Bloggerheads

Via Student Midwife, I learn of a live-blog over at the Guardian.

Any other games in town?

[There may be a little action here, but no guarantees.]

19:25 – Edward Leigh (Con) just read out Nadine’s ‘voice of the majority’ statistics (from a poll conducted commissioned* by the Christian Institute). So it’s on him if the poll turns out to have been conducted on the back of a hymn sheet in a church car park.

[*POST-MATCH MINI-UPDATE – Find out more about that poll here and here.]

19:50 – Mark Pritchard (Con) is the second MP to complain that we don’t show late-term abortions on television and ‘let the public decide’. Claims 2/3 of all people and 3/4 of women in his constituency support 20 weeks. It’s Nadine’s very favrit stats again! How many MPs are running off the same information pack?

19:55 – Pritchard Brings out a picture of 16 week old fetus even though he knows he’s not supposed to pull the stunt! FFS!

19:58 – Pritchard has lost it now. He’s wasting everybody’s time, and waffling on about the great sporting heroes we may be aborting.

20:10 – It’s been far too sensible and boring since Pritchard shut his mouth, so let me use this opportunity to ask where in the hell Pritchard gets off taking the CI’s (alleged) poll results and claiming them to be the view of his constituency?!

20:17 – Mike Penning (Con) has wished for a longer debate. Presumably because more Conservative MPs want to sing from the same information pack.

20:20 – Desmond Swayne (Con) interjects quite energetically and wants more emotive language and fewer “euphemisms”.

20:22 – Mike Penning (Con) brings common sense and dignity to the debate by revealing a personal anecdote – transmitted via Facebook no less – of a young woman having (*gasp*) multiple abortions.

20:30 – Mike Penning (Con), Shadow Front Bench Minister for Health; “Please vote for 20 weeks, that’s what I will be doing.”

20:32 – Dawn Primarolo (Lab) Minister of State for Public Health; (paraphrased lots) Medically, nothing has changed since 24 was agreed on. Can we please look at the evidence?

20:34 – Ann Widdecombe uses the word EV-I-DENCE because (we assume) she has some that’s relevant

20:37 – More interjections. Dawn Primarolo (Lab) forced to make her point again for those who aren’t listening. Nothing has changed since 24 was agreed on. She attempts to debunk some nonsense on the loose…

20:45 – Ann Widdecombe objects to this on the basis that it insults the source of the nonsense, who is not present to defend himself/herself. Time for a sensible cup of tea…

[pause]

21:14 – Now Judy Mallaber (Lab) is telling a personal anecdite. Don’t care whose side she’s on, I’m going back to the kitchen.

[pause]

21:20 – Gah! Almost missed Nadine. She’s pro-choice, she says. Nadine tells the bedpan story again.

21:32 – Go, Nadine, go! She choked and almost lost the floor, but got back on her feet after the second long call for calm from the Speaker. Now the bullshit is flowing thick and fast. I look forward to fisking most of this tomorrow. For now, please note that Nadine Dorries looks and sounds just like Ollie Plimsoles when talking about ‘ishooz’.

21:33 – Speaker has to call for calm again!

21:40 – Oh, FFS… here come the ‘abortion industry’ rubbish. More calls for televised late-term abortions. And she pushes the claim of overwhelming public support. In a further enhancement of the CI poll, she claims that the majority of women back a reduction from 24 weeks and – in her words – do so in an informed fashion because they are ‘specifying’ 20 weeks. Colour me incredulous.

(That poll is getting one hell of a workout today isn’t it?)

21:46 – Off for fresh tea, though I wish for something stronger after Dorries. (Even mouthwash would do. At least it would get this bad taste out of my mouth.)

21:56 – Just found out that rhetorically speaking is also live-blogging here. Lots of detail that I’ve missed or not typed. Go see.

22:02 – Richard Ottaway Missed his name, proposed that point of viability has come down from 24 weeks to 23 or 22 to cries of “What?” “No it hasn’t.” … anyone catch his name?

