16th Apr 2009
“So he’s now going to launch a spamming initiative against me or try to instigate a DNS attack.” – Iain Dale
This is an incorrect assumption at best. Given Iain Dale’s past history, it is more likely to be a lie.
My solution to the problem of Iain Dale is far more elegant, and quite legal, I assure you.
Also, Iain has revealed that he did indeed listen to the many messages I left with him begging him to help me make a true and efficient statement to police regarding the Glen Jenvey claims that I’m a convicted paedophile, and those asking when exactly he would be removing other false claims about me hosted on his website
Iain refused to cooperate on both fronts,and his portrayal of multiple messages is a dishonest. one. I’m amazed that he would parade this version of events in front of his readers and still not address what he has done.
[UPDATE - If you really think you're being harassed, Iain... call the police! I'm sure they'll appreciate you giving them less than half of the story just like you've just done to your readers. Dickhead.]
16th Apr 2009
Take a look at what Paul promises to publish here, on live television on 27 March. It’s quite specific:
Paul Staines: I’ve seen the briefing paper done by Downing Street; “How to get Dale”
Derek Draper: Well, publish it.
Paul Staines: I will publish it this afternoon
Paul Staines still hasn’t published this. No-one has. But Paul Staines and Iain Dale have been using the old trick of using story momentum* to peddle outright lies and falsehoods to their readers and the media.
(*When you’re seen as the ‘good guy’ in a fast-moving story, often people stop asking you for evidence when you claim X, Y or Z, and will just take you at your word. Witness Nadine Dorries telling outright fibs on SKY News; a story I’m still chasing on the basis that I’m aware of two clear lies, and have evidence of the first, but I’m seeking evidence for the second lie, which is actionable if it turns out to be as it was described to me.)
They have also been blurring the line between the emails that have been published and this unseen email/document that they claim exists, but will not produce.
There is even sufficient evidence for us to suspect that this evidence does not even exist:
Iain Dale submitted to the Mail on Sunday a false claim about Tom Watson being CCed on the ‘smeargate’ emails, and claims he found out too late to stop it from going to print. (How unfortunate.) He then failed to undergo a comprehensive correction and retraction on his own site, while repeatedly implying that Watson was involved in ‘smeargate’.
In other words, Iain Dale knowingly misled his readers for at least a day and a half, as many of them will have recalled reading the claim, but will not have been aware that this claim was false and had been withdrawn (until after Tom was forced to issue legal letters, in which case a few people might have caught the resulting teeny afterthought/update on this post)
Meanwhile, Iain Dale continues with his claim that there was a Downing Street led conspiracy against him specifically, but he has still yet to produce the emails/documents he claims exist that prove this.
Where’s his evidence? Or is he again taking the word of the same ‘trusted source’ who told him Watson was CCed on the ‘smeargate’ emails?
I’ve made it clear that I wouldn’t use Carter Ruck myself, but while Tom Watson is taking the quite understandable measure of issuing legal letters to those publishing these false claims and persisting with a narrative no longer supported by evidence:
- Paul Staines is making out that it’s all part of his grand conspiracy theory and/or that Tom’s a libel bully, and, after I dared to point out that he had no evidence to support his claim, published numerous false claims – also unsupported by evidence – that I’m secretly in the employ of Tom Watson and/or the Labour party and/or the government. This is a false claim that has been repeated often on his site, Staines has yet to remove these false claims from his website/archives, despite a very clear demand that he do so. (What’s he waiting for? A legal letter so he can make me out to be a libel bully, too?)
- Iain Dale is playing along with the ‘libel bully’ game (in the same post where he admits the ‘error’ as if it were in passing!) *and* deleting mentions under comments (not from me) of generous Tory patron Lord Ashcroft objecting to what is published about him but instead of demanding the customary retractions, deletions and/or apologies, attempting to shut down an entire website (i.e. being a libel bully).
After pretty much standing by and allowing me to be smeared as a paedophile, Iain Dale refused to discuss the issue, and banned me from his site to avoid discussing it and to keep the information from his readers. He is now quite dishonestly claiming that he is not discussing this on the basis that I am banned (see how it works?) and also deleting any question about the evidence he claims to have but won’t show us, and/or the false claims hosted on his website that claim or imply that I’m secretly in the pay/employ of Tom Watson and/or the Labour party and/or the government.
