Bloggerheads

[MessageSpace: I still can’t comment on MS for fear of getting sued over some technicality, which I find very frustrating. Suffice it to say it will be a cold day in hell before MessageSpace ads appear on any site of mine. Still, I promised to move on from that quickly anyway, so let’s get cracking…]

I come not to bury Paul Staines, but to knock that silly looking crown off his head.

Not everybody sees the relevance of Paul Staines’ bankruptcy, so allow me to show you a few things that look different now we know that Paul Staines didn’t emerge from the City with armloads of cash:

–

1. Wikipedia looks a bit out of date

This passage in Paul Staines’ Wikipedia entry (first started here) needs to be corrected:

He then spent several years in finance, which, along with his stake in the MessageSpace blog advertising network, provides him with the means to dedicate time to his blog…

–

2. This clip is now much funnier

Little wonder that Paul Staines choked on this question from Michael White. In fact, I’m surprised he didn’t spit cornflakes.

[Full clip here. Transcript here.]

Poor Paul. On live television, too:

Michael White: Well, because you’re not worth suing, unlike Private Eye. You haven’t got any money, I take it?

‘Guido Fawkes’: Er, that’s for you to know… me to know, and you to wonder.

Zing!

–

3. A question exists where previously there was no question

Of course, that’s not to say that Paul hasn’t got any money at all… but he was certainly short a few bob for a while there.

Have a look at the timeline…

After hitting the wall at 90 per, Paul ‘re-orients‘ his life, tries to set the world alight with Global Growth (1, 2, 3) but doesn’t get far with it.

What does eventually pay off is the ‘Guido Fawkes’ character that he creates in late 2004. Paul used to “smear Labour MPs and left-leaning lawyers and writers” for a living back in the day, so he’s got the skills; he hops aboard with Blogger.com’s free blogging service at 5thnovember.blogspot.com and hammers away.

But as great Blogger.com is (It’s free, you know), the service does not provide you with food, shelter, and copious quantities of alcohol.

MessageSpace was only an idea in mid-2006, which is about the same time that this pricey flat was sold.

Before then, for a good year at least, Paul appears to have operated with no visible means of support/income.

If everyone’s somehow under the impression that he came to the table with a few quid, the following question doesn’t even occur to most people:

“Where did the money come from?”

–

4. Paul looks a lot less scary to his victims

I grew considerably less impressed with Staines’ muscle when he finally brought a lawyer to the table and it turned out to be a bunch of empty threats from a right-wing mate.

I’m even less impressed now.

It would be wrong to simply assume that Paul Staines has the reserves to tackle a serious legal challenge.

Yes, the reserves remain an unknown quantity (some of it in the hands of other people also named ‘Staines’) but Paul didn’t go after me with a big-name lawyer and ‘the choke’ is worth remembering here, too:

Michael White: Well, because you’re not worth suing, unlike Private Eye. You haven’t got any money, I take it?

‘Guido Fawkes’: Er, that’s for you to know… me to know, and you to wonder.

Way to go, Man of Mystery.

–

5. Having detective skills does not make you Batman

Wealthy layabout by day, champion for justice by night… that’s Bruce Wayne.

A carpet-bagger in pursuit of a buck… that’s Paul Staines.

See the difference?

Sure, he’s got his agendas, but money is the main priority if not the motivation.

And Paul’s background (see extract from Page 117 of Altered State) suggests that he’ll most likely give up on his ‘crusade’ when there’s no money in it.

Something to think about. I’m certainly not spending any time or effort lining his pockets, and I seriously doubt that the people he redirects to his CafePress store stick around to buy his t-shirts.

–

6. Guido’s a bit of a joke, it turns out

[I’m cheating a wee bit here. This aspect of Paul’s bullshit appears different after a series of responses to a number of different matters including the recent ‘reveal’ of the bankruptcy.]

What Paul Staines wants – and already enjoys to a modest extent – is power without accountability.

The best way to curb his power is to treat him as he treats others.

No, with not the abuse, the threats, the secret whispers and the outright bullshit of a small gang of right-wing bloggers and sock-puppets… but the stone wall of silence one normally enjoys from Staines himself when there are questions to be answered.

