Guido Fawked – Not Waving But Drowning

The continuing protestations of righteousness from the rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog following the Brooks Newmark sting, and the suspicion that this was not the finest example of investigative journalism on record, have culminated in an extraordinary rant by the odious flannelled fool Henry Cole, directed at author and playwright Peter Jukes, during yesterday.

I can't be a total sleazebag, cos I'm on telly!

Master Cole, whose revealingly loud defence of the sting the day after the Sunday Mirror splash led this blog to conclude that newly anointed teaboy Alex “Billy Liar” Wickham was indeed the presence behind the fictional “Sophie Wittams” – confirmed that evening on Newsnight by Steve Hewlett – has suggested that the Sun’s story on Newmark, which followed the Mirror one, would not have happened without it.

So in the world of The Great Guido, it was Their Story Wot Won It. However, and here we encounter a significantly sized however, this line appears to have been advanced in explanation only after Zelo Street pointed up the mildly inconvenient fact that the Sun did not need to resort to subterfuge to get their story. Previously, the justification had been the end product of Wickham’s sting.

Cole’s stance this time has been to appeal to authority: he challenges Jukes “Can you confirm when you spoke to the woman in the second story please?” before claiming “knew he was using social networks to pick up younger women. Operation successfully proved that. 2nd woman merely further proof”. And, as Jon Stewart might have said, two things here.

One, what the “operation” entailed – for instance, all of the messages exchanged – has not been released: IPSO and the wider public will be the judge of that one. And two, the second woman had a two year affair with Newmark and was not a casual pick-up. But on ploughs Cole, claiming that subterfuge “led directly” to the Sun’s story. But it does not prove the main thrust of their argument.

Wickham bleats “women would not tell stories because of worries about their careers”, but Newmark’s affair was not with someone involved with the Tory Party. Otherwise all we have is Wickham’s word, which right now has a value not unadjacent to zero. And where is that full set of messages?

Otherwise, it’s more appeals to authority, with Cole telling Jukes “yeah if you have spoken to anyone involved”, and false propositions: “So 2nd woman, who BN met online, would have come forward without reading about BN picking up girl online?” He didn’t pick up that girl online, though, did he? There wasn’t a girl involved.

So far we know Brooks Newmark had a two year affair. Otherwise, the idea that he was a “wrong ‘un” who was abusing his position appears to be another attempt to deflect questions. Full disclosure still required, lads. Another fine mess, once again.