Staines looks like he might just be ready to be reasonable, at least about some of the false claims he’s published about me.
Iain Dale might need a little something special.
[Psst! Experience the rich, undiluted hypocrisy of unapologetic drunkard Paul Staines smearing Damian McBride as an alcoholic.]
15th Apr 2009
After several fruitless attempts to confront Paul Staines about false claims made about me on his website (via email and the comments function) today, I’ve had to chase down a mobile phone number for Paul Staines just so he could ‘kindly’ offer to delete comments on his website that (yet again) make false allegations about me…. just this once.
The terms he describe set a precedent where in future I will have to monitor Paul Staines’ order-order.com website for similar allegations, and contact him by phone again so he will read a single email and take action.
He wishes to use this system because he claims not to read emails from me.
Also, this novel system of communication has become even more complicated now that Paul Staines refuses to answer my calls.
Finally, he lied outright about being completely unaware of the claims, because he has published such claims many times before, and actively encouraged further claims via anonymous comments (that he may or may not make himself) many times in the past.
His acting surprised that such a claim would be left unmolested on his website goes well beyond deceit to an outright insult to my intelligence.
Here’s what’s been live on his site, and the proof that my reply to the false accusation was seen and deleted:
Even if Paul is going to claim that one of this little helpers does the moderating (which office are they based in, Paul?), in the end he is responsible for what is published on his website.
On that note, I took this to Jag Singh of MessageSpace, which is my usual route when Paul Staines is publishing lies about me or otherwise attacking me on his site and the ignoring my attempts to respond (which he does often).
The official line is that; “Paul Staines is neither a shareholder, director or employee of MessageSpace and never has been,” but Paul once issued legal threats against me that were traced back to the office to MessageSpace, and concerned an article that alleged that he had been stealing other people’s work and hosting it in the core directory of the MessageSpace website.
I contended at the time that it was a bit odd that Paul would have this kind of access to the MessageSpace website/server, if he was only casually wandering in and out of their open office from time to time as they claimed.
But it gets better.
I regarded Paul’s offer of answering a single email and deleting a single set of comments to be completely unacceptable, and I said so to Jag Singh… who offered to log into the order-order.com website and delete them himself.
Read that bit again; Jag Singh offered to log into the order-order.com website and delete these comments himself!
Paul Staines and Jag Singh and MessageSpace are far more intimately connected than the paperwork alone might suggest.
It is for this reason that I am finally reacting to these ongoing smears and false allegations about me on the order-order.com website by announcing and advocating a boycott against MessageSpace and any commercial/campaign advertisers paying for placement on that network until such time that Paul cleans up his act or MessageSpace remove Paul Staines from their advertising network.
I realise that this may create certain behind-the-scenes difficulties for them, but at least the paperwork should be easy to sort out, right? Because Paul Staines is only some guy who happens to carry their ads and wander in and out of their open office from time to time, right?
MessageSpace obviously consider themselves to be a position where they have control over unacceptable content on the order-order.com website, so I say they should answer for any/all of it if Paul Staines won’t.
And he won’t.
Recent days have shown that Paul Staines will openly deceive people any time he is given the opportunity, and I am a regular victim of the lies and insinuations he publishes. He probably thinks that he can get away with it because – unlike him – I’m not in a financial situation that allows me to throw lawyers about. But it ends here.
I want more than this single entry deleted. I want this culture of repeated false allegations to end to the point where every past entry that makes a false allegation about me on his site is removed, and every future entry mentioning me by name is held over for moderation and checked before it is published.
His new system is supposed to be able to handle this simple task… let’s see it in action.
Like Iain Dale, he cannot expect to get away with pretending to ignore me if he is constantly using his website to attack me, or allowing others to attack me while he deletes my respons(es).
Accusations made about me on his website include (but are not limited to) voyeurism in public toilets, homosexual relationships, stalking and harassment of women, and being in the pay/employ of Tom Watson, the Labour party and/or the government… and I’ve had enough.
Until it comes to an end, I am declaring war on MessageSpace, the only entity with any control over his website that is in any way accountable.
If they feel they are in a position to take action over this single entry, then let’s see them take action over all of them.
