Posts
EXCLUSIVE UPDATE: Tory Boy Guido Fawkes/Paul Staines: Did He Really Make Common Cause in 1986 With Fascists? Has Guido Now Grown Up?
Paul Staines has sent LOL some stuff which he believes clears him. See EXCLUSIVE STORY HERE. There will be more certainly, timing depending on how permissions and so on unfold.
Jailhouse Lawyer has re-published a Guardian piece which reports Guido Fawkes' alter ego Paul Delaires-Staines in his old student days. Like grown up parties in some present day Student Unions his Federation of Conservative Students were according to the report having trouble with commies. He apparently reached out to the BNP proposing an alliance for "direct action" rather than forming a sensible Students 1st alliance with other grown up parties for democracy.
Paul Delaires-Staines wanted to smash the welfare state as well as commies and trade unionists, say the Guardian. Not to mention stalwarts of other bona fide political parties. And while he distanced himself from the BNP's un-nuanced racism the Guardian report the lyrics of a Staines-penned song which is redolent of gas chamber days.
Nice one. Obviously Mr Staines has (a) grown up (though not a lot) and (b) can comment here as LOL has never yet switched off real time comments*. Perhaps he'll send his thugs over to spray paint anti-democracy slogans on my bridges. The Tories were considering chucking him out. But I don't think they ever got round to it.
In 1986 Guardian was a broadsheet, not a tabloid!
Left hand video: Guido THINKS he is burning old media. Right: old media DO burn Guido. Vote on how this alleged-ex-collaborator-with-Nazis or rather his rather splendid alter ego ought to meet his end HERE. Link now live. Apologies.
UPDATE: Guido has been on threatening legal action if this blog post is not removed. LOL have replied that we will publish any rebuttals and that our policy is to apologise and correct real errors as soon as they are discovered. But we don't apologise for "errors" that appear to be "facts".
Our facts are: Guardian published this story in 1986 - their facts are XYZ - Guido is now surely grown up.
UPDATE TWO: Guido - the libertarian to end all libertarians - has been running to law (or threatening to run to law) - on this story for the last couple of months on and off but - don't know where our head was at the time - LOL missed the fuss in February. Perhaps blogging closer to home. The original article is still available in multiple locations on the web.
SEARCH TERMS like: 31 May 1986, David Rose, the Guardian, Paul Staines. Or as linked above.
UPDATE THREE: David Rose (the then-Guardian journalist who broke the story) is said to have moved on to the pre-Scott Observer and in some form or other recanted some of his piece. I've not yet been able to track that or even the date of it - some three years after the fact - down. But I've asked Guido to assist and I'm sure he will. He'd be helping himself.
I cannot see it serving him well to refuse not only to confirm or deny the Guardian's claims, but also to not assist in locating the second-hand reason why the story is in some way a wrong 'un.
SUGGESTION: It has come in off-blog that I should trade Guido taking this story down and apologising for he taking down and apologising for every single wrong 'un he has published and not recanted or apologised for. If we go for that formula I'll be back and offer wronged parties the chance to nominate stories.
ADDENDUM ONE: Clearly having left Manchester University only a few short years before Guido's time up at Hull Tech I lived through a time when we had right wing Tories in Number 10 and when both FCS and NOLS were populous forces in our unions. I also knew a number of silly Tories who were keen fellow travellers with fascist groups and their ilk including the National Front, the British Movement, and yes early-doors BNP. Nasty stickers at dawn. And yes, correctly spelt graffiti suggesting an assist from Tory boys and Tory girls to misspent thugs.
* I'm reminded. Apart from on two single posts where comments were finished. Or needed to be.
29 comments:
Have you asked yourself why no-one else has published this Chris?
Because it is bollocks. Without me having to get all legal (again) please remove this.
JHL is mental.
JHL is not mental as I have the certificate to prove this. Whereas Guido is no psychiatrist, just as well, as there are doubts about his sanity.
Don't shoot the messenger, Guido, go for the source, I dare you...
Dearest Guido
This piece appeared in the Guardian. As far as I know they did not retract or change or explain in any way shape or form. If you work through the Guardian story and explain which claims and references to contemporary coverage are not factually correct you can publish it here as a comment and I PROMISE that I will also give these denials and explanation equal prominence on the face of my blog as this story has.
I have distanced the current Paul Staines from the silly FCS student one and assessed that you have grown up. If you wish to dispute that too I'm listening and will be fair as fair.
My policy, as the Guardian's is to apologise for any errors as soon as they are discovered. To allow "Response" on major gaffes or differences of opinion to be given.
Explain what is inaccurate, imprecise or plain wrong in the Guardian's piece or my precis and you shall have your rightful redemption.
