Bloggerheads

The Scum: yesterday’s bold front page

Posted on January 31, 2007 by Tim Ireland

How grateful I am that Obsolete has already said what need to be said, and said it so well:

Obsolete – Scum-watch: Two faces, one day

Well worth a read. Go make coffee, come back and dig in.

All I feel the need to add is a series of links expanding on the ‘Migrants’ AIDS epidemic threat’ story that this not-at-all-racist newspaper ran late last year:

The original article has been removed, but there is a mirror here and the relevant editorial is still live:

The Scum Says – Killer plagues: Britain once wiped out TB and was gaining ground against AIDS. Today we risk an explosion in both these killer diseases, thanks to infected immigrants.

Infected immigrants! Killer plagues! OMFG! Quick, someone pass the plastic sheeting and duct tape!

(calms)

You can see some valuable context here and some related bloggage here.

Of equal educational benefit is this report on the response by a Romanian tabloid (important background and follow-up here, here and here) and a comment at the Sun website that was undoubtedly prompted by this measured exchange: this is very xenophobic and stupid..you are very idiots…! your pedophils brought aids to the all continent! this is a real denigration to romania – you nr 1 gay comunity in the world, give me a break!

Ah, the ‘gay=paedo’ equation again. I don’t need to say it, do I?

So, can someone explain to me again that bit about tabloids and the important/constructive role they play in modern society?

Posted in Rupert 'The Evil One' Murdoch | Comments Off

FOX News Lite on its first major mission

Posted on January 30, 2007 by Tim Ireland

Oh goodie.

Paul Staines: Iain Dale has a piece on Doughty Street TV tonight about the Smith Institute which explains why they should lose their charitable status.

If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll know why this is the very definition of ‘fair and balanced’ (as we understand it to be in the 21st century).

The magic words ‘Policy Exchange’ haven’t appeared on Staines’ website in the last 3 days… and I doubt they’ll appear tonight on 18 Tory Street.

UPDATE (31 Jan) – 18 Tory Street failed to load properly for me last night, but the report in question is now live here. I’ll watch it later… after breakfast has settled.

Iain Dale on 18 Doughty Street UPDATE (31 Jan) – ~~Has the Smith Institute abused its position?~~ Has 18DoughtyStreet abused its position?

OK, I’ve watched the report. It’s basically a re-hash of everything ‘Guido’ has published, along with an interview with a Tory MP who has decided to take action… based on what ‘Guido’ has published:

1 – Where in this report does Iain Dale inform the viewers that he is a trustee for the very similar charity-slash-independent-think-tank, Policy Exchange?

Ministry of Truth: In the case of the Smith Institute, one can at least point to two of its Trustees who could be considered to be non-partisan; Anglican Archbishop John Sentamu and cross-bench peer, Baron Joffe. In the case, however, of Policy Exchange, not a single one of its Trustees can, on the information available, be clearly identified as being non-partisan or independent of the Conservative Party.

2 – You could check for yourself (perhaps I blinked and missed it), but finding such an important declaration would have been easier with a transcript of the report. It would also be nice to be able to make a comment under the report, but 18 Tory Street doesn’t allow you to do that.

(How is this interactive telly, Iain? Because you read emails live on air from time to time? Hell, even Richard and Judy do that.)

3 – But let’s get back to the main point… this report appears to be compromised in the extreme by the reporter’s own agenda and his undeclared interest(s). Don’t those who watch this report deserve to know about such things?

4 – On the face of things, ‘Guido’ seems to agree. After all, he’s not above stamping his little feet over ‘nepotism’ and ‘bias’ on the BBC. Sadly, ‘Guido’ has failed to lay into Iain Dale for his (ahem) unfortunate oversight, *and* there still appears to be a blanket-ban on use of the words ‘Policy Exchange’ on the Guido Fawkes website.

5 – One thing Iain Dale has to his credit is a slightly more honest/open comment policy than Paul ‘Guido’ Staines. Got a question to ask? Fire away.

UPDATE – To. Be. Read. In. Full…

Ministry of Truth – Fox News Lite on the Smith Institute

UPDATE (1 Feb) – I had to press for it, but I finally got an answer out of Iain Dale.

