When the news of Grant “Spiv” Shapps’ possible Wikipedia wanderings surfaced yesterday afternoon, those who already knew that the Tory Party chairman had a reputation for being economical with the actualité faced a simple choice: jump into the fray on one side or the other before getting the right story, or hold back and watch Shapps’ claims of innocence get slowly but surely taken apart - and enjoy the show.
Fart in lift Inquiry experiences sudden follow-through
Sadly, for the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, this binary choice was too much even for them: Shapps was a Tory, they were shilling for the Tories, and so Shapps was right. In pursuit of this, a post titled “Tories Accuse Labour Of Stitching Up Shapps” was published, telling of a “Punchy kick back from a Tory source regarding the accusations that Grant Shapps did in Tory rivals on Wikipedia”.
Having quoted the CCHQ rebuttal verbatim, the post goes on “A big shout, but if it was a stitch up, it’s deniable”. Deniable by whom? If they were so sure, why not tell “Spiv” before he fetched up on Newsnight last night and made a number of accusations that he not only could not possibly have stood up, but which have been shown to be completely wrong? And, talking of Newsnight, the Fawkes rabble have that covered as well.
“Shapps Comes Out Fighting” they proclaimed this morning, explaining “It is fair to say all the evidence against Grant Shapps is purely circumstantial, there is no conclusive smoking gun, on that basis the Tory chairman would have a good case for defamation against The Guardian”. Who’s the Fawkes blog grammar coach, John Prescott? Once again, “Spiv” is taken at his word.
The suggestion “One for the courts perhaps?” is also made, which, it seems, is not going to happen, as Shapps’ claims regarding the Labour Party have been shown to be totally false. When is Shapps going to take this supposed action of which they speak? And where do they get “It is not impossible he was framed, it is also possible that an over eager aide could be responsible”? The Wikipedia edits are there for all to see.
This blind loyalty to someone who is a proven liar, and whom nobody with brain engaged would trust any further than they could reasonably expect to chuck him, is inexplicable, except for one thing: the apparent shilling by the Fawkes blog for the Tory Party, despite the amateurish denial yesterday of Peter Jukes’ recent claims (filleted HERE). Only true loyalty would drive such instant rebuttals before getting the facts first.
Equally, suggesting the Guardian may have defamed Shapps is taking him at his word - not always wise - in order to divert attention. Peter Jukes’ characterisation of the Fawkes rabble as “A disownable branch of Conservative HQ” is only reinforced by their improbable leap to Shapps’ defence. We’re so close to the election that binning the party chairman would be fatal to the Tories’ cause. So he has to be defended at all costs.
The Fawkes blog is totally independent. And if you believe that, you’ll believe anything.
"Over eager". Is that like being over firm?
Yes. And "over promoted"
Guido has been trying to disparage the #Milifandom twitter phenomenon today, as has Mensch and SunNation, so one can only assume Rupert has issued some kind of decree.
Post a Comment