[EDIT (10:05AM): THE BODY OF THIS POST HAS BEEN REMOVED. AN EXPLANATION FOLLOWS.]
Paul Delaire/Delarie Staines has requested that I publish one of his emails so his immediate response is available before what appeared above spreads from blog to blog to blog without it. I’ve included the correspondence that surrounded the single email he requested in order to provide the full and proper context.
I am happy to afford ‘Guido Fawkes’ this right of reply, and I’m sure that the multi-faceted irony will be appreciated by many readers of his weblog:
Paul Staines: Presumably you are unaware of the lengthy written retraction concerning that article by the journalist David Rose. Please take that down instantly.
Tim Ireland: Perhaps you would care to print it, then.
Paul Staines: I will have it to hand tomorrow Tim and provide it to you and all concerned with pleasure. Currently I am with my parents celebrating my birthday and the retraction is in my office. For your information the Observer most recently put the story to me recently, checked the retraction with David Rose and consequently did not run anything. Journalists usually check with the subject. I will be contacting LexisNexis to have the article removed as well. Presumably when the print archive was OCR’d the story was re-uploaded. We have our disagreements, but this is in a different league. You are making a mistake, presumably not maliciously, but it is still a mistake.
Tim Ireland: I have things to do today, too, Paul. I look forward to seeing the retraction and will happily react in a fair manner once I’ve done so. As I said on Bloggerheads, you have the right to explain yourself. At least, on my blog you do.
Paul Staines: Tim it is physically impossible for me to get that to you before tomorrow. When you see the retraction you will be embarrassed. I was fighting the BNP. The journalist concerned accepted that. Tim you are as aware of the laws as well as I am. It would be prudent to take it down pending sight of the retraction. You can then make an informed judgement. I am willing to accept it is a mistake now, if you don’t take it down after being put on notice it could be construed as a malicious libel particularly in the context of your campaign. Give it 24 hours Tim, you might save us both a lot of grief.
For the record, the department of the Guardian that could confirm the existence of the alleged retraction won’t be available until 11am tomorrow, so I’m giving Paul 25 hours.