14th Apr 2009
Go look for yourself… it starts at 3:47 and actually gets worse:
I’ll be back shortly to comment.
UPDATE – Still absorbing the video. Waiting to calm down. Have some pertinent information:
The Metropolitan officer, who has his identification number covered up*, appears to slap the woman across the face before taking out his baton and hitting her on the legs.
The incident happened a day after another officer pushed over newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson, who died of a suspected heart attack shortly after.
[*My emphasis. I have been bitching about this very thing for a while now. We have yet to hear anyone from the Met or the CoL police or the IPCC condemning the practice or even expressing concern at the
allegations evidence that it is happening.]
Obviously no one gave the Hill Street Blues speech that morning. Or maybe they did and it was like; “Hey, let’s be pro-active out there!”
UPDATE – Oh dear. In the HSB clip I chose, Sergeant Phil Esterhaus doesn’t sign off with his usual “Hey, let’s be careful out there”… instead he uses the alternative; “Let’s do it to them before they do it to us!”
Now, to business:
We are looking at a kettling in progress. See the photographer trying to leave at 3:20 (i.e. move from the enclosed area to where the press are free to move…to anywhere but the enclosed area unless they want some, too).
The results speak for themselves. As does the CoL officer who urges the media to turn away from a seeing-to or two with the classic; “There’s nothing to see here, is there?”
Yes, there bloody well is something to see there; a second apparent case of assault involving yet another officer with obscured badge numbers. Even your most gung-ho armchair capitalist would have to admit that it’s not the smartest public relations move, at least.
UPDATE – The angle of the video doesn’t make it clear if he slaps her face or chest, so there may be some debate about that if the far right bloggers out there have sufficient protein left in their bodies to lift their aching arms to their keyboards.
If faced with such a debate, it’s easy enough to settle, because the defenders of kettling would have you think that it has a calming effect. So, keeping in mind that the idea is to keep members of the public calm:
You’re a young woman outside a police cordon expressing concern to a police officer about the treatment of a man inside a police cordon.
So, where do you want it; face or tits?
(Well, it’s your fault you swore, you little firecracker. You was asking for it, wasn’t ya?)
UPDATE – Here’s our man. Note the fetching epaulette covers.
Eyewitness account by the photographer:
During the afternoon of the 2nd April 2009 on Threadnedle Street near the Bank of England I witnesed the police officer in the photos on this page attack a woman with his telescopic baton. The attack was startling because it was apparently unprovoked. It was also surprising because the police officer concerned is a very large man of perhaps 15 stone, while the woman was very small, perhaps 5’3″ tall. He stepped forwards from a police line and beat the woman hard using both forehand and backhand strokes. I estimate that he hit her between 3 and 5 times. As can be seen in the photographs the officer did not have his number visible. The woman appeared very brave and did not openly show pain.(source)
On YouTube and Indymedia, where these and other photos can be seen, there are a number of claims that this officer’s badge number is or was AB42, but there’s no proof of that at this stage, the IPCC is aware and the need for a man/witch-hunt** is unlikely.
Now let’s hear some noises about how shocking it is that a police officer would hide his/her identity in this way, please. Anyone in authority will do; just a little gasp of disbelief for the cameras and you can be on your way.
[**Mmmmmm... manwich hunt.]
UPDATE – As has just been mentioned under comments:
Better. Certainly faster. Not much stronger.
I want to start hearing some seriously reassuring messages about this hidden badge number nonsense. Good to see the Lib Dems at least are asking questions. Now all we need are those answers.
UPDATE (15 Apr) – Pardon me if I seem ungrateful, but it’s about bloody time:
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has asked Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary (HMIC) to review policing tactics. Denis O’Connor will conduct the review after two alleged assaults by police during the G20 protests in London… Sir Paul also stressed all uniformed officers must wear shoulder identification numbers so they can be easily identifiable by the public… Sir Paul said: “It is also the case that a number of complaints have been raised in relation to the tactic of containment and as to whether this achieves that balance. I want to be reassured that the use of this tactic remains appropriate and proportionate. Separately, I have already expressed my concern that the video footage of some police actions are clearly disturbing and should be thoroughly investigated. As well as the post-event investigation into those responsible for violence and disorder, I have also ensured that footage in police possession is reviewed to identify any other matters of individual police conduct that may warrant investigation.” He added that uniformed police officers should be identifiable at all times by their shoulder identification numbers. “The public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officer whilst performing their duty.”