He did not declare in interest in his report because he thought then (and still thinks now) that the following was ‘irrelevant’:

Iain Dale published an ‘investigative’ report on one think-thank that operates as a charity (and may or may not have undue political leanings toward the Labour Party) when he is a trustee for another think-thank that operates as a charity (and may or may not have undue political leanings toward the Conservative Party).

Dale stood as a Conservative candidate in the last election, and he is on the ‘A-list’ for the next.

Here I direct you to Section 5 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code and the reason why Iain Dale doesn’t need to worry about such things.

UPDATE (1 Feb) – BSSC – The Questions Iain Dale Should Answer: Personally, I have no interest in playing down the Smith Institute story or diverting attention away from it. My view is that both main parties sail very close to the wind when it comes to their relationship to “independent” think tanks. This is about something else… when Iain Dale, Conservative A-lister and trustee of the “independent” Policy Exchange, Cameron’s favourite conservative think tank, makes lots of noise on the interwebs about Brown’s overly close connections to an “independent” charity while failing to mention his own connections to a very similar organisation with very similar connections to the boy wonder, I’m inclined to believe that it wasn’t a great day for standards of openness and transparency in political life on the interwebs. I am, rather, inclined to think about pots and kettles, glass houses and dirty tricks.

Posted in The Political Weblog Movement | Comments Off

Indulgences

Posted on January 30, 2007 by Tim Ireland

Private Eye 1973! Our attic has recently been subjected to a cleansing, the like of which has rarely been seen outside of a comments thread hosted by Paul Staines.

Found in one dark and dusty corner was an old issue of Private Eye… from 1973.

On page 4 is an early appearance by none other Jeffrey Archer. This was not his first appearance in Private Eye… that appears to have been; “on the 5th December, 1969 (issue 208) when they set out in some detail allegations originating with Humphrey Berkeley, the chair at that time of the United Nations Association, that Archer had abused his expense account with that organisation.”

I meant to use this as a Pretty Good Example showing why Private Eye should get their arses in gear and introduce an online archive, but then this popped up when I was looking into the Humphrey Berkeley matter…

Michael Crick – I blame the establishment: Jeffrey has been indulged all his life… just as the White City starter showed surprising leniency with Archer’s impatience to get going, so too did Central Office grandees when he became a by-election candidate in 1969 and Humphrey Berkeley warned them about discrepancies in Archer’s expenses for the United Nations Association.

Well said.

And just look at the fine, upstanding man that Jeffrey Archer has become… and what a great asset he is to the Conservative Party.

And now, what may at first appear to be a change of subject…

The Times – Muslims who seek Sharia as bad as BNP, says Cameron: In an uncompromising attack on Islamic radicals, Mr Cameron said: “Those who seek a Sharia state, or special treatment and a separate law for British Muslims are, in many ways, the mirror image of the BNP. They also want to divide people into ‘us’ and ‘them.’ And they seek out grievances to exploit.”

I caught the initial reports regarding this on TV last night and it was the phrase “they seek out grievances to exploit” that I thought deserved attention; especially because regular readers of Bloggerheads should be all too familiar with a Conservative activist who seeks out divisive grievances to exploit.

Dennis Paul and his compatriot Mike Chambers recently graduated from exploiting issues of nationality to exploiting issues of sexuality; in August of last year I produced proof that Mike Chambers was directly responsible for an anonymous smear campaign against his political opponent. Dennis Paul was heavily implicated in the creation/promotion of this same website.

The matter was referred to Conservative Central Office, and to the office of David Cameron. Neither office took action. Instead, the matter was passed to the local Conservative association who passed it to Anne Milton (who did sweet bugger all about it).

Cameron then went on to promote Milton.

This, I would argue, classifies as an ‘indulgence’.

So, how, I hear you ask, did Dennis Paul and Mike Chambers react?

Well, they kept their heads down for a few months, and now they’re back for more:

Well done, Dennis. Take a look at this recent post by Dennis Paul.

