This entry was posted on
Tuesday, March 25th, 2008 at
12:00 pm and is filed
under The Political Weblog Movement.
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: 2503STAINES,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.
Logging you in...
Loading IntenseDebate Comments...
By Jherad March 25, 2008 - 5:26 pm
Heheh, I followed that from one of your previous posts where you’d linked to the Gazette as a ‘hint’, but didn’t want to say anything at the time. Nice find. Fun fun fun :)
By Manic March 25, 2008 - 5:59 pm
You weren't alone.:o)
By Dave Cole March 25, 2008 - 6:28 pm
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"
By Manic March 25, 2008 - 7:22 pm
"Something something something cactus, Paul Staines clearly needs more pratice."
By mikkimoose March 25, 2008 - 8:29 pm
well he does seem to have purchased the worst property investment in London, paying £620,000 in 2001 for his third-floor river-view flat, and selling for £680,000 in 2006. Must have been quite a mortgage on that, hard to see how an unemployed person could pay it, especially after going bankrupt in 2003
By Manic March 25, 2008 - 8:39 pm
Got a link for those figures, mikkimoose?
By David Boothroyd March 25, 2008 - 9:19 pm
This link should do: <a href="http://www.houseprices.co.uk/e.php?q=D154+SE1+7XQ&n=10" rel="nofollow"> <a href="http://;http://www.houseprices.co.uk/e.php?q=D154+SE1+7XQ&n=10” target=”_blank”>;http://www.houseprices.co.uk/e.php?q=D154+SE1+7XQ&n=10
By Manic March 25, 2008 - 9:57 pm
That link does us nicely. Ta.Screen capture for the archives:https://www.bloggerheads.com/images/sale1.gif
By Rwendland March 25, 2008 - 10:27 pm
Interesting wide variation of prices in that apartment block, from £250k to £2.9 million (since 2003 – with a strange £100k outlyer/mistake)!Flat D156 also saw little price increase over 5 years – £510k to £525k.<a href="http://www.houseprices.co.uk/e.php?q=SE1+7XQ&n=20" rel="nofollow"> <a href="http://;http://www.houseprices.co.uk/e.php?q=SE1+7XQ&n=20” target=”_blank”>;http://www.houseprices.co.uk/e.php?q=SE1+7XQ&n=20
By Manic March 25, 2008 - 11:03 pm
I'm sure that Paul had many interesting neighbours at the time.I have other questions on my mind.
By mikkimoose March 25, 2008 - 11:21 pm
The two £2m+ flats are both duplex penthouses.Hence the price.Paul's budget did not stretch to those heights.It is unclear why his bankruptcy did not take his house.You would be expected to sell in order to pay off your creditors.It appears no charge was even taken on it, since he sold it before 3 years from the date of bankruptcy.Certainly being a bankrupt would mean you would be unable to gain employment in any normal financial-type job in the UK.
By Manic March 25, 2008 - 11:58 pm
I'd like to get a statement from MessageSpace on that last part, but I thought I'd wait until I got an answer from Paul Staines first.(Yes, I'm still waiting.)After all, the two are quite distant and distinct.
By mikkimoose March 26, 2008 - 1:46 am
I'm not sure that Messagespace need to say anything. According to Staines' Wikipedia page, Messagespace has not got him as a Director, and he's not even a Director of his offshore Irish company (which he probably legally could be, because I guess UK bankruptcy has little effect).Apart from being banned from becoming Company Director, and an effective barring from the UK finance industry (plus quite a few other jobs that credit check new staff), a discharged bankrupt is supposed to be pretty much unencumbered and free to get on with life.Unless there is something specific that you know regarding the circumstances of his bankruptcy there doesn't appear to be anything *wrong*, aside from the obvious fact that it's a little odd that he got to be in that situation given that he would have had to been making (very) good money to earn or borrow £600+k.
By Paul Linford March 26, 2008 - 9:02 am
Sorry to take issue Tim, but I thought you didn't agree with the practice of bringing up people's pasts for no good reason other than that you don't like their views.
By Paul Linford March 26, 2008 - 9:04 am
There was supposed to be a link with that.http://www.theuktoday.co.uk/iain_dale/2007/04/iai…
By Manic March 26, 2008 - 9:25 am
I'll happily address that, Paul:"for no good reason other than that you don't like their views"That's not the case here. I have very good reasons.And a lot of questions.And I've been sitting here for almost a whole day now waiting for Paul to give his side of the story.
By Dave Cole March 26, 2008 - 9:57 am
In fairness, Tim, you might want to say what those reasons are…
By Paul Linford March 26, 2008 - 9:58 am
Okay, but does the fact that he published a partisan blog post several months ago about the number of failing businesses under Gordon without mentioning that he himself went bankrupt in 2003 really justify all this? And why is he under any obligation to you to make a "public statement" about bankruptcy as you have requested?