22:06 – Ann Widdecombe claiming that we are murdering children in the womb, let’s show the public, moral rah rah rah, fighting for the weak, blah blah blah.

22:10 – Division.

22:41 – Sorry for the delay. I needed to kick computer in guts *and* have the server kicked in guts. Neither could stomach Nadine. Expect to see this phrase a lot tomorrow… Dawn Primarolo on Nadine Dorries; “She has asserted many things as fact which are not this evening.”

10:50 – 12, 16, 18, 20 (sorry, Nadine)… now it’s crunch time.

23:05 – See Liberal Conspiracy for more live-blogging and a run-down of the proposed amendments.

23:12 – Nadine Dories starts by claiming to have the backing of 200 MPs, and after two weeks of solid campaigning has the support of…. 190 MPs.

/justsaying

23:16 – Ayes 233, noes 305 – ’22 weeks’ goes down! Cameron** only brought 43 MPs with him!

And me without so much as a beer in the house…

[**NOTE – Cameron has said long before all of this that he supported a 20-week limit, but yesterday he conspiciously let it be known that he would most certainly back a limit of 22 weeks. No matter which way Cameron voted himself, 22 weeks looked to be the rallying cry for the troops (“Come on fellas, over the top middle!”)… but not enough Tories followed him.]

By now most of you are aware that, yesterday, Paul Staines (aka ‘Guido Fawkes’) was, after his second drink driving offence, hit with an 18-month supervision* order, a 3 month 9pm-6am curfew (enforced via electronic tag) and a 3 year driving ban… and that I was there to watch the proceedings.

I have a busy day today, so pardon me for serving this lot up late in the day and in bite-sized chunks. I have little time for elegance…

(*Yes, a supervision order. The kind of thing they normally reserve for juveniles who lack self-control and access to a responsible adult. I don’t think the judge placed a lot of faith in this 41 year old man’s ability to control himself.)

–

1. Why was I there? Reasons in full:

– I wanted to meet up with some other bloggers and have a bit of a jolly. (Sadly, this bit didn’t work out.)

– I wanted to see if the multi-talented Donal Blaney turned up as Staines’ lawyer. (He didn’t. Paul appeared alone and without representation.)

– I wanted to see if anybody noteworthy turned up in Paul’s list of character witnesses. (The judge made no mention of it, so I will assume that nobody noteworthy spoke up for Paul.)

– I wanted to ensure that reporting of this event wasn’t left to ‘old media’. (The Mirror has Paul driving without a licence here when what he was driving without at the time was insurance…. and brains. Pandora do better here, but they let the “4 bottles a week” figure slide.)

– And, finally, out of sheer curiosity – with a side order of carefully restrained glee – I wanted to see Paul Staines in a state of contrition. Simulated or not, I just wanted to see it. Just the once. (And it was lovely, thanks for asking. I wish some of his many victims could’ve been there to see it.)

–

2. Paul Staines doesn’t have a gracious bone in his body. All I had to do was pass a copy of this article to the prosecutor and his day would have ended quite differently:

Pandora – Blogger ‘Guido Fawkes’ is led off to the Tower: “I had been speaking at the Adam Smith Institute,” Guido explains. “They have made a lot of money so the booze is usually pretty good. I moved on with a few people to the Westminster Arms, where I bought drinks, and then to the Kennington Tandoori to show everyone the picture of Prezza on the wall. Then I was giving a few people a lift to Victoria station when the fuckers pulled me over.”

But does he thank me? Does he bunnies…

–

3. Not only is Paul Staines playing the ‘stalker’ card and publishing mostly anonymous comments pushing his one-card hand, but one of them comes with a ‘paedo’ tag:

Nobody should have to put up with paedo-smearing. It’s evil and dangerous and totally uncalled for as a political tactic. Regular readers might recall Nadine Dorries doing it to Alex Hilton and Paul Staines doing it to Mark Oaten (and showing not one ounce of care or regret, as usual). Long-time readers may remember that the main shitstorm over blogging standards started after Iain Dale and Paul Staines stood by and let Milton’s sock-puppeting activists get on with doing it to someone else BIG TIME in Guildford and I subsequently took an interest in the mostly anonymous thugs hanging around their websites and how these two actually manipulated that activity to gain advantage over any readers/bloggers who might disagree with them…. i.e. pretty much exactly the same thing Staines is doing here.

