Staines undoubtedly got a scoop with the McBride emails, but that has to be put in context against the blogs typical content of nastiness.

Paul Staines’s acts are often those of an anarchist or possibly a political nihilist. That is not a reason for assuming that he always acts against those in power. His political career in the 1980s was one where he was happy to work with authoritarians when it suited his argument. Staines validly noted human rights abuses by the Sandinistas in Nicaragua but remains strangely silent on the behaviour of the contras. During his time with David Hart’s Committee for a Free Britain he worked alongside ex spooks.

Staines did a good thing when exposing Damian McBride, but that does not make him a good thing overall.

Well no one else saw him wearing it. If the hat’s on the basis of a couple of interviews with the MSM, then one visit to his website would have removed all illusion.

OK, apologies.

Niiiiiiice.

cjcjc, you attack the reputations of others while risking nothing (and I’m not talking about ‘the Dale treatment’). When I use my nickname ‘Manic’, it’s with a profile that links to my site. Where possible I will also/instead use the account name ‘bloggerheads’, which is reliably unique and identifies me by my site. My name is not only relatively unique, my site is the top search result for it in most if not all search engines… and even then I include a link or reference to my site where possible, including here. That site makes it totally clear who I am, what I’m about politically and what I do for a living.

Some people care enough about what I say to use that transparency to their advantage and spread false claims about me. Others will be slightly more subtle than falsely claiming that I’m a convicted paedophile and instead repeatedly attach tags like ‘obsessive’ to my name. Typically, they will be anonymous or using an alternative identity when they do so.

You either have an alternative identity or two or you spend all your time here as ‘cjcjc’ throwing negative noise about (but never standing for anything on your own platform) and calling others ‘obsessive’ on your limited understand of their own pursuit(s). You admit here you haven’t even read my website enough to see and recognise that reliable indentifying information is published on it on a regular basis.

“I’m not even bothered about multiple identities – so what?”

But I can see that even trying to discuss that with you is a waste of time.

And while you grudgingly accept the word ‘hypocrite’, you and others will not care/recognise that Paul Staines has been hiding behind a pseudonym for years while attacking others, *and* now that he’s using his name, he is lying to readers/viewers about his position on smears and how he conducts himself. Paul Staines does not regard what McBride/Draper suggested doing to be “obscene and what is unacceptable in politics” because he does worse on a regular basis himself.

He is not a man to be trusted clean up the smear culture, and/as he knowingly tells/publishes lies and spreads falsehoods on his website.

To paraphrase an earlier comment of mine, I come not to bury Paul Staines, but to knock that silly-looking white hat off his head.

99.999% of people who come across you online only know you as your online identity, ie “that interesting/investigative/obsessive Bloggerheads bloke”, don’t they?
They have no idea who you are beyond your online activity; nor I would guess do they care.

I could tell you my real name, but it would mean nothing to you, or to anyone else.
(Plus I might be slightly worried about getting the Dale treatment!)
Though I can tell you there are hundreds of me in the London phone book.

I’m not even bothered about multiple identities – so what? – though I don’t go in for them myself.

“Nick, I’ll happily debate the point with you, but not when you’re being an arsehole about it and persistently waving the mental/obsessive tag around.”

you were referring to me, not the other various commentators (I can assure we are not the same person).

When I used the word dredge, I was referring to your whattaboutery, which can be done by any commentator. No need for obsession to be intimated. But I guess intention isn’t everything in interpretation. Perhaps we are just speaking a slightly different language or reading the comments in a slightly different context.

If you’re talking of talk of sock-puppetry, I think you’ll find that it was cjcjc who started it.

If you’re talking about chucking the mental tag about, I haven’t chucked it about for starters, and I’ll happily clarify my comment. I referred to cjcjc’s use of the word ‘obsessive’ to refer to my often persistent pursuit of Dale or Staines, when he is far more persistent here than I’ve ever been at either site. He is in no position to declare that my (lesser) persistence is obsession, and I can say that without implying anything about his mental state *plus*, regardless of all that… I think you’ll find that it was cjcjc who started it.

And you didn’t simply take me up on the mental comment; accidental implication or not, you took the opportunity to breeze right over simple to-the-point things like my asking where exactly I “dredge[d] up all the other stuff he has done and who he is”.

And now it looks like you’re accusing me of starting things I didn’t start.

