This entry was posted on
Tuesday, February 17th, 2009 at
6:54 pm and is filed
under The Political Weblog Movement.
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.)
By mikkimoose February 17, 2009 - 7:53 pm
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.
By Manic February 17, 2009 - 8:28 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.
By David Boothroyd February 17, 2009 - 10:29 pm
Downfall mashups are so 2008. Oh, and discharges from bankruptcy are supposed to be notified in the London Gazette.
By Manic February 17, 2009 - 11:04 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.
By mikkimoose February 18, 2009 - 1:11 am
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."http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/freedomofinformation…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.
By Manic February 18, 2009 - 9:09 am
So we can safely assume that Paul chose not to advertise his discharge. For some reason.
By gimpy February 18, 2009 - 9:13 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.
By Manic February 18, 2009 - 9:15 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.
By Manic February 18, 2009 - 10:49 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?
By gimpy February 18, 2009 - 1:52 pm
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.
By Manic February 18, 2009 - 2:09 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.
By mikkimoose February 18, 2009 - 2:19 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.
By Manic February 18, 2009 - 2:24 pm
Good on you, mm.
By mikkimoose February 18, 2009 - 2:55 pm
Hmm. No sign of a Staines:Bankruptcy CourtFriday 23 December 2005THE DAILY LISTIN BANKRUPTCY ROOM TM 1.10FIRST FLOORTHOMAS MORE BUILDING BeforeMR REGISTRAR RAWSONFriday,23rd December,2005At half past 10Adjourned Petition09694/2005 Reed PJ07499/2005 Miller SJ09848/2005 Woodforde J10081/2005 Bradshaw MDA10088/2005 Batugedara J10144/2005 Mycock SJ08321/2005 Chamberlain DC03753/2005 Hunt LR08141/2005 Cooper AD09600/2005 Hancock CK08930/2005 Hughes MR09864/2005 Cole R09863/2005 Ali RNB10068/2005 Doshi SAt 11 o'clockPetition04970/2005 Chichester J09202/2005 Laverty D09012/2005 Fuller EG09015/2005 Dad D10147/2005 Hulse WJ10142/2005 Dowling SN09191/2005 Ojie PDAdjourned Petition09181/2005 Newell PA08697/2005 Wizard BA07780/2004 Felici A07952/2005 Llanrakis V08146/2005 Sunthares S04493/2005 Bradley GP09183/2005 Mahmood A09203/2005 Long D00754/2005 Aiwone LB09206/2005 Long SLAt 12 o'clockAdjourned Application to Annul Bankruptcy Order05566/2005 Okoroego MApplication to Annul Bankruptcy Order02101/2005 Ofosu DBAt 12:15Application for Possession04089/2001 Ashraf MAt half past 12Adjourned Application to Annul Bankruptcy Order04024/2005 Teare AWApplication to Annul Bankruptcy Order06436/2005 Imoh DOWNON ATTENDANCE Pre Trial Review10072/2005 Farrell M00426/SD/2005 In re a debtor10817/2004 Olaifa OTHE DAILY LISTIN BANKRUPTCY ROOM TM 1.10FIRST FLOORTHOMAS MORE BUILDING BeforeMR DEPUTY REGISTRAR SCHAFFERFriday,23rd December,2005At half past 10Petition10209/2005 Brunt RAdjourned Petition03665/2005 Ayensu MH04717/2005 Waring RJ04340/2005 Goff M06406/2005 Mohammed AK08412/2005 Wroot DM07829/2005 Cruse JC07832/2005 Evans R07574/2005 Elwin PS10439/2005 Evans S10440/2005 Salt R07463/2005 O'Connor PM07026/2005 Hammond MW10752/2005 Hubble KP02860/2005 Panchal D02948/2005 Olivier J11064/2005 Perry SL10756/2005 Hockey AJAt 11 o'clockPetition09157/2005 Dyas LD09099/2005 Morgan GW06866/2005 Coulthard M09722/2005 Addison J10210/2005 Aksahin S09779/2005 Barker JAdjourned Petition09173/2005 Hodgkiss R09179/2005 Housden NJ06859/2005 Millward BC09227/2005 Budd R09231/2005 Rahazaq M08109/2005 Fowler JJM02530/2005 Race IJ07293/2005 Yodaiken S05196/2005 Walker KDAt 12 o'clockApplication to Annul Bankruptcy Order07709/2005 Martin APAt 12:15Application for Possession07604/1999 Williams MAt half past 12Adjourned Application to Annul Bankruptcy Order06307/2003 Royston DMA03164/2005 Akinyemi ANON ATTENDANCE Pre Trial Review06782/2005 Beanland MSJAdjourned Application to consider Nominee's Report00130/IO/2005 In re a debtorAdjourned Application to consider Nominee's Report00128/IO/2005 In re a debtor00129/IO/2005 In re a debtorDid I request the wrong list?
By Manic February 18, 2009 - 3:14 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!)
By Manic February 18, 2009 - 4:02 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.)
By Manic February 18, 2009 - 4:52 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.