He’s learned how even time-only timestamps can give him away when he makes comments ‘from other people’ on his own website, so he’s switched to date-only… but if you look at the first two comments from ‘other people’ you’ll notice that both of these entries carry exactly the same user-error in their links…. which just happens to be exactly the same user-error that appeared in this comment, where the author and purpose should be clear.

Further, Dennis Paul has moderation on full-time, so the comment left by ‘Jonesy’ (also made on this same busy Saturday) has been knowingly cleared by him.

One defence put forward by (ahem) anonymous parties seeking to represent Chambers and Paul is that the ‘Jonesy12’ smear-blog is the work of Labour activists (or perhaps even me) seeking to smear the local Conservatives with a double-backflip-twist*. If this is the case, why in heaven’s name would Dennis Paul calmly allow the publication of a link to it on his website – and allow that link to pass without comment?

[*Psst! Recent updates to the ‘Jonesy12’ smear-blog and profile seek to re-brand ‘Jonesy’ as a Welsh far-left-of-centre Labour supporter… but I still have copies of the original versions.]

Confidence? You ain’t seen nothing yet…

If we check the ‘Jonesy12’ smear-blog for updates, we can see a recent comment purporting to be from former MP Sue Doughty… closely followed by ‘Jonesy’ accepting it as genuine.

Prior to this, ‘Jonesy’ graduated from his claims that his political opponent might be a paedophile to this: “It’s clearly true… case proven.”

Based on what? A series of anonymous comments that were probably submitted by the author?

Chambers takes another big step over the line here, pretty much daring anyone to stop him… check out this recent anonymous comment: Jonesy, I do not agree with the paedophile blog post I leave this comment in, but since Ward obviously endorses the Anne Milton blog by Tim, I thought it was only fair to provide a similar observation on on him so perhaps his voters can get a better idea of him before the elections in May. Some might say you reap what you sow.

So… here we are. The election in which Chambers hopes to stand against his political opponent is only a few short months away and – because of the baffling inaction by his superiors – Chambers appears to be preparing to use these smears as a weapon in that election in one way or another. Here’s another anonymous comment: What the fuck is Mohammed up to? I heard he tries to misrepresent people over the internet by registering sites in their name and linking it to smear sites. Still, the public will be fully informed of these issues – not over the internet – but direct mail.

[Note – Of course, as with the previous anonymous comment, this strays back to the oft-repeated claim that these anonymous smears somehow compare to – and are justified by – the scrutiny of Anne Milton.]

So I think the time has come – once again – to see what the Conservative Party is willing to indulge:

To: David Cameron
CC: Anne Milton; Conservative Central Office
From: Tim Ireland
Subject: Indulgences

Dear David,

I wish to bring up an issue regarding your speech on Muslim groups that – in your words – “seek out grievances to exploit”.

In 2005, I became aware of Dennis Paul, a Conservative activist who sought divisive grievances to exploit. Then-candidate Anne Milton failed to disown the pamphlet in question:
https://www.bloggerheads.com/anne_milton/2005/03/meet-dennis-paul.html

In 2006, I provided you with proof that Mike Chambers, another Conservative activist closely associated with Anne Milton, was directly responsible for a website airing claims that his political opponent might be a paedophile:
https://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2006/08/proof_mike_chambers.asp

The website in question has since graduated from speculation to certainty. A recent comment published by the author claimed that; “It’s clearly true.”

Further comments on this same website have recently provided as ‘proof’ claims that the victim of the smear is a member of a gay dating site. I’m sure that you realise that this implies that being gay automatically makes you a paedophile, but I’ll leave that thought with you for a moment as you stop to take a look at Mike Chambers’ reaction to a recent speech you gave on marriage:
https://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2006/10/speaking_of_hom.asp

For now, it simply needs to be pointed out that the anonymous claims published at the URL http://jonesy12.blogspot.com/ are clearly libellous… and I would like to know why you would tolerate a Conservative activist publishing a link to a website that he knows contains libellous claims:
http://dennis-paul.blogspot.com/2007/01/tories-step-up-gear.html#c1740079013339027601

1. If the entry disappears, please get in touch. I have a copy of the web page containing the offending entry saved to disk

2. It needs to be noted that Dennis Paul has his website set up so he must read any comment and approve it before it is published; i.e. the entry containing this link was included knowingly.