By Manic March 26, 2008 - 10:20 am
Paul: I'm pretty sure that Justin's phrasing of the question had a smidgen of jest to it.And Staines is not presently under any obligation… he's just been invited to put his case if he wants.Dave: Yes, but I'd appreciate Paul's input before going into too much detail.For now, just allow me to point out that there is a big black hole where everybody thinks Paul Staines keeps a big pile of money.
By mikkimoose March 26, 2008 - 10:37 am
Experience would suggest that Staines is unlikely to respond even if there is something he should respond to.At the moment, as others have noted, his status as a discharged bankrupt would not appear to be particularly relevant. At present it looks like muck-raking for its own sake, as the given link is a little tenuous.Perhaps it would be better to get to the point, if there is one?
By Manic March 26, 2008 - 10:51 am
Soon enough.
By Paul Linford March 26, 2008 - 11:21 am
Sorry, but who thinks Paul Staines keeps a big pile of money? And where do they think he keeps it? Do enlighten us..
By Manic March 26, 2008 - 12:07 pm
I'm anticipating a "You can't believe anything you read on Wikipedia" ploy at some stage, but it's pretty clear that this passage from the introduction has stood uncorrected for a great deal of time, and actually built upon:Added over a year ago:"He then spent several years in finance, which was to provide him with the means to dedicate time to his blog…"URL of that edit:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_St…Current:"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…"It's an illusion. Several things look very different now that it's gone… but I'll be proceeding with caution if Staines isn't going to simply front up for a chat about it.
By Paul Linford March 26, 2008 - 12:18 pm
But you wouldn't need a "big pile of money" to dedicate all your time to blogging, just (say) a partner who had a good enough job to cover the mortgage. I'm not saying that this is necessarily how Staines operates, just that we don't know (and as far as I'm concerned don't need to know.)
By mikkimoose March 26, 2008 - 12:29 pm
We can't really judge whether that is true or not. Obviously Staines *was* fairly wealthy, because he bought a £620,000 house, and was able to keep it for almost 3 years following his bankruptcy, which would suggest that his mortgage was either very small, or there wasn't one.The sale of the house for £680k, absent a large mortage to pay off, would, on its own, provide someone with more than adequate funds to spend time tinkering about on websites, boozing it up in France, etc.The exact circumstances of the bankruptcy would have been considered by the official receiver alone.
By Manic March 26, 2008 - 12:30 pm
Paul & mikkimoose: I'd much rather hear from Staines before discussing anything like that.
By Paul Linford March 26, 2008 - 1:05 pm
Don't you just think that if someone has had those kind of problems in their life and managed to turn it around, it's time to let bygones be bygones?
By Manic March 26, 2008 - 1:14 pm
This isn't about the past, Paul.
By mikkimoose March 26, 2008 - 2:28 pm
Are you basing this on something on wikipedia not written by Staines, saying that he made money in finance? There's nothing here to say that's not the case. There's relatively few people in �620k Thames-view flats that DON'T work in finance.There are plenty of explanations for the bankruptcy, I know a city trader who by his own admission is a failure and will be sacked, and he is currently buying a Maserati. High burn rate, make the wrong bet, go bust, start again. It's all rather irrelevant though, since(a) Staines hasn't claimed that he did make a fortune in finance, nor has he specified the size of his wealth, although he has made a few macho references to being some sort of genius City type, which might imply this. Someone else, who isn't Staines, has added on wikipedia, that he made money in finance, which Staines' apparent life of leisure would be consistent with, but in any case(b) the ownership, in 2001, of a �620k flat would be consistent with someone who was a reasonably big earner in finance, and there's a fair bit of published evidence that he did work in finance for a few years.So he doesn't really have anything to answer to, unless you have something further to add about this.
By Manic March 26, 2008 - 2:58 pm
I used the word 'illusion' over 'trick' quite deliberately, mm.An illusion was there and now it's gone. Some things are cast in a different light now it's gone.At this stage, Paul Staines is not being accused of anything (apart from, perhaps, being a teeny bit shy).
By David Boothroyd March 26, 2008 - 3:36 pm
When the Bankruptcy Courts were surveyed in 2006 – http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/insolvencyprofession… – it was discovered that the reasons for bankruptcy varied:Credit misuse – 49%Failed business – 16%Illness – 12%Divorce or failed relationship – 7%Redundancy – 6%Spouse's credit misuse – 3%Family problems – 3%Change in income – 2%Tax debt – 2%A significant number of these are not the fault of the bankrupt, so it is wise not to jump to conclusions on an individual bankruptcy.
By Professor Paul March 26, 2008 - 4:04 pm
Tim;Speaking as more of a blog reader than a writer (I've got no further than ranting on myspace) I do share your views that both Guido & Iain Dale have a certain self view they want other to perceive as their true selves.Dale has even retconned Tory history to claim a position he has no right to,check his wikipedia entry!But I'm at a loss to know where you are going with this one
By Manic March 26, 2008 - 4:07 pm
I agree, David. A good thing, then, that I'm not all that interested in the events leading up to the bankruptcy.:o)
By irritant March 26, 2008 - 6:24 pm
Paul Linford/Professor PaulI don't like it either. However it should be allowed to play itself out. The pity is both Guido and Ian can knock out entertaining stuff but both of them are in effect well-resourced msm acting as bloggers and are having a disproportionate effect on the UK blogosphere. Yet regardless of their clout neither has done anything significant to bolster UK bloggers rights. Guido is reckless and Ian can be a bitch (see recent Neal Lawson remark). If either of them fuck up it could have a chilling effect on all UK bloggers.