14th Apr 2009
Guardian – Police watchdog chief wrong to say no CCTV in area of Ian Tomlinson assault: This morning the IPCC initially stood by Hardwick’s claims. “Mr Hardwick said there was no available CCTV footage of the incident and we stand by that. Any footage that is available, whether taken by police or by the public, will be fully investigated as and when it becomes available,” it said. However, at 10.30am, after pictures were published showing cameras in the area, the IPCC changed its stance. “At this point, Mr Hardwick believed that he was correct in this assertion – we now know this may not be accurate,” the IPCC said in a statement. “There are cameras in the surrounding area.” The IPCC would not comment on why, almost two weeks after Tomlinson’s death and one week after it said its investigators had pieced together his last moments by looking at “many hours of CCTV”, Hardwick had been mistaken about the locations of cameras.
Tch. I’ve already pointed out that this is how conspiracy theories start out, haven’t I? Being thorough and attentive and observant is the simplest part of almost every role related to law enforcement. The public deserves better.
14th Apr 2009
This video contains everything you need to know about the current state of political blogging in the UK in a smidgen over a minute, and stars all of the main players in the grubby-on-all-sides Draper/McBride ‘smeargate’ affair.
PS – Iain Dale and Paul Staines still refuse to show any evidence proving their repeated claims of a Downing Street conspiracy against either or both of them specifically, but they are dishonestly grouping this unseen email with the published email(s) and insisting that they have evidence to prove their conspiracy claim. Iain Dale has already made one false claim about this. There’s every reason to be suspicious about the personal conspiracy claim too, so… Let’s. See. The. Evidence.
UPDATE – Yeah, I noticed this, too; Iain Dale, in a typical abuse of the power that comes with added publicity, used the opportunity to press his false narrative about the right’s dominance of the blogosphere.
13th Apr 2009
Sorry about that minor foray into the archives. Tim J of Conservative Party Reptile is concerned that I’ve not mentioned Draper enough, and would have you think that I’m trying to excuse Derek Draper’s behaviour or distract you from his deeds, even though I have already condemned his actions and publicly tagged him as the wrong man for the job before Iain Dale and Paul Staines started using Draper’s clumsy underhanded tactics to paint themselves whiter than white (in part before even the emails at the centre of ‘smeargate’, that were sent on Jan 13 and seen by Paul Staines aka ‘Guido Fawkes’ that same day*).
[Psst! In fact, for the most likely explanation for Staines seeing/receiving the McBride/Draper emails on the same day* they were sent, see this entry on my blog about an email Derek Draper sent in Jan 16. In that exchange, Draper appears to accidentally (openly) CC Greg Jackson, Sue Macmillan, Tom Miller and Alex Smith on our conversation instead of (secretly) BCCing them. What I didn't blog at the time, was the part where Greg Jackson replied to the group without realising that I would be reading his comments about my 'arrogance'. Draper and his gang are a bunch of keyboard-mashing nincompoops; chances are someone somewhere (probably Draper) CCed/included/emailed Staines or one of his informants thanks to an auto-fill function and a lack of care or common sense. The most likely scenario in the circumstances is that Draper tried to CC/BCC someone on the 'smeargate' email(s) but BCCed Staines or one of his informants instead. This is the most likely scenario because it allows for a long period where McBride was unaware of the leak that needed immediate attention, and Draper - who admits himself that he's a self-destructive arsehole - was willing to gamble that his mistake would never come to light. If that's the way it happened, it is likely that Draper is still the only person who knows it was his mistake, not least because he still finds himself in a job. In such a scenario, it is equally likely that Draper himself is still unaware of his own mistake, as he is famously ignorant of just about anything to do with the internet and how it works.]
[*MINI-UPDATE (14 Apr) - It turns out there are are conflicting accounts of when Staines was shown these emails (and what he did with them afterwards, and here I'd like to note that Staines' carefully-phrased/timed denials about him seeking and eventually receiving payment for this story don't add up to much). Paul Staines may have heard of these emails in Jan/Feb/Mar but not received them until as late as the early days of April. Of course, I can't ask him about that because he's a childish query-dodging so-and-so, but this still allows for the 'accidental CC/BCC' scenario, but to one of Staines sources, and not Staines himself.]