If ‘Guido Fawkes’ calls, there’s no need to think “Oh shit, it’s Guido!”, because – for starters – it’s not Guido! It’s some guy called Paul Staines, he’s a bit of a chancer, and you shouldn’t feel that you owe him any answers.

Give him nothing*. Not one word.

Well, maybe two. ‘Goodbye’ and ‘Paul’ should do nicely.

After all, he’s not nearly as important or as invulnerable as he makes himself out to be.

(*You shouldn’t feed him dirt on others, either… not least because you might end up getting outed/screwed yourself.)

–

Free our Bills! – The Nice Polite Campaign to Gently Encourage Parliament to Publish Bills in a 21st Century Way, Please. Now.

[joins]

EDM 1245 – TOTAL POLITICS MAGAZINE: That this House notes the impending launch of a purportedly politically neutral magazine called Total Politics; notes that it is fronted by Iain Dale, a failed Conservative parliamentary candidate; further notes that it is being run from Lord Ashcroft’s address in Cowley Street and that it is fronted by Lord Ashcroft; and calls upon hon. and right hon. Members to reject the free copies which will be sent to them in the near future.

But Iain had plans for an opt-out list all along, yes?

(Iain? Care to make a statement? There is going to be an opt-out facility, isn’t there?)

–

UPDATE (14 April) – As usual, Iain needs to be compelled to do the right thing; Total Politics: The Opt Out List

OK, folks… it’s time to play Follow The Money.

Feel free to join in at any stage, but please be aware that that this is an E ticket ride, and you must be <------ this ------> willing to put up with bullshit, spin, sock-puppeting and/or outright abuse before climbing aboard:

–

To: Paul Staines (aka ‘Guido Fawkes’)

From: Tim Ireland

Subject: Show me the monkey!

Paul,

Would you care to make a public statement on the subject of bankruptcy*?

(*Fiscal, not moral; we’ve already covered the latter.)

Cheers

Tim

PS – Please do keep in mind that your answer may raise some follow-up questions (i.e. the kind of thing that Iain Dale often describes as “changing the question”).

–

Bloggers who are asking a similar question:
Justin McKeating
Clive Summerfield

–

UPDATE (4pm) – David Boothroyd asks over at Justin’s; “At a guess, are we talking about page 12536 of the London Gazette of 9 October 2003 here?”

Why, yes… yes, we are:

The London Gazette – Thursday, 9 October 2003

Date: 9 October 2003
Issue Number: 57079
Page number: 12536
Publication Date: Thursday, 9 October 2003
Notice Code: 2503

STAINES,Paul Delaire, Paul Delaire of 154 Parliament View, 1 Albert, Embankment, London, SE1 7XQ unemployed. Court–HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Date of Filing Petition–2nd October 2003. No. of Matter–8239 of 2003. Date of Bankruptcy Order–2nd October 2003. Whether Debtor’s or Creditor’s Petition–Debtor’s. Official Receiver–21 Bloomsbury Street, London, WC1B 3SS.

(2001)

UPDATE – Just in case there’s any doubt; this is not a current address for Paul Staines. It’s authentic… just not current.

1. After publishing a post entitled “What you probably won’t read in the press”, Conservative councillor John Ward (blog) ends up with extended and unwanted press coverage (Daily Mail, Telegraph, Mirror, Kent Online)… you are permitted to be amused by that. The state allows it.

2. Yes, screaming ‘Nazi’ is surplus to requirements. But then so is bitching about that and immediately slapping Labour with a ‘eugenics’ tag. Oh, and screaming ‘Stalin’.

3. The example Lynne gives here is also surplus to requirements. In fact, it could even – with care – be classified as a misrepresentation; John Ward advocated compulsory sterilisation… but did not actually go into any detail regarding a proposed vetting procedure (he may well agree that such a worthy couple could be permitted to breed by the state).

4. Personal abuse, no matter how mild or appropriate it may seem, is also surplus to requirements.

5. No, what this debate really needs, now that John Ward has published his defence, is a copy of his original article. That would help John to better make his case that what he published was an incomplete passage (i.e something that, with care and added thought, could be improved upon) that is being actively misrepresented by people out to get him. But John Ward has decided that the “responsible” thing to do is delete that entry. For the good of the blogosphere in general, apparently.

