let me think he is. The wanker.I totally recognise what the story is for NOTW and others (on what even Staines acknowledges is a News Vacuum Weekend), but – as often happens at Bloggerheads – focus is on an important story behind the story. Lies and hypocrisy are involved and I'm shining a light on both, not least because Staines and Dale are really taking the piss by posing as moral campaigners.On the email(s) allegedly focusing on Dale, we've not yet seen them, not even on their personal websites, so all I can say about that is Staines promised to publish it/these immediately and didn't. And still hasn't. For the record, I'm not inclined to comment on the smears as a whole until I've seen it/them. I fully expected them to appear in NOTW, even as a 'man who brought us smears was smeared too' sentence and/or 'leading blogger also smeared' as a passing mention, but no.NOTW nicking images does not surprise me. Everything on the internets is free.

By: mikkimoose

mikkimoose — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:06:21 +0000

no surprise btw to see the NOTW:http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/261804/Revea...using a Wikimedia image http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_Stain...but not observing the licence, which requires attribution.

By: mikkimoose

mikkimoose — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:59:16 +0000

While it's true that Draper and Staines are no better than each other, this isn't a story about the low moral standards of Staines. He smears people all the time, we are told that Gordon Brown is a nutter, etc.But then he's not a government employee. Neither are you. If you had engineered such smears it wouldn't be front page news.Iain Dale is obviously keen to make the story about himself, but the Damian McBride emails about Staines and Dale (which you challenged Staines to publish a couple of weeks ago when Draper and Staines appeared on TV) are a non-story, even if they did come from a government email. The story is the orchestrated Labour Party campaign against Tory MPs and their family. Not the Staines/Dale emails.Paul Staines has inserted himself into the story by being the receiver of the emails. But that doesn't mean that the story is about him. You are missing the point.PS.Re: "On top of this, I now have someone claiming that Iain Dale is actively involved in Glen Jenvey's schemes. "The link doesn't say anything about Iain Dale. Have you got the wrong link?