Even from a pure-common-sense standpoint, this makes no sense. Why would Dennis Paul allow such a comment to be published at his website if he wishes to distance himself from these smears?

But from a moral point of view, we come a bit closer to home… and one reason why I think you will not take action:

If you infer or claim that being homosexual automatically makes you a paedophile, or even if you simply endorse/tolerate such a view, you are doing one of two things; you are proving that you are a homophobe or showing that you are willing to exploit homophobia to further your own agenda.

But on your webcameron.org.uk website, you clearly link to ‘Guido Fawkes’, the character responsible for this charming exchange, in your blogroll:
https://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2006/01/guido_the_monke.asp

You, like Dennis Paul, have published a link to a website of a homophobe (or, at best, someone willing to exploit homophobia).

I don’t hold any great hope that you will request that either link be removed, or see to it that Mike Chambers is called to account for his smear campaign… I simply want to get it on record that you were informed of these matters. Again.

Tim Ireland
www.bloggerheads.com

[Sidebar: If you have a peek in the code of both Dennis Paul’s weblog and Mike Chambers’ Jonesy12 site, you may notice that both parties have recently discovered the miracle of Statcounter.]

UPDATE (31 Jan) – Two developments as a result of this post:

1 – A screen capture has been added to this post, as Dennis Paul has now removed the comment he published that linked to the Jonesy12 weblog… but profile links count too, so he should also crack on with the removal of this comment and this comment if he wants to avoid a bollocking.

2 – ‘Jonesy’ (aka Mike Chambers) seems to be picking up pointers from Paul Staines; when people are looking at him and choking back vomit, all he cares about is that people are watching. Late yesterday afternoon, he went live with this comment; NEWSFLASH: MEGA HOT GOSSIP COMING SOON!!! Stay tuned to the Jonesy!

And one non-development:

No response from any of the recipients of the above email. A tenner says they’ll keep ignoring it as long as no-one in the mainstream media is baying for their blood.

UPDATE (1 Feb) – This says it all, really. I’ve been in touch with David Cameron’s office, and they have dismissed my concerns. Now here Cameron is shaking hands with Dennis Paul… today of all days.

David Cameron endorses Dennis Paul and everything he stands for. So much for Mr Nice Guy.

Posted in Anne Milton | 3 Comments

Googlebombs ‘fixed’

Posted on January 29, 2007 by Tim Ireland

Google Webmaster Central – A quick word about Googlebombs
SearchEngineWatch – Googlebombs Defused
Big Mouth Media – Google defuse the Google bomb

1. It’s a shame that the ‘liar’ result has gone; that started at Bloggerheads and it was one of my favourites.

2. It needs to be noted that the ‘liar’ bomb wouldn’t have worked if there weren’t a *lot* of people who thought it to be true – and important – information. There *is* a democratic process at work in Googlebombs, easily seen in the battle between left and right to make either George Bush or Michael Moore (and, later, Jimmy Carter) the top search result for ‘miserable failure’.

3. Despite Google’s denial on this front, I’m not sure how much of this is the direct result of an algorithm change. In fact, I think I smell a manual fix in the works, based primarily on a list of Googlebombs that used to be published on Wikipedia. A mirrored version of that list is here. (Interestingly, the lead ‘bomb’ on the list is not a bomb at all… and also something from Bloggerheads. The Anne Milton microsite became the top search result for ‘anne milton’ in all major search engines within a week because it was hosted at a site with an established reputation. This one example should provide bloggers who are in it for the long haul with one very good reason why they should consider getting their own domain name… but that’s for a later post.)

4. I suspect a partially manual fix because a few bombs not on that list (a couple of which are mine) are still functioning, and many of these appear to have link-patterns typical of a Googlebomb.

5. Oh, and Google are asking you to report such anomalies, so they can ~~continue with the manual fixes~~ further improve their algorithm.

