Surprise not so surprise.

‘Guido strode purposefully towards him…“Damian!” Guido shouted at him, he turned in the doorway startled’

And then good Sir Staines did smite the rotund dragon with his lance, and verily did bile flow upon the ground. Smearing it about the place with his manly shoe, the noble knight did drink fully from his hip flask, and tasted victory, and it was sweet. Lean and handsome was the knight, in spite of his penchant for pre-lunch drinking binges.

Poor, sad, delusional Guido.

These anti-politics-libertarian types seem awfully keen to get their fingers in the politics pie, don’t they?

I can understand getting involved with politics, it’s probably quite fun for someone like Guido who can act like an utter bastard, *shurg* and move on.

But why they hell pick Nadina Dorries as a friend?! She’s particularly authoritarian for a friend of a Libertarian.

These petty ideological differences are easily brushed aside when needed.

He’s a bloomin wally int he

Is it me, or does he look a bit dodgy in that cap, hanging around outside a Catholic boys school?

Forget that – check out the video by Tory Bear. An instant classic I’m sure you’ll agree.

You really are a piece of work. It wasn’t my libel. It was the Mail on Sunday’s. As you well know I had sent them a correction, and they failed to alter the original text. Something Tom Watson recognised as well.

Should I accuse you of libelling me on my blog the other day by suggesting that I hadn’t paid you an invoice you submitted to Total Politics, when in fact, as you graciously acknowledged, it was paid within ten days?

Grow up.

Oh dear. Is that the socially-awkward, Tory blogger version of knock-down ginger?

*Knock Knock*

Look, a letter. Hehehe

*Run away*

Once again Guido shows that he is just another Tory whore.

All that individual stuff has gone up in flames now it looks like the Conservatives are going to win. Just another Tory tool.

And that cow wants to control woman’s bodies. So much for freddom from the state. Another example of Guido talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Iain Dale is lying, which should come as no great shock to anyone but his readers

While he alerted the Mail on Sunday to what he claims to be an innocent error (just a little too late to avoid it going to print… how very unfortunate) he managed comment deletions etc. strategically in such a way that for at least two days he knowingly allowed a significant percentage of readers of his weblog to remain under the false impression that what he had claimed was true, when it was not, while leaving misleading text like this live on his site (please keep in mind when reading this that there is no proof that Watson knew about these emails before the issue broke as a story, Iain only claimed there was, based on a SINGLE source).

“What did (Tom Watson) do when he found about these emails? Did he berate Damian McBride and tell him to stop abusing his position? No. Instead, he either tacitly or overtly encouraged McBride to send more.”

Close to 18,000 readers were exposed to this lie in a single day (according to Dale’s own count) and it was live long after Iain quietly removed the false claim (instead of issuing an immediate correction, which is what any decent blogger with good intentions would have done). Again, according to Iain’s own figures, at least 20% of them will have read it after reading the false claim published by the Mail on Sunday that cost them “substantial damages”, and read many subsequent passages published by Dale along the lines of “of course Tom Watson knew” (when Iain had NO way of proving this, even if it were true)

Dale has tried to defend this type of thing on the basis that it was simply opinion rather than something stated as fact, but this doesn’t wash when context is taken into account and he tried this stunt the day of Watson’s victory in court and was subsequently forced to delete at least one similar comment of his as a result.

I can prove all of this, of course.

Avoiding a lawsuit (by grace, luck or whatever) does not make you innocent, regardless of what Iain might imply here or elsewhere. (Part of the decision not to sue him may rest with the MoS having an audience in the millions compared to Dale with his thousands, but that’s pure speculation.)

PS – Iain published Sunny Hundal’s ‘libel’ himself – when he had comment moderation on! He read it, he approved it, and he published it, and he doesn’t have a leg to stand on here.

(Back on deck in a week, folks. See you then.)

