After the muddled attempt by the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog to rubbish author and journalist Peter Jukes over a complaint to the so-called Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), which chided Jukes over a supposed breach of “Clause 1: Accuracy” - never a fertile ground for the Fawkes folks to stand and fight - this blog dismantled their rubbish in short order.
Fart in lift Inquiry springs a leak
The Fawkes blog had no room to call anyone out on grounds of accuracy: in their post attacking Jukes, they even got the name of the paper that carried the Brooks Newmark sting engineered by newly anointed teaboy Alex “Billy Liar” Wickham wrong (it wasn’t the Daily Mirror, but the Sunday title). They had been snarking at Labour MP Andy Burnham, about when he was Health Secretary. They said that was in 2008. Only a year out, then.
Sadly for the Fawkes rabble, the news that they were not in an ideal position to call anyone out for anything to do with accuracy was not easy for all of them to handle. After Jukes Retweeted a link to my post, Wickham blubbed “seriously Peter, we can disagree, but you’re better than linking to a David Icke-style conspiracy theory blog”. Yes, an habitual liar calling on someone else for allegedly peddling conspiracy theories.
Why should he be so sore about my post? Ah well. A quick look shows that Wickham was the author of the attack on Jukes, which may disappoint Peter: he might have at least expected The Great Guido himself to have penned it. But let’s check that headline one more time. “IPSO: Peter Jukes Claims breached accuracy rules”. The first line of the post confirms “Press regulator IPSO has slammed claims made by Peter Jukes”.
Someone protesting a little too much
What did IPSO actually “slam”, then? As Jukes explained, “In the version [of his book Beyond Contempt, available at good bookshops, online, or as an e-book, folks] serialised by the Press Gazette before the book went to the presses, there was one minor error of chronology which was corrected in a day”. That was all. So, once again, Wickham is in breach - twice - of “Clause 1: Accuracy”.
It gets worse, when you look at the text of the IPSO adjudication, which, by complete coincidence, the Fawkes folks have managed not to include in their post. Here is the relevant extract, which will not make comfortable reading for Wickham: “the adjudication does not make a specific finding that Peter Jukes breached Clause 1 of the Code; the decision relates to the editorial processes at Press Gazette”.
So the claims “IPSO: Peter Jukes breached accuracy rules” and “Press regulator IPSO has slammed claims made by Peter Jukes” are, er, in breach of “Clause 1: Accuracy”. I’ll go further: teaboy Wickham should be looking for the nearest fire extinguisher, as his pants are well and truly alight. Of course, had he not protested so loudly, he might have got away with that, instead of being caught lying again.
The Fawkes rabble calling accuracy on others never ends well. Another fine mess.
It always amazes me why Alex “Billy Liar” Wickham has not his own opinion on almost everything. All he does is to retweet or comment on things said by Paul or Henry. Why is so difficult for him to be himself?
Post a Comment