6. Previous to this, I suspected that Google already *had* a mechanism to detect and defuse obvious Googlebombs; if you were the lead bomber, the quickest way to piss on your own fire was to brag about early results in a detectable way (i.e. by using the G-word next to your bomb or linking to the relevant search result from the same site that started the bomb).

Posted in Search Engine Optimisation | 8 Comments

A difference of opinion

Posted on January 29, 2007 by Tim Ireland

Page 3 opinion shock! The Scum – You are undie surveillance: Officials are bracing themselves for a storm of public outrage over their controversial X-ray cameras scheme. As part of the most shocking extension of Big Brother powers ever planned here, lenses in lampposts would snap “naked” pictures of passers-by to trap terror suspects. The proposal is contained in leaked documents drawn up by the Home Office and presented to PM Tony Blair’s working group on Security, Crime and Justice.

The Scum Says – X-ray spies: The prospect of X-ray cameras at every street corner is truly terrifying. If that’s not Big Brother, we don’t know what is. Ministers are right to do everything to protect us from terrorists. But we draw the line at such an invasion of privacy – and privates.

Today on Page 3, Kelley has ‘mixed feelings’ over the idea of anti-terror X-ray machines that can see through clothes and says: “I’m for it – I’ve nothing to hide. But some will see it as yet more intrusion.”

Hmmm. Well, I could make an unfair comment about Keeley having “nothing to hide” or focus on the fallacy of the ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ argument, but I think instead I’ll point out the one itty-bitty-bit-of-titty thing that’s bugging me this morning:

Yes, when a leak hits The Downing Street Echo, it’s usually there to sell an idea, not scupper one. But, even though Big John isn’t mentioned by named in this piece, this is almost certainly part of Operation ‘Get Reid’ (1, 2, 3).

What makes this such an oddity is that normally, when the same issue is addressed on Page 3 and the main editorial (i.e. often), the ‘opinion’ of the model is 100% in keeping with the opinion of editor Rebekah Wade… but not this time.

What gives?

Posted in Page 3 - News in Briefs | 3 Comments

Policy Exchange

Posted on January 26, 2007 by Tim Ireland

Ministry of Truth – Guido, The Smith Institute and the Think Tank he’s not writing about: Paul Staines, who blogs under the psedonym ‘Guido Fawkes’ has recently run a series of typically snide posts about a registered charity, The Smith Institute… Policy Exchange, like the Smith Institute is registered charity, albeit one founded only in 2003. And like the Smith Institute, it is funded by private donations and does not disclose the identity of its donors – it doesn’t have to, remember… Policy Exchange also has some obivious links to a mainstream political party (and maybe even to Paul/Guido, as you’ll shortly see); the Conservative Party. In fact one might even reasonable observe that Policy Exchange, an ‘independent think tank’ operating as a registered charity is actually a veritable rat’s nest of Conservative Party members and associates with identifable links and connections running all the way to very highest level of the party.

Well, Paul Staines is a busy guy (those comments don’t ~~write~~ moderate themselves)… maybe he plans to get around to it sooner or later. Over to ‘Guido’…

Posted in The Political Weblog Movement | 1 Comment

Wakey wakey

Posted on January 26, 2007 by Tim Ireland

“A few years ago the debate was about whether the media controlled politicians or whether politicians controlled the media. Now it is about how we are all responding to the explosive power of citizens, consumers and bloggers.” – Gordon Brown

(Psst! Take note of who he was sitting next to when he said this.)

Posted in The Political Weblog Movement | Comments Off

I’ve been laughing out loud for the last half-hour

Posted on January 26, 2007 by Tim Ireland

Click here to find out why.

(Oh, and here’s an unrelated treat for new readers who don’t know what the hell the previous link is all about. You deserve a good laugh, too.)

UPDATE – Oh, go on… have another. And another. It’s Friday. (latter via)

Posted in The Political Weblog Movement | Comments Off

Stereotype-tastic

Posted on January 25, 2007 by Tim Ireland

Blast! Plugged this, but forgot to blog it;

Which French Stereotype Are You?

Words by me, illustrations by the most-excellent mushybees. Sure, it’s work… but it aims to raise a point, and some laughs. Enjoy.