Iain, should Sunny do you for libel for saying you took pickled politics off the total politics listing, then allowing the post as comment moderator, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah fucking blah

Actually, I should add to this that Iain Dale gave the appearance of being outraged by the McBride/Draper smears (that weren’t published beyond private emails), but a week or so before the laughingly overstated ’smeargate’ he was in a unique position to do something about some rather more severe and damaging smears about me (that were published in hundreds of locations) and was… a little less enthusastic.

All he had to do was make one phone call to Patrick Mercer, as his staff weren’t passing on messages to that Tory MP. Iain did NOT call Patrick Mercer as he promised to, and later lied about that.

He now refuses to talk about it, apart from repeating the lie that he called Mercer, when he did not.

From where I’m standing Iain Dale is a man who regards smears to be political collateral, and not something to be genuinely outraged about.

The bizarre aspect of this is that the claim is being served by the person who hawked the story around Fleet St. Perhaps he served himself as well?

As I recall the McBride/Draper axis of twattery had decided not to publish the made up stories about Dorries.

After being passed details of their emails it was Paul Staines himself who made them public.

Perhaps the next instalment of stalker -cam will feature Stains serving a writ on himself.

(you got ther just ahead of me Jimmy, and with better manners)

What a fat, ugly cunt “Tory Bear” is.

What a silly politician she really is. She’s in the business of muck spreading herself just like this Iain Dale bloke and Seamen Staine. Get a back bone Nadine the story wasn’t even published and if all gossip was sued then everyone will be in trouble.

right, so Tory Bear mumbles something lik “er, from, er, Nadine Dories”, looks sheepish and then shambles off.

I could understand him posting this video if he’d bitchslapped Draper, or maybe even just given him some funny chat on the doorstep…but he doesn’t. He just looks embarrased and a bit nervous.

Oh, wait, surprise surprise.

People who spend loads of time ranting about who they hate on the internet are cowards when it comes to facing people in real life.

(I include myself in this assesment, just for the record. But then, I don’t post vids of myself handing out writs)

Re: PS – Iain published Sunny Hundal’s ‘libel’ himself – when he had comment moderation on! He read it, he approved it, and he published it, and he doesn’t have a leg to stand on here.

Tut. I should have been clearer about this, as it may not be obvious to all:

Who published Iain Dale’s article that libelled Tom Watson? Was it Tom Watson on his blog? No, it was the Mail on Sunday in their newspaper (and to a lesser extent on their website).That makes Iain’s “Should I accuse you of libelling me on my blog?” challenge misleading at best; Iain was in a better position than anyone to want to doubt Sunny’s claim and be able to check it, but instead he went ahead and published it (knowing Iain, probably so he could later bitch about it). The Daily Mail were not in a similar position, because Iain Dale falsely claimed that Tom Watson was CCed on the Draper/McBride emails… he did not claim that the Daily Mail were CCed on the Draper/McBride emails.

Were the Mail on Sunday liable for this libel? The courts certainly thought so… but that does not transfer ownership of the libel entirely to them, as Dale produced it (based, he claims, on the word of a single source) and later showed that he was willing to propagate it in his own modest way, even when (by his own admission) he knew it not to be true.

(And can we please have less talk of who looks dodgy hanging around school playgrounds? This kind of grubby smear is best left to the Paul Staines of this world. If anything, the issue here is if Staines had a choice about delivery to McBride’s workplace, or if he could have served this document at home or maybe even left it to the law firm to mail it by registered post. If it can be shown that Staines deliberately tried to embarrass McBride at his new workplace, *then* you have something worthwhile to chew on. Cheers all.)

She’s beyond unpleasant, not that bright and such an opportunist. Hateful.

On closer examination it would appear there is no lawsuit at all. Mr. Draper confirmed to the torygraph that what he got was what in legal jargon is called a “letter”, and Mr. Staines reference to “official Court papers” is what in the profession is known as a “fib”. Nothing was “served”. Two rather attention-hungry individuals basically had themselves filmed delivering mail.