By Professor Paul March 26, 2008 - 8:41 pm
To be honest,Iain Dale is a media whore & obsessed with his own image.If they made a film of his life they would call it "The Ego has Landed" but he would probably have rewritten the script several times to alter history to suit his own views.There is really no beginning to his talents.But these teasers about the equally appalling Paul Staines make you wonder if there is really something for bloggers to be bothered about.As I said,I'm more a waspish observer than a contributor,there are many who can put what I feel far more lucidly than I do;but if Guido can't take the trouble to answer,for whatever reason,perhaps we should know what Tim & his friends are driving at?It's beginning to have a certain car crash fascination to it!
By Paul Linford March 27, 2008 - 10:41 am
What is rather irritating about this thread is that the big secret (whatever it is) has clearly been shared with Tim's favoured blogging associates while the rest of us are left scrabbling around in the dark wondering wtf is going on.
By David Boothroyd March 27, 2008 - 11:06 am
Paul, I was under the impression you were a journalist. Are you saying you know no way of finding sources to explain the background of incidents in the lives of famous men?
By Manic March 27, 2008 - 11:15 am
Big secret? Funnily enough, you're looking in the wrong place for something that isn't there, Paul.I know of other data online that relates to this, but what I want to talk about is how this simple fact about Staines and his financial circumstances casts many things in a new light.If you or anyone else would like to see that data, I'm happy to point it out via email, but I'm not going to splash it about here (a) when it will most likely serve as a distraction at this stage and (b) while the 'muckraker' tag is already in play.The only parties really holding out here are Staines and MessageSpace. Of course, from a legal standpoint that makes it very difficult to phrase what would otherwise be some very straightforward discussions about this, but I'm guessing that's the point.Post coming soon.
By Manic March 27, 2008 - 4:33 pm
Just a quick courtesy ping for Paul, mm and others:No, I haven't forgotten you.Yes, I am working on it when I can.
By Paul Linford March 27, 2008 - 6:11 pm
Take as much time as you need Tim. It's going to have to be something good to convince me that all this was really justified.
By Manic March 27, 2008 - 6:44 pm
I'll try not to disappoint. Just so you're clearer on what to expect;a) there are a few things that are cast in a new light now that this information is in the open.b) this is not about the bankruptcy, or the circumstances leading up to it, just the fact that something many people thought was there… isn't/wasn't really there.c) a few points will be raised about this, over time
By mikkimoose March 27, 2008 - 10:32 pm
As Paul implies, all this sounds like you don't have anything meaningful to say in relation to this, which is why you are dropping essentially meaningless hints – it looks like you have nothing and are just muck raking.Let's hope that something comes of this.Will be waiting in either case.Try not to keep us waiting too long.
By Professor Paul March 28, 2008 - 8:37 am
I've got to say I agree with the last two comments.Much as I detest Guido for his double standards & his political views (I don't really bother with politics,I vote Liberal)all these little hints make me think of a Monty Python sketch."Nudge nudge, wink wink ,SAY NO MORE!"
By Manic March 28, 2008 - 10:07 am
If that were the case, then my final question would be:"I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh… You've 'done it'… Well, I mean like,… you've been BANKRUPT, in a real court."(Yes?)"What's it like?"
By Professor Paul March 28, 2008 - 3:50 pm
I'm beginning to think"This story is no more.It has ceased to be".Tim,if there is a story let us know.But sooner rather than later,what seemed to be a potentially interesting post is dying on it's arse!
By Paul Linford March 28, 2008 - 3:57 pm
Most of the Python sketches did, if the truth be told.
By Manic March 28, 2008 - 4:06 pm
Professor Paul: Some private correspondence has led to further delays. You may even have to suffer over the weekend.Just so we're clear, you are not waiting for some almighty/immediate revelation, and though there is more data to be seen/found regarding Paul's bankruptcy I don't wish to dwell on the bankruptcy itself.
By Kate March 30, 2008 - 11:44 am
Is this about the affordability of certain threats of legal action?
By Manic March 30, 2008 - 4:54 pm
Kate: Yes, that's one thing that now looks very different. I'll expand on that and others tomorrow.
By irritant March 31, 2008 - 3:30 pm
Quite interesting that Paul claims to live in Ireland. Could we be witnessing the first UK blogger ending up in the slammer?
By Manic March 31, 2008 - 3:41 pm
Calm down, irritant . No-one's going to Teh Big House just yet.:o)With you shortly folks. Working.
By Manic March 31, 2008 - 4:28 pm
Here you go. Sorry for the wait:https://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2008/03/paul…