Sunday, May 18, 2008

Blogging feuds

I've only just seen this, so maybe you haven't seen it yet?

Think that the latest comments-box argument that you were in turned a bit nasty? It was nothing compared to this. Guido has been nicked for drink driving and not having car-insurance.

Tim Ireland went to the court to watch the sentencing.

Guido has had a supervision order placed on him and he has to wear an electronic tag to enforce a night-time curfew. He's calling Tim a stalker and Tim thinks he's also being called a paedophile by Guido sock-puppets.

I don't know. Do you think that Tim and Guido will leave it at that? Draw a line under things?

And where will this all end? I know Guido is a great man for betting. Maybe a bookie can be commissioned to do a spread on when one of them successfully manages to bring a high-value civil action against the other, or when one of them successfully engineers a custodial sentence for the other?

It would be in poor taste to bet on who will be the first to hire a hit-man, so I won't.

5 comments:

Tim said...

If Paul Staines really thinks this is a personal vendetta, then it's exactly as Judge Stone noted; he lacks the insight to realise when he's a danger to other people.

And if he really considered me to be a stalker, he wouldn't be baiting me.

As usual, he's just trying to save face and avoid the issue.

Watch Paul's Newsnight report again and see him express concern about the cozy little arrangements that he himself now enjoys when operating with far less oversight/accountability than the MSM... and most bloggers.

Remember, Newsnight was Paul's big chance to make his case and - unlike the live crash-and-burn that followed - he was totally in charge of the script.

Now it's Paul who enjoys the benefits of a conspiracy of silence. His right-wing mates aren't mentioning this unless it's to yell 'stalker' at me or make the most of the questionable "4 bottles a week" figure. If it were an MP or a village journo from the left, Staines and Co. would have been all over them and moralising until the heavens fell.

And, having pressed them over matters of substance (try it sometime for yourself and see how far you get), I'm now 'shut out' and have been forbidden access to Paul Staines and Iain Dale via comments (again, watch Staines' Newsnight report). Neither of them are honest about the reasons why.

Now Dizzy has banned me. Why, I'm not sure. Perhaps I somehow offended him when he published my home phone number on his website and called me to have a top-of-his-lungs shout because I dared to point out that he was wrong*. Or maybe it's just because he and his mate Paul need a safe place to make their bullshit case.

(*Dizzy was hinting none-too-subtly that certain semi-anonymous comments on his site were originating from Tom Watson... when one was published while most political bloggers were watching him live on the TV during the budget. Dizzy didn't have to enjoy me pointing this out, but his way-OTT reaction was totally uncalled for. And his story about how he got my ex-directory number keeps changing.)

Mr Eugenides said...

It does rather put common-or-garden comments-box arguments into perspective, doesn't it?...

BenSix said...

Essentially, Guido remains one of only two bloggers - that I know of - that have attempted or seriously threatened to initiate legal proceedings against another blogger. With that in mind, I couldn't care less whether he's been a bit irritated by a lot of comments from Tim.

Still, let's all be joined in the spirit of love and forgiveness, eh?

Peter Risdon said...

I can't see what Guido's drink driving has to do with his blogging, and Tim does seem obsessive, but then perhaps he has a right to feel personally aggrieved after the completely unpardonable libel threat.

Publicising a home telephone number was also completely inexcusable.

It's odd what gets picked up and what doesn't. I'm puzzled that none of the left of centre blogs have been following the news that a UK based company seems to have flown Chinese-made arms into Zimbabwe.

Paulie said...

Peter,

I'd agree with you an all of the points (apart from the Zimbabwe / arms flight thing which is news to me - I've not looked at a paper for a few days tho - busy).

It's just I think there is something very funny about actually going to court to laugh at an adversary being sentenced. A friend of mine wrote a quite-good (unused, sadly) TV script about a vendetta that involved rivals engineering disasters for each other, and turning up to gloat each time.

It ended with one of them being convicted for being a kiddie-fidler and being buggered* in the nick while his enemy (who had managed to get a job as a prison officer) watched.

*Probably why it never got screened.