All the guy had the guts to say to my face on the day was “this must be a nice day out for you” and he had all morning to think it up.

And now he unleashes his ‘wit’ and the wrath of his sock-puppeting tosspots? Spare me.

(PS – Bloggage on the subject here would have been considerably lighter had Dale or Staines given me an honest answer to a fair question on their site(s) once in a while instead of throwing sock-puppets and abuse at me. They can both rack off with their ‘stalker’ crap. That goes for their current head-boy and hanger-on Dizzy, too.)

–

4. How many bottles of wine? “Four a week” said the judge after consulting a piece of paper. Surely this figure comes from Paul Staines’ own rather conservative estimate? Perhaps he would care to confirm or deny that when he’s finished yelling “Stalker!”

[Paul? Your sock-puppeting followers are making something of this and I want to know where the figure came from. How about an honest answer to a fair question? Go on… just this once.]

–

5. The judge had his eye on that VW Golf and had the power to seize it. In fact, he’d just seized a vehicle in a previous and very similar case.

Paul was asked about the car and IMO only it being registered in his wife’s name saved it from seizure.

That might ring a few bells with regulars.

–

6. So what’s going on here, then?

Judge Stone: “What do you do for a living?”

Paul Staines: “Advertising.”

Advertising? Beg pardon? With who?

During Spinal Stats we received the following assurance from the advertising firm MessageSpace:

“Paul Staines is neither a shareholder, director or employee of MessageSpace and never has been.”

And Paul can’t be talking about making a living from the Commission Junction banners and what not on his own website. Even if he’s pulling in 100,000+ unique visitors a month (and he’s not) and there’s no overlap month to month (there is), the best he can hope for is baked beans with his four bottles of wine a week.

Advertising?

I think there’s something that Paul’s not telling us. That, or he’s telling wee porkies in court.

–

7. According to police, Paul Staines was driving “at speed in the Kennington area”, which caused a camera to flash. Police who witnessed this then ordered him to stop and it was noted that he “seemed to be have difficulty staying in a straight line.”

Admittedly, the swerving part could have been the result of Paul’s arms turning to jelly upon seeing the dreaded ECILOPs in his rear vision mirror, but police also reported that “(Paul Staines’) eyes were bloodshot, he strongly smelt of alcohol and his pupils appeared to be dilated” and gave him a (delayed) breath test, which he failed.

At the time Staines claimed to have been “drinking Cobra beer at an Indian.”

Presumably he thought it best not to mention the drinks consumed earlier at the Adam Smith Institute and the Westminster Arms.

–

8. This was Paul’s second drink driving offence, and fourth drink-related offence.

If drinking causes problems, then you have a drinking problem. If drinking causes serious problems, then you have a serious drinking problem.

A crucial part of the exchange involved Judge Stone’s concern over Paul Staines’ decision not to seek help for his obvious drinking problem. (Paul had instead decided to follow self-imposed “guidelines”.)

He’s rediscovered his bravado since, but the nearest Paul Staines came to saying ‘boo’ in the courtroom was during this exchange:

Judge Stone: “You can’t resist it, can you?”

Paul Staines: [my notes read; “inaudible sound that may have been a protest”]

Judge Stone: “What happened this time?”

Paul Staines: “I was out for a drink.”

That’s where the curfew came from. Right there.

–

9. Judge Stone also said that Paul Staines’ actions were wholly irresponsible and that Staines lacked the insight to realise when he was a danger to other people, but I already knew that.

In fact, it’s been a primary point of mine from the beginning.

It’s why Paul and his gang of pretend-blogging thugs engaged in a conspiracy of silence about this (and a number of other items).

They demand accountability from others, often in an extremely selective, unfair or dishonest fashion, when they have no intention of being held to account themselves.