This makes me less inclined to trust you or waste valuable time on you.

I just said you sounded weird and that you had a “strange and possessive demenour towards the blogosphere online”. I’m sorry I took you up on the mental comment though. I try not to use the term with someone I am merely disagreeing with, even in jest.

(So your position/claim is that your use of the name ‘Richard’ on LC is your only online presence, yes? And it’s wrong for me to suggest that you have other identities that you use in other social/political forums and that nothing links them together, not even a unique name? Keeping in mind that the name ‘Richard’ alone don’t mean much when there are so many Richards in the world.)

Nick, I’ll happily debate the point with you, but not when you’re being an arsehole about it and persistently waving the mental/obsessive tag around.

You are calling me a sock puppet? I’ve been posting here for months you tit. Ask the moderators who will confirm my IP doesn’t come from the same location as Guido or Dale.

No, you sound mental to me for entirely independent reasons.

Mere obsession, which is another apparent trait of yours, is probably an advantage in blogging. As the guy who does the Bad Science science argued at the recent Convention on Liberty. It means collectively, blogs can pick up a lot more details that would previously have gone unnoticed.

But besides your digging, wouldn’t it be nice just to have a quick breath to say something along the lines of what Guy said, that McBride had it coming and it was well played by Guido. I know everyone here thinks he is some sort of privateer for the Tory party, but I think he might be a genuine anarchist. A useful one because his skill is directed at people who have or are seeking power over us.

1. “in response you dredge up all the other stuff he has done and who he is”…? All the other stuff? As in a whole bunch of stuff that’s unrelated? Where did I do that?

2. Paul Staines makes stuff up and peddles falsehoods and uses multiple identities, too. It doesn’t matter if he was right about some of the things he claims this once; one still has to be wary of anything he might claim, right down to the way he words it. Witness Iain Dale going to the Mail on Sunday with a false claim of someone being CCed on the smeargate emails as a relevant example of where this might go wrong (which one can do while recognising that Dale has yet to confirm that Staines was his single source on that claim)

3. So your message to those who believe that Paul Staines is in the business of fighting smears and not creating/publishing them is… nothing, you don’t think it’s worth bringing them up to speed? Just checking.

4. And your message to anyone who might be concerned enough to mention it is that they might be a bit mental? Again, just checking.

5. Did you catch the part(s) where I had Glen Jenvey bang to rights and he called me an obsessive mental case? That happens to me a lot, and it’s not because I’m a mental case, and I know that because I have a ‘not mental’ stamp on my forehead to prove it.

But he’s a nobody, so I should just leave him to it… is that what you’re saying?”

Actually, what you did with Glen was very good. And no matter how weird you sound on this thread, no one can take that success away from you. The difference is that Glen made a whole lot of stuff up, and you caught him out on it. Well done. Guido caught a bunch of No 10 smear operators out. Well done to him. Except in response you dredge up all the other stuff he has done and who he is to try and diminish that particular success. That is the whatabouttery.

It would be like me saying that your success with Glen is less so because you also have a strange and possessive demenour towards the blogosphere online. Which doesn’t make sense. No matter what you do generally, what you did with Glen was good. Can’t you say that about Guido too?s to try and diminish that particular success. That is the whatabouttery.

It would be like me saying that your success with Glen is less so because you also have a strange and possessive attitude towards the blogosphere. Which doesn’t make sense. No matter how you behave generally, what you did with Glen was good. Can’t you say that about Guido too?

The alternative is the cosy “lobby” cabal which has proved so ineffective, on everything from Iraq to McBride.
Perhaps there is a middle ground; it would be nice to think so but I haven’t spotted it so far.
And I don’t see how Tim Ireland’s antics do anything to get us there.
I’m probably just being stupid.

As for Brown, he is toast anyway.
I just want his fall to be as humiliating as possible.

Have you had any impact at all?

It’s nice to be anti-establishment. But be careful what you wish for.

Glen’s doing the whole free market thing, too. He’s telling a tabloid audience what they want to hear, selling some stories to newspaper that are often false if not entirely fabricated, faking a few online identities along the way, exposing ‘evil doers’ by fair means and foul…. just like Paul Staines does in most respects.

But he’s a nobody, so I should just leave him to it… is that what you’re saying?

Good luck.

Why?