Posted in Search Engine Optimisation | 5 Comments

The New Conservatives: Parallels and Realities

Posted on January 25, 2007 by Tim Ireland

Hi folks. Yes, this is another long post that takes a closer look at ‘Guido Fawkes’ and related issues, but this one comes complete with its own knockers…

The Independent – When it comes to a debate on Iraq, Tony Blair goes missing: Tony Blair has been accused of treating the House of Commons with contempt by failing to stay in the chamber to hear MPs protest about his disastrous handling of the chaos in Iraq. As MPs yesterday staged the first Iraq debate in government time since the war, the Prime Minister retreated to the quiet of his oak-panelled office behind the Speaker’s chair to prepare for a series of private meetings on more pressing matters – the row over gay adoption, a weekly briefing with a handful of senior backbenchers, and a speech to the CBI… Inside the conference, there was no mention of Iraq. “This is my second question time of the day; I think you are more polite than my first audience,” he told CBI representatives.

How interesting…. Blair runs away from the debate, leaving his flunkies to make odd noises designed to make you feel guilty about having the debate in the first place, and – from a safe distance – uses a one-liner to take a cheap shot at his challengers.

Does this remind you of anyone?

Page 3: John Reid More on this further down the line. First, there’s the glorious return of hard-edged political opinion on Page 3. (Yes, I’ve been busy watching, even though I’ve been ‘away’.)

Today, lovely Nikkala (24, from Middlesex) is ‘astounded’ that the Home Office is in such a terrible state and says; “John Reid is a joke. We have dangerous criminals on the run, foreign prisoners let out – now jails are full. What next?”

Thank you, Nikkala.

One reason why the The Sun gets away with operating as The Downing Street Echo so often is that – at first glance – they appear to be even-handed in their ongoing ‘war on evil’; on the ~~tits~~ face of things, Blair gets a hammering just as much as the other guy. But in reality, the readership is usually so blinded by their own hate and fear that they fail to realise that The Scum only lay into Blair or a member of his cabinet if a certain cabinet member is not to their liking and/or if Murdoch/Wade are trying to bitch-slap Blair or a member of his cabinet into line (usually on issues such as the EU, crime or immigration… and in this case, crime and immigration).

I’ve written about face/leg proximity of placement before, but I just want to jot a quick note about that right now and instead focus on the subject of the editorial I once used as an example of this; David Blunkett.

While I’ve been away, one small project I’ve busied myself with is a full dossier of Page 3 editorials… and something interesting has cropped up that I had not noticed before…

What I’m about to show you is a series of Page 3 editorials published between the dates of August 13, 2004 and August 17, 2004. There are a few things you need to keep in mind before you read them:

1. Page 3 editorials often bang on about the immorality or stupidity of this affair or that (in fact, there was one chiding Wayne Rooney on Aug 25 of the same year).

2. Over a period of about a week when the Blunkett affair was front page news everywhere (including The Scum), not one single Page 3 editorial appeared telling him what a naughty boy he was.

3. The media were not reporting on this at all until Blunkett dealt with the inevitable via NOTW on 15 August, 2004.

4. NOTW led the way with the ‘hard-working Home Secretary’ line, and The Sun followed this and went the extra mile by doing everything they could to cast Kimberley Quinn as a heartless, scheming monster out to wreck Blunkett’s career (example).

5. It became increasingly clear following these revelations how close Sun editor Rebekah Wade was (and is) to David Blunkett. Also, Blunkett had been dancing to Murdoch’s tune for years before (see: bitch-slapping, crime and immigration); in short, he was A Very Handy Home Secretary To Have On Board.

Now, watch this:

Page 3 propaganda

Notice anything?

Yep: Home Office initiative, Home Office initiative, Home Office initiative.

Notice anything else?

Yep: The date on that first one is from the Friday before news of the affair was in the public domain (i.e. before Blunkett used another Murdoch title to push his line on the affair in an attempt to save his career).

Conclusion: David Blunkett knowingly acceded to the use of propaganda on Page 3 for his benefit, and did so with careful forethought.

