This entry was posted on
Wednesday, February 14th, 2007 at
11:08 am and is filed
under The Political Weblog Movement.

Greetings all.

‘Guido Fawkes’:

You’re probably champing away at the bit and waiting for a key development today, but you’re going to have to wait a day longer, I’m afraid.

For today, I’m in a holding pattern, and wish mainly to direct you to this post by Justin:

Chicken Yoghurt – The last laugh: On Saturday last week, a Guardian article from 1986 was circulated amongst a group of bloggers which related to what Paul Staines, AKA Guido Fawkes, may or may not have got up to whilst a right-wing political activist at Hull University… Shortly after, emails arrived from Paul Staines stating that he considered the publication of the article as defamatory. He demanded its removal from our blogs, stating he had an ‘retraction’ of the article which he would let us see…

Oh, and this one by Clive:

The UK Today – The Ethic of Reciprocity: What this has shown is the breathtaking hypocrisy of Paul Staines. Here is a man who, when the going gets tough, reaches not for his Libertarian principles, but rather for his lawyer and his wallet. If this whole affair has show one incontravertible truth, it is that Paul can give it, but can’t take it.

[edit]: And this from Unity (leading with a superb headline… the bastard):

Ministry of Truth – Knives and Fawkes: So far as that ‘behind the scenes’ activity is concerned, the most pertinent events of this week concern an interview given by Staines to Sunny Hundal, which will appear on Pickled Politics in due course. Sunny will, I’m sure, tell the full story as he sees it and deserves the credit for getting the ‘scoop’ but what I prepared to say on the record that this interview was undertaken at Staines’s own request, that in requesting the interview he requested a ‘fair hearing’ and claimed that he would set the record straight and tell his side of the story and that Sunny, and the rest of us, took Staines at his words and accepted this ‘offer’ in good faith. What we then discovered last night, after talking to Sunny, was that Staines’s side of the story amounted to nothing more than ‘Lawyer says no comment’ and that this was subsequently followed up by further threats of litigation including an assertion that he would seek a high court injunction to prevent publication of the 1986 article and the 1990 ‘retraction’ letter. On the evidence of the last few days, ‘good faith’ would seem to be a concept that has never fully entered into Staines’s philosophical lexicon.

The only thing I can possibly add to this right now, I have already said; “I personally found the reaction to the content to be far more illuminating than the content itself”.

Iain Dale:

If Iain Dale really wants to draw a line under this he needs to know that the line does appear within reach, and the introduction of comment registration on his weblog would take us a big step closer it. (This measure would not prevent people from posting anonymously, it would merely make it more difficult for bullies and astro-turfers to post under multiple/false identities.)

However, he should know that it is still my intention to pursue Nick Boles until he at least provides me with a plausible explanation for his actions, and I will be keeping a very close eye on Fox News Lite in the future.

Caroline Hunt:

Ms. Hunt gets a free ride today, mainly because it would be unwise (and rude) of me to continue our discussion while there are so many people about with speculation that I cannot address and questions I cannot answer. I do not want to put her in a position where other people are posting libel on her weblog. Her own mouth gets her into enough trouble.

Our conversation has (temporarily) been called to a halt at this point.

Comments on this post are closed. Trackback has also been disabled.

Have a good one.