Tim J also appears to be mistaking ‘fixated’ or ‘obsessed’ with ‘well informed and justifiably concerned’.
Iain Dale and Paul Staines and Derek Draper all represent what is wrong and dangerous in the political blogosphere.
The reason Dale and Staines especially seem so popular is because (a) they manipulate and feed off the mainstream media sewer they claim to be above, (b) they lie and mislead people about their traffic figures, and (c) they individually do get an audience that’s roughly double mine by the ingenious method of telling people what they want to hear, censoring any valid challenge to their claims, and letting people smear anyone who isn’t an ally of theirs under comments.
Oh, and they and their supporters also use and abuse multiple personalities under comments (see two key entries on ‘sock-puppets’ here and here), so for every hundred comments on some days there’s maybe a dozen people in it. It’s very hard to catch people doing this on their own website(s), but Paul Staines has been caught doing it outside his own website (pretending to be supporter, no less), and Iain Dale has a long track record of (at the very least) allowing this sock-puppeting on his site when it is to his advantage and actually using such comments as a weapon in debates/discussions that aren’t going his way (a classic example awaits you here if you have the patience for it). Draper is too new to have any real form here, but he’s clearly a comment cheat, and not above a little sock-puppetry, even if he understands that it’s wrong (which I doubt).
[Psst! Iain Dale once told me that he'd never - never - seen any evidence of my sock-puppeting on his site, even though he's published many claims to the contrary.]
It should also be pointed out that this stage that being popular/successful does not make you right and not every visit to your website is a vote for you!
While writing this I discovered that Iain Dale published and fed to the media a false claim that Tom Watson was CCed on the ‘smeargate’ emails. He rested on this false claim a repeated demand that Tom Watson explain his inaction… over emails Iain knew he had never seen. This false claim (and demands/narratives very similar to Iain’s) later spread to several newspapers, and influenced many online conversations about this event, on Iain’s site and elsewhere.
In an interview with The Stirrer, Dale confessed there was no evidence to support this assertion. He said, “I do accept that he wasn’t cc’d into the emails.”
He added: “Knowing the layout of that office, I can’t believe he didn’t know about Red Rag, but I can’t prove it.”
When asked why he hadn’t apologised for his error, Dale said that he had only posted it for around 15 minutes on his site on Saturday night, and had even emailed the Mail On Sunday with a correction – which nevertheless repeated the slur.
“I don’t know why they didn’t remove the reference” he said. “I can only assume arrived too late before they went to press.”
So Iain now claims that he originally thought this claim to be true, but then found out he was wrong 15 minutes after he published? Even if this were true – and it is unlikely, as Iain Dale is a shameless liar and the master of the plausible excuse – he still has to explain why he did not immediately correct all of the relevant entries on his site and/or make urgent efforts to correct the other newspapers who had repeated the claim… and why he continued with repeated implications of Tom Watson’s involvement while his readers were under the impression that Watson had been CCed on the emails, when he had not.
(And Iain is complaining because Tom is warning him that if he continues he’ll have to answer for this in court? He can go forget himself. Contrary to what some pseudo-bloggers would have you think, I am not against taking people to court, I am instead against unjust use of UK libel law to silence someone while denying them their day in court.)
Iain Dale and Paul Staines and Derek Draper should also be warned that they now give me no choice but to come at them at 24 frames per second.
Or perhaps 12 frames per second… just to get it out of the way quickly, because the smell of the shit they’ve been flinging is putting me off my blogging.
With you shortly.
13th Apr 2009
Tom Watson MP likes to call himself a “Propah Bloggah”. Strange therefore that his blog hasn’t been updated since Friday. All sorts of allegations are being made against him yet he declines to use the obvious medium open to him to refute them. Wonder why that would be, then.
For the record, here is the comment from me that Iain Dale has been repeatedly deleting under his claim that Tom Watson isn’t much of a blogger and/or a coward:
Compare to the silence of “Propah Bloggah” Iain Dale who refuses to discuss his twice allowing opponents to be smeared as a paedophile.
