The perpetually thirsty Paul Staines, who styles himself Guido Fawkes, is not so called for nothing: not only does he posses that legendary thirst, but he also has a total of four alcohol related convictions to his name, including two for drinking and driving. The last of these occurred in 2008, with Staines escaping jail, but having to be electronically tagged and subject to a curfew.
I didn't drive here ... did I?
So it might be thought that he would maintain a low profile on the subject of drinking and driving, despite the frequent (and justified) provocation he receives on Twitter and from elsewhere in the press and blogosphere. However, that thought was shown yesterday to be misplaced, following a press release by the Libertarian Alliance (yes, yet another so-called “Alliance”).
The LA has proclaimed “Scrap All Drink Driving Laws!”, explaining that they consider the present law to be “a breach of the Common Law prohibition of searches and seizures”. There is also the tired canard telling that “every officer assigned to look for drivers over the limit is one officer fewer to catch real criminals”. The LA is apparently unaware that those so convicted are real criminals.
Given the history of drink driving laws and their role in reducing the instance of death and injury on the roads, there is zero chance of their being repealed: the LA is just pulling an attention seeking pre-Christmas stunt. But it was not long before someone on Twitter made a connection between the LA and self-proclaimed libertarian Paul Staines, although the great Guido was not provoked into replying.
So imagine my surprise when I glanced at the Fawkes blog’s latest crop of “Seen Elsewhere” links this morning, only to see the LA press release there in the midst of them. I’m sure it can be spun away – although Staines is cruder and clumsier than the worst Spinmeister – but it’s there all the same. Perhaps a big boy did it and ran away?
Either way, a twice convicted drink driver putting that link on his blog looks more than a teensy bit hypocritical. Another fine mess.
4 times convicted criminal, all alcohol related. Diabolical.
"Either way, a twice convicted drink driver putting that link on his blog looks more than a teensy bit hypocritical."
Without wishing to be a pedant, but I'm going to be anyway. Hypocrisy is the condition whereby one pertains to hold certain views whilst their behaviour and actions conform to the opposite of the view they pertain to hold.
Thus, if one who been convicted of drinking and driving, more than once as you rightly point out, then linking to a page arguing for the scrapping of said laws isn't an act of hypocrisy. In fact, it's an entirely consistent and demonstrable non-hypocritical position.
Another fine mess?
Post a Comment