Accountability to an audience is the price bloggers are supposed to pay for their power, but people like Staines, Dale and Dorries have no interest in it and will even play the victim if you call them on it… basically crying wolf with their stalker nonsense at the expense of genuine victims of stalking.

It’s selfish, dangerous and destructive behaviour and I really wish they’d stop it.

–

10. Back to “4 bottles a week” for this last one;

It doesn’t really matter how much you drink. If you can’t stop, then you are by definition an alcoholic. Staines would have received a lighter sentence had he sought treatment for the drinking that was clearly causing him problems, but he didn’t. So he’s either stupid, a glutton for punishment, or an alcoholic.

So, while I hope his electronic tag itches during the day and bothers him when he sleeps, like Clive, I’d like to show Paul that it’s not all ill will over on this side of the fence.

And, speaking for myself, I also want to make sure that I can actually stop anytime I want to.

So for the next 30 days I will be 100% dry… and safely home by 9pm each and every night.

You’re welcome to join me, or sit back and watch me twitch.

–

NEXT: UK Libel Law, the Demon Almost-Precedent and the Bastard Duke of Brunswick

UPDATE: If you’re at all concerned about your own intake, you might want to grit your teeth and take this test.

A tease? Yes.

Expect more tomorrow.

(Oh, you *love* it….)

–

UPDATE – Hell, yes:

The UK Today – Sympathy for the Devil: From what I know of Paul and others with similar issues, the next three months will be difficult. So, in a gesture of non-partisan solidarity and support, I’m going to forswear alcohol for the next month, and be safely tucked up at home by 9pm every night. Furthermore, any other bloggers who wish to show Paul that it can be done, that he can master alcohol instead of being ruled by it, you’re all welcome to join me.

Make that us.

No beer, booze or wine, at home by nine.

30 days.

(What can I say? I’m feeling frisky after the fags.)

Bolder than expected, but sadly inevitable…

Nadine Dorries’ most recent ‘blog’ entry, reproduced here in all its textual glory for two reasons:

a) Her permalinks don’t work

b) I suspect she may one day delete this (as she has other entries on her site that she has later regretted)

Nadine Dorries: Hounds of Hell
Posted Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 11:07

The Hounds of Hell are chasing me.

We received another unpleasant parcel in the post today. Nasty web sites set up, email account and post bag bombarded, people crawling all over my expenses, which they are entitled and I am very very happy for them to do…

Scary, threatening angry and downright nasty phone calls. A message smeared on my window.

This is all meant to destabilise or distract me.

I have a very clear message to those who are attempting to do this – back off. You will not stop me, you will not undermine me, you do not scare me. In fact, you make me much more determined than I ever was before. You give me strength.

I received a lovely email today from the photographer who took the picture of Samuels’s hand reaching through his mother’s womb during the operation when he was 21 weeks gestation.

The picture below is of Samuel giving evidence to the US congress five years later.

The email reads:

“Dear Ms Dorries,

I can’t tell you how honoured I was to hear that you had posted the picture of Samuel reaching from his mother’s womb on your blog in an attempt to lower the age abortions can be performed……

I have been on pins and needles trying to keep up with the vote there in the UK….I would love to know if the attempt is successful…”

Michael Clancy

I will Michael if I survive long enough!!!

Beginners to Nadine’s particular style of blogging will want to study the subtle techniques that Ms Dorries uses here to tie her critics to alleged threats of violence or harm and thereby undermine their credibility.

Also note the cool efficiency of the entry; she is cleverly playing the victim while smearing others (genius multi-tasking there), and she manages this without linking to a single item or producing one shred of relevant evidence as she (again) recycles the Hand of Hope myth.

No wonder Iain Dale rates her so highly.

–

UPDATE – Loving this reponse from Unity…

Ministry of Truth – A Hell-Hound responds…: Take a look around and ask yourself just where your ‘friends’ are? Where are the massed ranks of the supposedly ‘dominant’ Tory blogosphere and why aren’t they leaping to your defence?