Now, does anyone wish to explain to the class the definition of propaganda and how this classifies as same? Anyone? Bueller?*

[*Note – Fans of Ferris Bueller will, of course, contest that this commonly-used sign-off is not a correct quote, but rather, a useful composite of two quotes. I fully acknowledge this. I also choose to keep to myself the reason(s) why I am thinking about that lovable, cheeky scamp today.]

By now you’re probably wondering why this is about Paul Staines (he who likes to swan about town under the name ‘Guido Fawkes’).

Well, let me tell you:

I’ve discussed this directly with Staines on a number of occasions, and – happily – his official line on this was published right here:

“Some time ago, sparked by Tim’s obssession [sic], I asked Trevor Kavanagh about the Page 3 girl’s political [sic] reported political views. He basically said they did it to wind up people like Tim.” – Paul Staines

The first thing to note is Staines’ use of the word ‘obsession’ (see: briefing).

The second is another apparent reason to ‘let it go’… they are only doing this to wind me up. It’s just a bit of a larf.

I’m not entirely sure if Staines is buying this idea or trying to sell it… but I do know that it’s based on an extremely dishonest argument:

What winds me up about it is that it has a carefully disguised purpose; but this argument seeks to deny the existence of that purpose (and discourage me from looking into it) by claiming that it has no purpose but to wind me up. But what winds me up about it is…

So, back to Staines… I’ve seen a few comments around about his Guido Fawkes site being compared to The Sun on 18 Tory Street recently. I’m not sure in what context, but I think it’s a fair comparison.

Many people think that what the character Staines has invented does is ‘wind people up’ for ‘a bit of a larf’, and on the surface it would appear that he takes no prisoners… but I contend that the Guido Fawkes weblog also has a carefully disguised purpose, and that the New Tory relationship with him is not unlike that between The Sun and New Labour.

Paul Staines takes all sorts of cheap shots at the other parties (more on this below), but at the same time, he also seeks to bend and shape the Conservative party to his will.

There’s even a Page 3 parallel… Staines also uses what he calls ‘totty’ (in a strictly post-modern sense, obviously) as a political weapon:

Now, you may notice the odd left-wing totty piece over at Staines’ site, but these are carefully balanced with ‘ugly’ attacks. (Basically, the “Would you want to sleep with a sandal-wearing, lentil-munching soap-dodger?” line of thinking that has also manifested itself recently as one of Team Guido’s key reasons why bloggers should ignore what I say about ‘Guido’; like most lefties – apparently – I am ugly, fat, flatulent and cannot get a girlfriend.)

New Tory, on the other hand, is the All Teh Sexy…

What you mostly see at Staines’ weblog is; Tory totty, Tory totty, Tory totty, Tory totty, Tory totty, Tory totty.

See? The Tories not only have snazzier uniforms, they get a shot at hotter totty, too (come join us, join us, do).

Compare this with Page 3:

The purpose of the Page 3 editorials is clear; what once used to be a small level of detail that allowed wank-happy readers to imagine themselves being a little bit closer to the model currently contains a political view. It’s not quite as straightforward as Pavlov, but generally the idea is that now the wank-happy reader needs to adopt, favour or entertain a political view before they can imagine themselves being close to the model.

Where I come from, we call this “thinking with your dick” (which, I’m sure you’re aware, mostly leads to trouble and regret).

And now, finally, we bounce back to this morning’s Independent and approach the close…

The Conservatives have mentioned the war (once), and they think they’ve gotten away with it:

Independent – Steve Richards: Blair looks weak and cowardly, while both Labour and the Tories are trapped by Iraq: The calamity of Iraq hovers darkly over a confused and bewildered Government, sapping its morale and draining any moral energy. It hovers over the House of Commons too. Some argue that Britain’s support for the war highlights an urgent need for constitutional reform. There is such a need, but that has nothing to do with the war. Too conveniently the constitution gets the blame for the decision taken by ministers and a big majority of MPs to support Tony Blair. In reality minister and MPs could have blocked Blair, but chose not to do so… If the Conservatives had opposed the war from the beginning, Blair would not have dared to take as many political risks. Instead they were with him all the way. Do not underestimate the significance of this.

