1. PoliticalBetting on the horsetrading after the Israeli election.2. Martin Bright has an account of a stormy Cabinet meeting in which Harriet Harman proposed public hangings for bankers. Sort of.
3. Moments of Clarity is seeking clarity over the LibDem poll position.
4. Douglas Carswell kummert sich ueber Oesterreich.
5. Cicero's Songs surveys the strange death of Labour England.
6. Alastair Campbell has a rant about the wonders of state schools.
7. Donal Blaney says Draper has insulted the mentally handicapped and should apologise.
8. Baroness Ros Scott has a pair of floating ribs. And 24 other random things.
9. Dizzy outlines his comment is free for all policy. Rather him than me.
10. John Redwood: Honey, I've lost the tax revenue!
11. Plato Says has a unique take on Dolly.
12. Lord Soley has been to Afghanistan.
13 comments:
"Donal Blaney says Draper has insulted the mentally handicapped and should apologise."
Oh, come *on* Iain. How can you endorse the 'window licker' post when you know how dishonest Blaney's attack is? Paul 'Guido' Staines is the man who knowingly uses this insulting term repeatedly, and you know it. Draper is guilty of witlessly repeating the term, but surely Staines deserves at least a passing mention.
I have to admit, like Draper, I had never heard the term before, and if someone had used it to me I wouldn't have had a clue what it meant. So I have some sympathy with him on this one!
Just because I include a post in the Daley Dozen, it does not mean I agree with it. As evidenced by the number of times I link to bloggers not of my persuasion.
Has Guido used this term? Knowing what it means now, it is not one I would ever use, just as I would not have used gollywog. Still got a slagging off though, Hey ho.
'Window lickers' is the term Paul Staines uses to describe his comment contributors, and I am amazed that you would claim not to have not even seen the term before now. Is this really what you're claiming?
(see 'nihilist' before you answer)
Links in your Daley Dozen are endorsed by you to some extent, even if the language you use to describe any given link is neutral.
Also, if you don't agree with a post you put it (or the author) down within or next to the text link. (Often while failing to point out exactly how the author might be wrong, but I digress...)
And it's not a case of merely agreeing or not - what Blaney (and others) are trying to do is tag Draper with a word used in its most offensive context by one of their own; Paul Staines. It's outrageously dishonest and exploitative.
Blaney is claiming to be a defender of disabled people when he is, in fact, selectively using their plight to further his own agenda. Unless he's also claiming never to have heard this word from Staines.
Seriously, I had never heard of it before.
i think actually what is happening is Draper being called to account for his histrionics.
I am slightly surprised that you haven't been at the forefront of doing just that. I can't believe you really approve of his antics.
Hello Tim: I am happy to confirm that I had never heard that word from Guido before. The fact is that I do care passionately about the disabled and have disabled close relatives. But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of your own prejudices and warped worldview.
Iain:
That's a bit of a misleading attack you've got going on there, Iain. You know I've said my piece about Draper very early on, because you linked to it.
Also, leaving aside my being away for the past week, my getting involved in these latest events involves me pointing out (as I have elsewhere) that both you and Staines have in the past benefited from tactics and practices very similar to Draper's. Honour demands it.
So be careful what you wish for.
Oh, and in case you're wondering why I'm no 'obsessing' about Draper, here's a clue:
He's not blogging about me, publishing anonymous/abusive comments about me, or otherwise attacking me while claiming to 'ignore' me. (Or using his mates to do this for him. Not that he has any mates, but again I disgress...)
-
Donal:
1) You're seriously claiming *never* to have seen this term published by Paul Staines on his site and/or in the guise of 'Guido Fawkes'?
2) He has used the term; repeatedly and knowingly in the most offensive manner possible. So where's your blogged criticism of Paul Staines?
3) Some of my best friends are gay, and I'm not a racist, etc....
4) But I do know what 'projection' is.
Hi Tim: I guess we're wasting Iain's comment thread here but I will respond to your four points...
1. Nope. Never seen it. No doubt you will list each occasion where the word has appeared.
2. As I say, where has he had a go at people for using inappropriate wording in the way Draper did (and for which he has had to publish the most delicious apology today).
3. Me too. Nor am I.
4. So do I (not sure what your point is here but no change there: I've rarely understood what you're driving at, even though I often agree with your stance on issues such as civil liberties infringements)!
1. Not that you've done anything to earn the benefit of the doubt, but have it your way.
2. So you're only going to criticise Staines over his repeated and knowingly offensive use of the term "window licker" if he's been a hypocrite about challenging/lecturing people about inappropriate use of words? I just want to be sure of your position.
3 & 4. I'm sure you only have trouble seeing what I'm driving at because of my warped worldview.
5. If Iain doesn't mind, I'd rather chat here than at your place. I'm not having this conversation at your site because you keep pre-publication vetting on full-time and simply delete anything that's inconvenient to you. Just like Derek Draper does, in fact.
Presumably Paul Staines will be publicly apologising for this comment then?
http://www.order-order.com/2008/12/economics-of-blog-comments.html
"Iain Dale has had enough of window-lickers in his comments and introduced registration, he told Guido..."
Oh, yes.
And that'll happen right after Iain admits that he *has* seen the word before and apologises for knowingly misleading us.
Incidentally, Iain, Clive brings us a post here that you've *probably* seen that includes this term (you even linked to it). I can produce one that you've *definitely* seen that includes this term.
Once again; are you sure you've not even seen the term "window licker" before the recent faux-outrage over Draper using it?
Here's your unlucky 13 for the Daily dozen. Boris Johnson's drug awareness program :-
The Boris Guide to Drugs
Tim, Absolutely. 100%. I don't recall seeing it before, although I now see it was in Guido's post on moderating comments in December. Please don't make a big conspiracy out of this. I genuinely hadn't heard of the term before, which is why I didn't call Draper on it on my blog. I quite believe that he didn't know the connotations either. And for me to say I believe him, well, you can imagine.
Anything to say on the Alex Hilton blogpost?
Yes, as it happens.
Alex Hilton appears to be under the impression that he sold shares to Paul Staines during Paul's bankruptcy, But I'm sure that, like yourself, he was merely confused at the time.
Post a Comment