Instead, he cries ‘stalker’, and implies that he is contacting police when he is in fact complicating a genuine police investigation by being a childish fool and refusing to discuss what he did or did not do when asked to contact Tory MP Patrick Mercer about the smears (he didn’t, and then lied about it)
Now Iain Dale is making out that it is Tom Watson who is the coward, when Watson has issued statements (that Dale chooses to ignore) and talked to the press. Meanwhile, Iain Dale he has been avoiding questions about his own involvement in smears for weeks now.
He is dishonestly making out that he is not discussing it here because I am banned from his website, but the truth is he is not discussing it anywhere, and he banned me so he could continue taking comments here without discussing it.
Why did you not take the requested action to prevent to smears about me, Iain? Why did you stand by and allow me to be smeared as a convicted sex criminal?
When the time comes for Iain to whine “Tim Ireland has left X number of comments on this site”, keep in mind that what he is really saying is; “X times now, Tim Ireland has asked me to account for my allowing him to be smeared as a paedophile, and X times I have refused to face it while making out that someone else is a blogging coward with something to hide from his readers.”
I can’t blog full details, but Iain is at the moment compelling me to pass his details to the police, simply because he will not answer a simple question. Iain not only knows this, he is even refusing to acknowledge receipt of an email that explains this to him. Again, I cannot give details, but it’s not one of those weak “I’m going to report you to police” threats that Iain is so fond of, but a situation where the only correct moral and legal action I can take at this stage is ask them to ask him about X because he’s not talking to me (because he refuses to speak about X).
This is the most childish stunt that Iain has pulled to date… and that’s really saying something.
Is he really waiting for me to do this so the police can ask him what he told Mercer’s staff and why he didn’t contact Mercer directly as requested? Why? So he can help Jenvey by using the opportunity to tell police I’m a stalker? If so, why hasn’t he done this already if he really thinks it’s true?
If anybody has any better theories, I’d love to hear them, because I have no idea what’s going on in that head of his.
(Psst! We talked recently, in a frank and friendly conversation, and he doesn’t think what I’m doing today counts as stalking at all. Further, he has never truly believed that I have ever really stalked him, and the furthest he would go – before a change of subject – was saying that “sometimes it feels that way”. In short, Iain is smearing me, too. While playing the victim. What a bastard.)
UPDATE – I’ve made it clear elsewhere and will say again here that Dale and Staines have been grouping the published emails with an as-yet-unseen email that they claim exists and proves a conspiracy to smear Iain Dale originating from Downing Street. Apart from condemning the content we’ve seen to date, I’m reserving wider comment on the McBride/Draper smears themselves until all of that evidence has been published, and so far it hasn’t.
11th Apr 2009
For the sake of brevity, I must leave to one side the dishonest/one-eyed way in which Iain Dale defended Carol Thatcher, and Iain (again) peddling his self-serving nonsense about political representation in the weblog community, and instead draw your attention to a misleading claim about Paul Staines (aka ‘Guido Fawkes’) that Iain has now seen published by two newspapers in two different opinion pieces on the ‘Smeargate‘ story he’s so desperate to be a part of.
I know how these people work because I have been a victim of their covert operations. McBride ordered his attack puppy bloggers, who include Derek Draper, to smear me as a racist after I tried to explain Carol Thatcher’s use of the word ‘golliwog’ in a BBC green room. He did the same with Guido Fawkes, who found himself tainted as ‘homophobic’. – Iain Dale in the Mail
He has accused me of racism and Guido Fawkes of homophobia. How low can you get? It now transpires that these accusations emanate directly from Downing Street. – Iain Dale in the Telegraph
Yes, and the ‘accusation’ that Paul Staines is homophobic “emanate(d) directly from Downing Street” in the same way that this ‘accusation’ now emanates from Bloggerheads.com:
Sometimes, the sky is blue.
Describing Paul Staines as homophobic is not an accusation, but a statement of fact.
Paul Staines still maintains the position that by implying that a certain MP was a paedophile several times in his failed podcast venture ‘Guido and the Monkey’, he was in fact hinting that the MP was gay.
How is it not homophobic to equate homosexuality with paedophilia?
Is it Paul’s position that he was merely confused at the time… and the next morning, and every day up until now?