Incidentally those in Fleet St who believe copying guido’s witterings without checking (yes grauniad I mean you) constitutes journalism should at least be aware that libel writs have not existed since 1999.

I don’t know what the position is down south but up here court papers – if served in person – would have to be served by sheriff officers or messengers at arms (ie officers of the court). I thought they used process servers in England, rather than itinerant bloggers?

[moderated]

From what I understand, the original, never published e-mails talked of an MP who had been compromised whilst away from Parliament. The fact that the unnamed one was Nadine Dorries was put into the public domain by …….. Nadine Dorries!
Otherwise we may never have known who the e-mails referred to.

Great publicity though for the poor misunderstood one. And quite a successful way of diverting attention from the expenses issue.

I wonder what the reaction of her constituents to all this will be at the next election? And will Dave offer her a top job, being as she is such a high profile MP? With so many friends!

Nice to have you around these parts Manic.

From what I understand, the original, never published e-mails talked of an MP who had been compromised whilst away from Parliament.

Legally the emails were published the moment that they were sent from McBride to Draper.

Who published Iain Dale’s article that libelled Tom Watson?

Iain did when he sent his copy into the paper, the newspaper did when it edited it, the printers did when they printed the newspaper, the newsagents did when they sold the newspaper, the owner of the website did when he put it onto the website, the ISP provider did when they hosted it, and if you linked to the article by hyperlink then you did too.

It’s quite a broad word really.

“Legally the emails were published the moment that they were sent from McBride to Draper.”

What?

Is this a new definition of the word ‘publish’?

28 – no, a legal definition. Which as this is a law case might be relevant. Try Warren v Warren for example (which demonstrates that you don’t even need to prove that a private letter was opened by its recipient for it to have been published by its sender).

How are they chummy did they have sex with eachother. LOL.

How dare you suggest that Guido Fawkes is a sex mate of Nadine Dorries!

She would have to be 100s of years old.

Any flats for sale in South Kensington?

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill I would not know. Why are you looking for some.? See my blog to see hot babes.

That’s odd considering the link in your name goes to advertise flats for sale in South Kensington.

Oh dear.

I agree Daniel Hoffmann-Gill this guy is disgrace. Look at my blog which is just about politics.

You’re talking to yourself you spamming loon.

It was Iain Dale’s libel all day when he uttered it on the telly and the radio and to anyone who would listen, as Nadine did, and it WAS Iain Dale’s libel too in the piece he submitted to the Mail which wasn’t properly fact checked or otherwise rational and which was an extraordinary knee jerk.

The fact Mr Dale tried to stop this lot, perhaps 12 hours or more after he started uttering the libel, perhaps more, but as it goes TOO LATE does not make it any less of a libel.

Or perhaps it does?

Suppose Mr M had uttered some mad fuck crap to Mr D and coterie (cf Mail features desk) for potential publication in a few months time but that Mr D and Mr M perhaps had decided not to publish any of it as it was WRONG would that be better or worse than Mr Dale uttering some mad fuck crap to the Mail which was WRONG paradoxically on a story about getting stuff wrong and all that, and trying to stop it too late, and it actually being published by them?

Mr Dale: Tried in vain to stop a crappy detail of a fairly crappy totality which showed his normal absence of fact-checking and responsibility being published.

Draper’s D team: Didn’t publish any of the silly crap at their disposal.

Why is Dale commenting in this outraged way. IT WAS YOUR MISTAKE IAIN. All blooming day it was. Repeated and repeated and repeated. With more than a few comments here there and everywhere suggesting it was bollocks.

And this unsubstantiated thought was sent off in purple prose to the Mail, in an email very likely.And this was OBVIOUSLY far more damaging than a stupid satire-o-booze email circulated among idiot mates. Yet even now “It’s not Iain’s fault!” That’s crap.

If she was having an affair with Paul Staines it would be called Guido Fucks.

Fuck off spammer.