Following his realisation that the “compromise” agreed by the parties over press regulation actually means Cameron caving in to statutory underpinning of the new regulator, together with it being able to force corrections to be printed and the lack of veto over appointments, the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines is now trying to claw back some ground for his press pals by going after Hacked Off.
Yeah, I got the info when I was in the pub, shit, no, office, having a cocktail, bollocks, no, coffee. With a big slug of Jamesons in. Oh sod it
And The Great Guido has made a startling discovery about the campaigning group: those who have donated to it tend to be able to afford donations of £1,000 and upwards. Hey everyone, the well-off sometimes have a bit of cash going spare! Woah! No shit Sherlock. So the Fawkes blog has started posting details of all the donors, as if this will improve the situation of his pals in the press.
So who is Staines naming, if not shaming (as if any of them gives the proverbial flying foxtrot what he thinks)? Lady Annabel Goldsmith is first, but apart from her having been married to the deeply unpleasant James Goldsmith, few people will care what she spends her dosh on. So the Fawkes rabble has moved swiftly on to Jeremy Clarkson, as they allege he gave Hacked Off £1,000 (he says he didn't).
I'm not shagging anyone, cos I'm on telly!
And, so what? Well, because Superinjunctions! So let’s get this straight: Clarkson can’t donate money because he once went to law. No, doesn’t compute, sorry. Next? Arpad Busson. Who he? Ah, he once dated Elle Macpherson and Uma Thurman, so now Staines is on an envy trip. Busson gets called “Shagger” by the blogger who bragged to the Guardian about who his gofers sleep with.
He did? Staines told Aida Edemariam that his main source of information nowadays was: “the bag-carrier class – advisers, press officers obviously – and you know, Harry drinks with them, sleeps with them, whatever, and Alex – Wiki, as we call him – same thing”. So he’s either a liar or a hypocrite (no change there). But, back with the Fawkes blog, there’s more.
John Frieda donated to Hacked Off, apparently. He’s a sleb hairdresser. And Alain de Botton too, who gets smeared as a “millionaire”, so that’s like Fawkes pals Dacre, Littlejohn, Murdoch and the rest. But just hold on a moment: campaigning groups not saying who funds them? Why isn’t The Great Guido going after every one of them? After all, there are plenty better established than Hacked Off.
Like, oh, I dunno, the Adam Smith Institute, the place Staines had been drinking the evening he got pulled over by the rozzers for his second drink driving conviction. And the IEA. And the CPS. And the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance. Why is Staines not in hot pursuit of these secretive bodies? Where are the disclosures about rich folks bunging these people a few thousand notes?
Once again, Paul Staines shows he is a clueless hypocrite. Another fine mess.
Seen on Twitter:
"Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes
Hacked Off Donors #2: Jeremy Clarkson Gave Hacked Off £1,000"
"Jeremy Clarkson @JeremyClarkson
@GuidoFawkes You had better delete this. Because it simply isn't true."
Another fine mess?
I have amended Para 3 of the post accordingly, if only because the word of Jeremy Clarkson is, on balance, rather more trustworthy than that of The Great Guido. Another fine mess, indeed.
It would seem to me that if Guido targets people simply because of the company they keep then he opens his own family to such treatment. Would he be happy if Orla Murphy became a target of vilification, including at her VTB Capital workplace? Or perhaps he thinks his perfectly innocent daughters, Saoirse and Caoimhe, are acceptable targets? I do not, but Guido's logic says otherwise.
Tim, the Anon above is pretty fucking creepy.
That would not have been my choice of words, although I don't agree with where that comment appears to be leading - not at all.
But I'm also not keen on censorship.
Post a Comment