"Guido sues bloggers" and "Guido abuses bloggers as mental" really could turn very nasty for a careless shit stirrer like yourself. It would add to your glowing reputation for fairness, sanity and "do as you would be done to".
I await your reply. My email address is on the front page if you'd prefer not to negotiate your right to reply in the full glare.
I might take it down if it is wrong and I will gladly publish your detailed reply. In the meantime big guy, stop trying to bully the small guys.
Best wishes
Chris P
Check the facts.
Dear Guido
From you mate that is pretty rich.
I am trying to check the facts. It is a fact that the respected Guardian newspaper printed this story 21 years ago. Isn't it? Is that a lie?
It is a fact is it not that you were a student at the named establishment at the time?
That you were a leadling light in the FCS?
That you didn't like commies or socialists and wanted to put them out of action?
By all libertarian means necessary. Within the law leaving aside the incitement in your song?
It was your song wasn't it?
You did correspond with the BNP at the time, didn't you?
You did seek their co-operation for disrupting meetings as agents provacateurs and persuading a few reds of the error of their ways, by means unspecified but certainly hinted at.
Is that not true either?
And I've said you've grown up now. You could easily accept the story reflected your misspent youth and recant from this silliness.
But instead you are coming in all heavy and attempting to monster a political opponent into seeing "the error of their ways".
One of the najor ways of checking the facts, and to be clear in this case these are:
- The Guardian published a story in 1986
- The story said XY and Z
- Guido has now grown up a bit
These are my facts. The other facts are the Guardian's facts and as they have gone unchallenged all these years then I'm sorry but I have no reason to report other facts like:
- An innocent PDS forced a retraction
- PDS denied every word of the story
or
- PDS rather glorified then in the notoriety of being a Conservative with added boot boys
Come on Guido. Play up. It's your move. My facts are as above.
Guardian story 1986 - said XYZ - that was then Staines now a bit grown up
What's to dispute never mind sue there mate?
Tell me and you'll have more hope of some "justice" - something that your victims do not get.
Which parts of my story are "bollocks"?
You only have to tell me to get this conversation heading in a better direction than it is now.
Soon I'll be starting adding other ADDENDA and you'll perhaps wish you'd kept schtum or at least played nice.
Best w
Chris p
Oh Guido, please do tell me why no-one else has published this story?
Theories:
Carter Ruck have warned them all off (if so please have them send me the standard letter, email service accepted)
You have played nice and explained the true facts to everyone else
Until you got monstered by White on Newsnight you were pretty un-fecking-news-worthy
Now you have been monstered by White and Paxo on newsnight, revealled your source for a bad story (of which facts you did not check) you remain pretty un-fecking-news-worthy
Perhaps that will change. I really hope it does. I really disagree with fascists and I think you should too whether you consider them left or right wing in this particular case or "just racists"
Here's hoping
Offers stands:
Correction with same prominence
Retraction with same prominence
Apology - like you never do yourself
Right to reply unedited - ditto
Best w
Chris P
Are you trying to Staines my good character?
Er, What Good Character Saines you contemptible and illibertarian idiot?
Did you say Saines? Did you mean InSaines?
I'm still checking the facts Guido. If you would provide an URL or a date reference for the retraction you say David Rose made - or email it to me verbatim - so I can look at the form of words used then that would speed things up and perhaps, who knows, find this item removed as you wish. Otherwise I'll just have to make my own progress towards your redemption. I try to be a quick worker but like to be careful. I am putting in the blog post the information that there may have been a retraction of some form which I cannot yet locate.
In the meantime if you want to answer any of my specific questions as one serious and professional blogger to another I'd be ever so grateful M'Lud.
Laters.
Your problem is, Mr. Paul, that the story was published in 1986.
The Guardian is not republishing it now.
You are republishing it now. Not The Guardian (a 21-year-old article is not actionable).
Under UK libel law, you've got to be able to prove the truth of what you publish. Of course you cannot do that. So Mr. Staines' libel lawyers would be able to stamp all over you, I'm afraid.
No need for any retraction, fact is, *you* need to prove the truth of defamatory accusations that you make.
As I understand it, David Rose denies issuing a retraction. So, if Guido can produce it this would really be headline grabbing material...
Anonymong 14.08: Chris Paul has not got to prove anything of the sorts. It is Guido who has to disprove what he claims is not true. Besides, he is merely providing a link to my site where I have republished the piece. I have a few so far unpublished documents that I am sure a certain gent would not like them to see the light of day. It wasn't just painting bridges. There was the leaflet distribution...
My story says that the story was published in 1986 in the Guardian, it says what the story said - which can be read all over the WWW and in a good civic library anyway - and it surmised that this was the work of a kid who has now grown up. So far so so.