Or is it Paul’s position that he was merely drunk at the time… and the next morning, and every day up until now?
To equate homosexuality with paedophilia in the way that Staines did is clearly a form of irrational discrimination against homosexual men.
Paul Staines can therefore be fairly described as ‘homophobic’.
11th Apr 2009
“When is a smear not a smear? Alas, when it is true.” – Paul Staines (aka ‘Guido Fawkes’)
Let me be blunt:
1. I do recall saying that Derek Draper was the wrong man for the job (or what he made his job out to be), and look at what his bullshit has led to.
2. Anyone – anyone – foolish enough to hand this gift to Staines on a platter with a rich creamy sauce of Downing Street goodness deserves to slapped around by this git… at least for a bit.
All of this ‘Smeargate’ stuff could be true and exactly as Paul Staines says it is and/or as he makes it out to be, but that would do nothing to dilute the hypocrisy of Paul Staines accusing a fellow spin-doctor of being a smear merchant.
Let me give you a quick example of his work from my own personal collection:
I have a popular article on my website that discourages people from starting their own porn websites in pursuit of a fast buck. Paul Staines, seeing this, tells his readers that I “exploit porn for traffic” while knowing the opposite of what this implies is true (and while refusing me a right of reply).
That’s a smear worthy of the description, and Staines spews them out constantly, either through deliberate misinterpretation (see: spin), rumours dressed as humour (see; ‘rocking horse‘), or anonymous sock-puppet comments that he may or may not submit to his own website (as he has been caught doing on others).
Here’s another; implying that Mark Oaten is a paedophile (on the basis that he is gay, because Paul ‘not a homophobe’ Staines would have you think that being gay makes you a paedophile).
Any outrage you hear from Paul Staines and his followers is bound to be fabricated, as they’ve quietly tolerated repeated smears on the order-order.com website and elsewhere for years.
(Speaking of paedophilia and people quietly tolerating smears, Iain Dale is right now accusing Tom Watson of doing to Tory MPs essentially the same thing that he himself did to me recently; Iain was in a unique position to take action when someone posed as a Daily Mail reporter and falsely accused me of being a convicted sex criminal. Despite my plea for help, Iain did not take that action, and then lied about it, and now refuses to talk about it. He claims it is because I am ‘banned’ from his website, but he knows damn well that he slapped the ban on because he did not want to discuss this issue and I dared to press the matter. On top of this, I now have someone claiming that Iain Dale is actively involved in Glen Jenvey’s schemes. I have reason to distrust the claim, not because I think it’s beneath Iain, who will happily stand by and let fellow Tories smear their opponents with false claims of paedophilia, but because they also claim that Iain is helping by “sharing information” when I know he’s got nothing on me, and never has. I have tried to get some kind of response out of Iain Dale about any of this, but he is refusing to answer my emails or take my calls.)
I reserve further comment until I have read the email(s) that Paul Staines offered to publish immediately on television a few weeks back, then decided not to publish, before
offering them for sale to newspapers giving them to the NOTW for free because… erm… I’m sure he’ll make that clear later, and explain why he’s not taking legal action against the newspapers making claims like this:
The emails were obtained by the Tory blogger Paul Staines, who runs an internet site called Guido Fawkes, and had been touted to newspapers including The Daily Telegraph, which declined to purchase them. However a number of other newspapers were preparing to publish them on Sunday. – (source)
Oh, and if I haven’t made it clear, I say all of this without wishing to mitigate or excuse any action taken by anyone proven to be involved in what these pompous arseholes have already tagged ‘Smeargate*’.
(*You know, like they’re Woodward and Bernstein… because after years of slinging shit from the monkey cages, they’ve finally found someone stupid enough to sling some turds back. With nametags on them.)
UPDATE – Some related bloggage on a similar theme:
PS – Keep an eye out for anonymous comments claiming that I say any/all of this because I’m a paid/unpaid agent of New Labour, Downing Street, Tom Watson, etc…. because that’s a smear, too. Unlike Paul Staines and Iain Dale, I have never at any stage had any secret/undeclared funding/facility arrangements with any party, political player or pressure group. Not that this stops both of these clowns repeatedly publishing claims to the contrary on their respective websites while disallowing any response from the target of this persistent smear.