I think the 2012 prize for hypocrisy in blogging is already secured for BlairSupporter
Golly, this is rich. In a few recent posts, Uncle Jimmy (BlairSupporter) whinges - as always - about many things, but especially about the fact that political blogger Guido Fawkes ("Britain's best-known blogger" apparently - who knew?) has suppressed some of his comments (presumably for being offensive or simply crazed beyond understanding). Guido hasn't banned him: he has simply declined to publish everything Jimmy has seen fit to submit to him.
The other thing Jimmy bangs on (and on) about is how the BBC, ITN, Huffington Post and Guido Fawkes all misrepresent the content of a video clip of the attempt by someone to carry out a citizen's arrest of Tony Blair in Hong Kong.
As it happens, I think Jimmy is right: that the "I wouldn't come any further..." comment was (a) not made by Tony Blair and (b) not said in a particularly threatening manner.
I do, however, approve of the arrest attempt: Blair richly deserves to be tried for war crimes relating to the conduct of the Iraq war. Sadly, launching a war without UN approval, while despicable, is not a crime for which he can be tried at the ICC. Nor is lying to the British Parliament in order to do so. For those, he must answer only to history and to his conscience, if he possesses such an un-Thatcherite thing. For everything else, there's The Hague.
But I digress. Jimmy is whingeing about a video of Toe-Nibbler being falsely described: specifically, about the attribution to His Sliminess of something he didn't say. But wait: isn't this the same Uncle Jimmy who has repeatedly lied on his own blog about a member of the Leveson Enquiry's legal team "smirking knowingly" when there was an intrusion into the courtroom? And isn't accusing an innocent lawyer - whose only crimes were to be part of a team questioning TB, and to be female (sorry, a "legal beaver") - of unprofessional conduct a worse calumny than accusing Blair of making a remark which was pretty innocuous in any case? Oh, Jimmy is perfectly happy to lie about what a video shows when it suits his own vindictive agenda. But when other people do it it's a journalistic scandal of huge proportions.
And when Guido Fawkes, tired of Jimmy's hypocritical windbaggery, declines to air all of his comments, this is evidence of contempt for freedom of speech. So how about Jimmy's own total ban on my comments? He definitely doesn't only suppress ones expressing contrary political opinions (which would show equal contempt for freedom of speech, but would be understandable given Jimmy's own political colour). he also blocked one pointing out that pictures he posted (presumably in good faith) were fakes, and another pointing out that he had accused someone of saying something twice when the repetition arose from his own faulty editing. So for Jimmy to get on his high horse about freedom of speech when it comes to comments is especially rich. This is a person whose explicit policy, after all, was to ban critical commenters from his blog. He recently claimed that he was relaxing that policy: that claim, like most of what he prints, has proved to be a lie.
BlairSupporter has an interesting take on English history though:
...who is the most infamous name who attempted and failed to destroy our democracy? That’s right – The REAL Guido (Guy) Fawkes in 1605.
Really, Jimmy? Not the IRA, who successfully bombed the Conservative party conference when Mrs Thatcher was PM? Not Oliver Cromwell, who staged a military coup and installed in place of democracy the nearest thing England will ever have to Sharia Law? Not even Adolf Hitler, whose commitment to democracy I understand to have been less than complete?
No, for Jimmy, I suppose not.