Then, when Guido started his bullocking act I have noted what he has said on the blog i.e. that he says it's untrue and claims there is a retraction out there somewhere. But he will not point me at it. Or forward it. And still others claim it does not exist.
The exchanges I have now seen with other bloggers on this story, including an account of a meeting, shows that Guido does not keep his promises. He does not play fair. And at the end of the day I'm still wating for help from Guido.
If Guido provides that help e.g. points out or forwards the fabled retraction we can start the dance. If he cannot or will not do so it is his own fault that the story sits here as it is. It is not difficult to comply with my request is it? And as I say the story is already sitting all over the place on the web and in our public libraries.
Guido must help us check these facts. Mine are:
Story in 86 - said XY and Z - G now grown up - plus, added as soon as, G says not true and that there was a retraction. But we can't find that.
But G will not say in what way the story is untrue and he will not point out of forward the retraction.
Come on Guido. Which allegations in the original Guardian piece are untrue? What is it in my precis that is untrue. Why are you such a big baby, big bully and big brother?
I am willing to provide equal space and prominence for G's rebuttal if he cares to make one beyond the frankly idiotic "Because it is bollocks". And I will take it down and apologise if I have cause to do that.
No one cares much what Guido did in his youth. But as a champion of coarse blogging with a track record of utter bull passing as exclusives his antics in threatening legal sanctions are a real story so hot on the heels of his celebrated cock ups on BBC Newsnight.
Perhaps this kid has not grown up after all? Perhaps he is spoilt as well as dishonest, a host of potty mouths and a political reactionary?
PS:
Send a statement Guido. A proper statement of what is and is not true about the Guardian story or my blog post and I will publish it. Within reason.
I will also edit the post further if your contribution merits that and if you persuade me I may even take it down. Safe in the knowledge that the truth will out and that it is out there.
I like this quote "Thatcher on drugs" from Paul Staines. He would know all about that.
Chris
I will link to this too and this buffoon can sue me if he wants.
I suggest all left-of-centre bloggers do the same.
Lets see if he can take us al on.
I published the full text of The Guardian story months ago. Not because I give a fuck but because I'm thinking of declaring myself bankrupt and it would be helpful if Big Staineybreeks sued me, so that I can go from no assets to minus assets.
Just tell him, I'm the source of the whole thing and you got it off my blog. He can sue me if he likes. As a libertarian I shall ignore his reactionary appeals to authority. What will it change, he'll still have been shit on Newsnight and I'll still be skint.
Thanks all. Paul Delaires-Staines can either admit he was young and a bit silly once, or sue everyone for a Guardian story of 86 being repeated. Like a good ill-liberatarian.
Is he still communing with the BNP fucks? Or is he just throwing his weight around? The fact he has a little grinning avatar and a lot of fucking agression does not make me respect him. Far from it. His judgement is piss poor and he is all for one.
Why on earth do 100s of 000s of people go to his blog? Or has he got some dodgy click through scam going in Singapore? Plus a few potty mouths from his old school. The swine! GuF is crap.
What a troubled bag of shit he is. How could he look worse than after being taken apart completely on Newsnight? Obviously he was a kid once and a bit right wing. But now he's grown up?
Why on earth do 100s of 000s of people go to his blog?
That's what I wonder. It really is shite. Yours and a whole host of others are much better yes even Mr Dale's even though he is a tory proper.
parburypolitica: That's the $64,000 question. Beats me! I find it lacking, which is where we are at with Guido's supposed retraction...
Is it practically possible that the Fawkes monster has got a "click centre" out in the Far East somewhere keeping his stat wanks in good shape and doing his damnable surveys?
Sorry. Came back and spotted a typo.
To repeat my comments:
The anonymous comment @ 02 April, 2007 14:08 correctly repeats the guts of Staines' case under the current libel laws, as was explained to me.
It really is a useful piece of information, and we should be thankful that it was delivered. Anonymously.
BTW, I hate to go off-topic, but I hear tell that all people of Indian descent have a genetic defect; an imbalance in brain chemistry that makes it impossible for them to be racist.
I wondered when you would get over here Tim.
What do you take me for? Some kind of obsessive? You're mental, you are.
;oP
Could Tim Ireland please drop me a line at my email address to confirm that he is the author of the comments attributed to him above. Not bovvered either way but I'd like to know and also for other readers to know.
Done.
(Please excuse the change in profile. I explain why I have done this here.)
If anyone like anonymous 11:35 wishes to post libel on the web e.g. comments on other bloggers being racist, sexist, drug dealers, criminals, mad etc etc could you please get your own blog and do it there. I don't want to have to go to moderation as that would be very tedious.
Post a Comment