The Lazy and Conceited Paul Staines 24


Alistair Darling is quite rightly coming under attack today for having his snout firmly in the trough, claiming a second home allowance while renting out his “First” home and living in two government mansions.

You can read a very good expose by the Telegraph’s Deputy Political Editor, Robert Winnett, here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/5110227/Alistair-Darling-claims-thousands-for-third-home.html

Or you could go to Paul Staines’ Guido Fawkes blog and see his lead article today, which is completely plagiarised from Winnett. Not one fact is given by Guido which is not in Winnett’s article, not does he add value by a single new thought in comment.

If you want your reheated Tory propagande through the blogosphere, stick to Iain Dale. At least he isn’t ugly.


24 thoughts on “The Lazy and Conceited Paul Staines

  • kardinalbirkutski

    So all this is just Tory propaganda? He isn’t claiming a second home allowance, then? And are you David Icke in disuise?

  • Craig

    Kardinal

    Which part of “Alistair Darling is quite rightly coming under attack today for having his snout firmly in the trough”

    Did you not understand?

  • oldrightie

    I agree with some of your remarks. However, I now see Beckett is in the frame. Be nice to tot up over the last twelve years how much they have purloined.

  • Craig

    Guido

    You give a bit as a verbatim quote, and paraphrase the rest to make up your entire article. What do you feel you added?

  • Craig

    Guido

    You give a little bit as a verbatim quote, and paraphrase the rest to make up your entire article. What do you feel you added?

  • Tom

    Not only are these MPs stealing within the rules they make for themselves, they are also interpreting those rules to make out their innocence even thought the rules say “Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties.”[*] Where does that leave the Smith BBQ I wonder? Also when obviously caught claiming for say, porn, what other crime can you be absolved from by simply reimbursing the victim?

    [*] http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/GreenBook.pdf

  • John D Monkey

    Craig

    I don’t really like defending Mr. Staines but for once you’ve rushed to judgement without checking. The text is pretty obviously a quote in the same format he usually uses and when I read it I was not mislead into thinking he was plagiarising. No story here, I think.

  • Craig

    John

    You are right, I think. I was just indulging in a little blog to blog ribbing. His blog is usually essential reading.

  • anticant

    The most obnoxious feature of Guido’s blog is the rancid sexism, homophobia and leering lavatorial innuendo displayed by many of his commentators. Presumably he could curb this if he wished to, but he obviously doesn’t. Because of this schoolboy smuttiness I can scarcely be bothered to look at his site these days.

  • vervet

    anticant:”Presumably he could curb this if he wished to …”

    Yes he could, but that would be censorship, which is contrary to the philosophy of his blog … and it is HIS blog, so he can do that, do you see ?

    If you are such a miserable, politically correct puritan that you cannot deal with that stuff, then don’t “… scarcely be bothered to look …”, just stay away completely. You’ve as much right to do that as Guido has to permit smut.

  • anticant

    Dear vervet, I’m not miserable, politically correct, or a puritan. If I want to read graffiti on toilet walls I’ll do that – if NuLabour nannies haven’t yet closed them all down.

    But I don’t want to read vile scurrilous obscene personal attacks on a supposedly serious political blog, even when directed against people I politically dislike and despise.

    I’m not a supporter of ‘hate speech’ laws. But as a gay man, and a veteran campaigner for gay rights, I think the homophobic sneers and smears on Guido’s blog stink. What’s wrong with being gay? And if Gordon Brown or any one else in his government is, so what? It’s their personal business. As for the sexual proclivities of some of Guido’s posters, I prefer not to speculate.

    It is not censorship to make clear what tone of comments one finds acceptable on one’s blog, as Craig does and I do. And it’s certainly not like the humbug of the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ site which constantly deletes opinions it dislikes at the drop of a hat so that its title is ludicrously hypocritical and I long ago gave up posting on it for that reason.

    Yes, if Guido want to permit smut, he’s every right to. More fool him if he aspires to be a seriouds political blogger. And as for the name-calling, keep it to yourself please.

  • ken

    @Craig “You are right, I think. I was just indulging in a little blog to blog ribbing. His blog is usually essential reading.”

    Guido Fawkes blog has been mentioned a couple of times now. I used to read it, but not for quite a while. I don’t know why anyone who reads Craig’s blog bothers with it. This is far more informative, relevant, and entertaining.

  • Iain Dale

    Presumably next time you want some publicity, you won’t be approaching me. At least, I wouldn’t bother if I were you.

    Not quite sure what has provoked this snide little comment, seeing as I have gone out of my way to support you in the past.

  • David McKelvie

    Peter Oborne pretty much described the scum we have in Parliament in his book “The Triumph of the Political Class”.

  • Anonymous

    Iain

    It was a joke, for goodness sake – and aimed at Paul rather than you.

  • vervet

    anticant:

    I don’t need the lecture from you – I am just a strong believer in freedom of expression and abhor snide criticism of other’s views, particularly when they have no connection with the original subject matter (Craig’s criticism was of plagiarism).

    You ignored the subject and simply took the opportunity to express your personal criticism.

  • anticant

    Well, vervet, don’t pose as a champion of free speech and then attack my use of it. I made no “snide criticism of other’s [sic] views”: I expressed my contempt of scurrilous personal abuse and innuendo masquerading as political blogging. My point was – and is – that the filthy nature of many of the comments which Paul Staines hosts on his blog demeans him and makes ‘Guido’ much less compelling as a serious political forum. There’s more than enough to dislike and condemn about politicians without resorting to this sort of tosh.

    I hope Mr Staines will read this and think about it.

  • Tim Ireland

    “Presumably next time you want some publicity, you won’t be approaching me. At least, I wouldn’t bother if I were you.”

    Once again, the self-appointed ambassador for blogging withholds linky-love from people he does not like (a position anyone can qualify for from the moment you dare to criticise the great man).

    But he repeatedly makes out that his website is the best place to turn for a fair and balanced overview of the blogosphere; how can this be if he is deliberately/repeatedly censoring links to people he does not like?

  • Tim Ireland

    Unless Iain Dale denies being a Tory propagandist and regards any assertion that he is to be an insult or ‘snide remark’. In which case, he would have to hold the position that all he does all day on his own weblog is insult people.

    (Oh, and Paul/’Guido’? That link of you use as proof of your good intentions is stashed under a single word. It may as well be hidden, for all the good is does your average reader.)

Comments are closed.