The Internet never forgets; this truism is a favourite of the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, ever ready to pounce on those who unwisely commit assertions and opinions to pixel and then spend rather longer frantically covering their tracks after being shown to be plain flat wrong. So it is a moment to savour when the boot is shown to be so firmly on the other foot.
This is because The Great Guido has posted in haste, but then has encountered some kind of problem, and pulled it. Sadly, the Internet never forgets, even when the foul-up happens Chez Fawkes. The subject was Peter Hain’s naming, using Parliamentary privilege, of Philip Green as the man who could not be named by the Telegraph.
Perhaps Staines’ sense of entitlement - he had previously been instrumental in Hain resigning from the cabinet - got the better of him. But what we do know is that the Media Guido Twitter feed went off the end of the pier in no style at all late on Saturday, telling “Telegraph’s Editor MacGregor Told Hain About Green … Tellling Hain Was Injunction Breach … Did MacGregor Encourage Friend Hain to Use Parliamentary Privilege?”
This Tweet has since been deleted, and before that happened, the URL it contained was changed to point to a still extant post titled “Hain Is Pais Advisor To Telegraph’s Lawyers”. However, and here we encounter a significantly sized however, the URL originally pointed to the suddenly-deleted “Telegraph’s Editor MacGregor Told Hain About Green”, which makes a claim the Fawkes rabble may have problems standing up.
Hain had asserted “in my personal capacity as an independent member of the House of Lords. I categorically state that I was completely unaware Gordon Dadds were advising the Telegraph regarding this case… Gordon Dadds, a highly respected and reputable international law firm, played absolutely no part whatsoever in either the sourcing of my information or my independent decision to name Sir Philip”.
This Tweet has been deleted ...
The Fawkes blog effectively admits this is true, but then muses “What isn’t explained is how Hain could not know that the firm he advises was involved, given their name is on the front page of the widely circulated injunction to which he was referring”.
Then come the part that most likely caused the post to be pulled: “Guido’s source claims that Ian MacGregor, the former Sunday Telegraph editor now in an ’emeritus’ editor role, was in fact the person who told Hain about the case - which would in any event be a breach of the injunction - particularly as it applies specifically to the Telegraph Media Group Limited”. So let’s pick the bones out of that.
... and so has this post. Why might that be?
One, it is claimed that Peter Hain was the recipient of privileged information. Two, it is also claimed that MacGregor was the source of that information. Three, the clear inference is that this is some kind of conspiracy to abuse Parliamentary privilege. Four, the Fawkes blog infers that MacGregor got the information as part of his role at the Telegraph.
So what caused the post to be pulled? Did someone’s lawyers lean on The Great Guido? Was it Staines’ real bosses in the right-wing press? Whatever the answer, it’s another example of the Fawkes rabble pretending to be independent and above all that legal stuff, only to fold their tent when push comes to shove. Another fine mess.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at
0 Response to "Guido Fawkes Deleted Hain Smear REVEALED"
Post a Comment