And, as this opinion piece also points out, they cannot credibly claim to have been ‘duped into it’ (but this doesn’t stop them from bandying this notion about in arenas where it is less likely to be actively scrutinised).

The Conservatives are quite adept at riding upon the level of distrust borne from what has happened in Iraq (and many other callous manipulations of the ‘war’ on terror) without acknowledging their often willing role*.

[*Note – if you want to be exceedingly generous, feel free to argue that the Tories have been repeatedly cornered by a political need to ‘out -tough’ New Labour.]

If it helps, try picturing a surfer who requires at least a passing knowledge of tides if he wants to catch a decent wave, but denies all knowledge of such things because he “Just wants to surf, dude!”

And this is what makes Paul Staines so very, very useful to the Conservatives; with what is widely perceived as a ‘take them all down’ attack in a time of unprecedented distrust and distance, ‘Guido’ can pick off individual targets and/or ensure that money this, peerage that or cocktail sausage in the other is what officially brings about their downfall… and not Iraq, torture or the manipulation of fear to further a political agenda.

I’m sure you can guess why this would be a desirable development for them.

It is equally useful to the Conservatives that discussion of wider issue(s) on any given topic is strictly forbidden at the Guido Fawkes website… and a closer look at Staines’ editorial choices is even more revealing…

An excellent example; you may want to have a poke around Staines’ website and see how many features he has run on the subject of torture (or, if you prefer, ‘extraordinary rendition’). The subject is used repeatedly to bash Labour (both old and new) under comments, but features? I had trouble finding any. You can go and have a look and see for yourself if you like, but the real ‘tell’ for me was that the hero-blogger who claims the fearless leaking of secret documents as part of his shtick did not take part in – or even link to – Craig Murray’s release of the torture memos in late December 2005 (you can read a nice round-up of this activity here).

At the time, Staines even claimed that things were “thin politically”, and therefore he had nothing to report. (Psst! You can see a subtle little dig from me here. Guido would have deleted anything more overt.)

Further, when Paul Staines and Iain Dale first began cooking up their Little Red Book of New Labour Sleaze, they produced this list of scandals. In this long list, Iraq gets a passing mention under ‘David Kelly commits suicide’ and torture is not mentioned AT ALL.

[MINI-UPDATE – Yes, I’m aware of Iain Dale’s ongoing support for the war… but it is possible to support the war and still be alarmed by the way the Blair government conducted themselves. No, really. And you’re not going to get far applauding the removal of a torturing, murdering bastard if you keep schtum about those who torture and murder for our side.]

Have a look through the comments on that last link and you’ll see a few people picking up on the omissions. You may also notice that Iain Dale does not respond to these comments. In the relevant ‘Guido’ thread, you’ll find no mention of Iraq and torture (and you’re probably already aware that I have a little theory that explains why none would remain, even if they were published in the first instance).

Now, I make no excuses for initially buying into Staines’ and Dale’s bullshit – it was an error, and not one that I plan on repeating – but at the time, I was more concerned about adding what was missing rather looking at what was missing and wondering why.

First, I approached Iain Dale about a chapter on Page 3 and suggested that Craig Murray cover torture. Like Staines, Dale “couldn’t understand” why Page 3 was an issue, so instead I wrote the chapter about torture (a key subject that should have been an obvious inclusion in the draft list, but wasn’t).

It wasn’t until I received my hard copy of the book that I realised that neither ‘editor’ had actually read the fucking thing! (Hint: if you have the book to hand, there’s an obvious copy error/omission in the last paragraph of my article.)

You may have to be a Douglas Adams fan to get this next bit (clue/spoiler)…

Now, there are some things the Conservatives cannot openly avoid when challenged, but what they appear to be doing is not walking out the door and facing the real world, but instead climbing out of the window into a universe that has been created especially for them.

Paul Staines is one of the budding architects of this false reality.

Because it is damaging to the blog community and our democracy, I wish to make people aware of that.

I also think the Conservatives deserve a special heads-up… I’m not sure if they realise the impact the ‘vision’ of an architect can have on any given project.