6. What’s that? It’s still in Google’s cache, you say?

What You Probably Won’t Read in the Press
Published by John M Ward at 14:04 Saturday, 15 March 2008

One side of the Shannon Matthews story you are unlikely to read in the mainstream Press is what the police themselves know about this sorry tale. “Inspector Gadget” has it HERE. Note the “seven children” part in particular, and the implicit reasons for that…

This is just another example of “Breakdown Britain”. I think there is a case for compulsory sterilisation of all those who have had a second (or third, or whatever) child while living off State hand-outs. It would take a lot of pressures off all concerned, protect the youngsters themselves to some degree, and remove the incentive to “breed for greed” — i.e. for more public subsidy of their lifestyle (a now well-known dodge, worthever huge amounts to countless thousands of professional spongers).

With over-population being the root cause of so much that negatively impacts Planet Earth, and thus needs to concern human society, the very last thing the world needs is to encourage excessive breeding.

7. Tch. As I was writing this, John Ward deleted the more recent post outlining his defence. This is getting to be a bad habit.

8. If you publish it, be prepared to defend it or withdraw it.

9. Deleting is not the same as withdrawing, especially if you then go on to defend the substance of your deleted input (it’s part of an “uncomfortable truth”, we are told).

10. Asking someone to clarify, defend or withdraw their published opinion on an issue is not “avoiding the issue”, so… any time you’re ready John.

(waits)

UPDATE – While we’re waiting for John, take a peek at part of John Ward’s defence that has recently been removed from the Mail article. The missing text is in bold:

UPDATE – Cameron Newland – John Ward Is My Hero: Somehow, the political opposition (Labour) is trying to seize on Mr. Ward’s comments, and have gone as far as comparing his suggestions to those of Hitler. If he were legitimately trying to sterilize women on his own as some sort of vigilante, then Labour would be right to make the Hitler comparison.

Hitler was a vigilante?

UPDATE – A fresh post from John at a blog now titled ‘Former Councillor John Ward in Medway’:

Weight off my Mind
Published by John M Ward at 14:36 Tuesday, 25 March 2008

I have today, after a lot of thought, resigned from the council.

I wasn’t going to do so originally, but in today’s Soviet-style Britain, with all the pressures coming down upon us from on high and with yet more to come (as I recently reported HERE), all the indicators are that recent events have, funnily enough, afforded me an opportunity to ‘get out from under’ before even more bureaucracy hits local Councillors.

Therefore this ‘blog (which was initially just an experiment anyway) will close very soon.

As for me: I look forward to the next adventure in my life, wherever that should turn out to be — just as I did when I moved here eleven years ago, not knowing what lay ahead of me then.

You may have missed Nadine Dorries’ bullshit sailing into print without question in the Liverpool Echo:

MPs face tough vote on lowering abortion limit

Mar 22 2008 by Ian Hernon, Liverpool Echo

FEW political issues raise such passion as abortion, and I am glad I am not forced to take sides.

That is a luxury that MPs from Merseyside and beyond will not have in coming weeks when parliament will vote on a controversial bid to lower the legal limit from 24 to 20 weeks.

But it is hard to ignore the fact that medical and scientific advances mean that premature babies now have a higher chance of survival outside the womb.

Leading the 20-week campaign is Nadine Dorries, a right-wing, working-class Conservative who was born in Liverpool and educated at the former Halewood Grange comprehensive school before becoming a nurse.

In her latest blog the Bedfordshire MP posted a picture of a surgeon operating on a spina bifida baby whilst still in the mother’s womb as he would not have survived otherwise.

“When the operation was over, baby Samuel, at 21 weeks gestation, put his hand through the incision in the uterus and grabbed hold of the surgeon’s finger, a gesture which was met with a huge amount of emotion in the operating theatre,” she wrote.

“The doctor said it was the most emotional moment of his life and that for a moment he was frozen, totally immobile.

“In the UK we are aborting babies just like this and older every day.”

I fully accept that there are also compelling arguments not to reduce the limit, not least to prevent a return to the cruel days of back-street abortionists.

But it is hard not to share the emotion felt by that surgeon and his team.

Is this the same Ian Hernon who; “has been a journalist since 1969 and a lobby correspondent since 1978 (with first-hand, inside information of what really goes on at Westminster)”?