It's been an 'interesting' day for the blogosphere, following the resignation of William Hague's Special Advisor, Christopher Myers, linked to a series of allegations. Naturally, I'm not the first to comment on this. At Liberal Democrat Voice, Stephen Tall and Iain Roberts have already made valuable contributions to debate. Elsewhere, Iain Dale has, somewhat handwringingly, claimed that today has been a bleak day for the political blogosphere. Perhaps I have a perspective that differs from others. After all, Paul Staines has been pretty vile towards my wife in the past...
Let's start with the allegations. The best way to proceed is to break them down...
- Was Christopher Myers in possession of sufficient skills to carry out his job?
- Was he appointed to that position for reasons that might represent an abuse of office?
- Was he involved in a sexual relationship with the person by whom he was subsequently employed?
My view, for what it's worth, is that conflating the three elements into one, Guido has gone beyond fair comment to, potentially, libel. I can understand why he's done it, after all, sex always attracts attention, building momentum behind an otherwise technical story about subjectives.
If doubts exist about Christopher Myers and the legitimacy of his appointment, and it wasn't an issue that was on my radar, it is perfectly within bounds for Guido to ask questions. Not very nice, perhaps, but then he never pretended to be a saint. Given the increasingly held view of public servants as being valid targets for abuse, and given the history of Special Advisors, he was rather more likely to be scrutinised than some. If there is evidence to indicate that the appointment was unmerited, then there would be legitimate questions about why he was appointed - it is public money, lest we forget.
So, why the innuendo about sexuality? Well, it's a fairly obvious inference if you're minded to reach it, and there were, it was reported, rumours of William Hague's past. It sounded viable, if hearsay and rumour have common currency with facts.
And this is where Paul Staines's status becomes an issue. He has the right to free speech, and I strongly believe that society is not free unless individuals have the right to speak their minds, regardless of the view expressed. However, with that right comes responsibility, in particular the responsibility to accept the consequences when you falsely accuse.
Paul doesn't really believe in that. By keeping his assets offshore, as suggested by Wikipedia (not necessarily the most reliable of sources), he intends to be a libel lawyer's worst nightmare. Faced with such an adversary, most of those accused will, one presumes, choose not to throw money at lawyers with little hope of recompense. Bankruptcy holds no fears - he's already been made bankrupt once - and whilst he can make a living through his blog, he has no incentive to stop.
So, on that basis, why not throw accusations of sexual malpractice into the mix, regardless of evidence, or lack thereof? In fairness, he wasn't the first to leave such an accusation hanging (warning - Daily Mail link, scroll to the end...). Think of it as Guido being appalling, but set it in the context of a media that feigns outrage with those appalling bloggers on one hand whilst using them as a source on the other, and colluding in the creation of a political culture where the notion of altruism is scorned, and human weakness exposed for the pleasure of others.
I would prefer to see the issue tested. If Guido has hard evidence to substantiate claims of a relationship, let him put them into the public domain. If not, perhaps a withdrawal and fulsome apology is called for. But it won't happen, as that is seldom the way the game is played any more. He will continue to offend most people's sense of decency, until someone decides to stop him.
Who that will be, and why, remains to be seen...
* note - I have referred to Guido and to Paul on an interchangeable basis. I trust that they don't mind...
No comments:
Post a Comment