November 14th, 2011

VIDEO: Guido and Co Giving Evidence at Privacy Committee


  1. 1
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    Be fair he did say , dont say anything you wouldnt say outside.


    • 4
      Elsie Beattie (83 and a quarter) says:

      Were you always one minute late for morning registration, dear?


    • 53
      Public says:

      Can’t say I was so very impressed by the quality of the committee.


      • 55
        anon says:

        what we didn’t hear though was that they all agreed Watson is a c’unt


      • 63
        The Observer says:

        Some of the committee would not look out of place in the 1890’s. The old guy in the photo Lord Something or other came out as a fuddy duddy and the worst of the committee to ask questions and misfielded replies; closely followed by Lord Gold who at the end denied being partisan when he was.
        Classic statements from Guido on evading revenue at 6 figures, not knowing his revenue breakdown, the temporary embarrassment on off-shore accounts, and the wonderful “Harry Cole, who is my junior” when talking head counts.
        David Hall Green came through as the best of the bloggers and did for Lord Gold (and a few others) who took themselves too seriously. None of the bloggers proved weak and in reality should have carried the fight better against a weak committee.


  2. 2
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    Anyway, ok performance, few dodgy moments, bloke on other end was better breifed.

    agree 100% tho about 1st admendment.

    Got the feeling they dont like you?


    • 3
      Tessa Tickles says:

      I bet you get that feeling quite a lot, Billy. ;-)


    • 8
      capt apollo says:

      odd that those who enjoy the ultimate right of free speech without legal consequences ie parliamentary privilege seek to deny it to others, but then these are our betters arn’t they?


    • 10
      Tom Watson says:

      Better breifed or just cleverer. Looks like Fawkes is OK dishing out wisdomw to the retarded readership here, but struggles when he plays with the big boys


      • 17
        Anonymous says:



      • 31
        Pot calling kettle says:

        Oh, right. Is that it? It’s just when you didn’t end that sentence with a full-stop, we kind of thought you were just pausing for breath.

        But you had actually finished. But you – who accuses others of being retarded – forgot one of the most basic rules of punctuation.


      • 49
        Lord Mandy says:

        Oh, I do like big boys. Drop round Tom, my door is always open.


      • 52
        Sir James Saville says:

        Better breifed or just cleverer. Looks like Fawkes is OK dishing out wisdomw to the retarded readership here, but struggles when he plays with the big boys

        Oh the irony!


    • 34
      Billy the Chink says:

      Politicos are like squirrels,run away, hide their nuts ! & when
      appropriate eat out of your hand !!


      • 72
        Tapestry says:

        People would love to believe the newspapers and the TV. Fact is they don’t much anymore. In fact many try desperately to theorise some kind of sense out of the stories they are presented with, but they can’t really find any. That turns them away and to the blogs, where they find another bunch of self-interested nutters, who trade either in narrow supportable facts like Guido, or broader explanation blogs which are called conspiracy theory. The trouble starts when people find the conspiracy ‘theories’ fit the known facts much better than the fantasy tales lived in by the media.

        Bloggers should be saying,’don’t shoot the messenger who tells the truth. Get rid of the ones who live in the legally protected world of monied lies.

        Is it in the national interest to live in a world of falsehood? The answer is that sometimes it is. For example does it matter that Prince Philip is German, not Greek, and that he was in the Hitler youth, as that was compulsory when he was a schoolboy in Germany, that he is not the father of the Duke Of York, and so on. Not really.

        It is more significant that Blair issued a 100 year D notice on the Dunblane massacre as Hamilton was a known paedophile providing kids to senior government politicians, that Robin Cook was assassinated to make way for the Iraq war, and so on.

        If these are mere conspiracy theories, then it is no harm for nutters to go around proclaiming them, being disbelieved by the masses, and socially ostracised. Truth is never highly convenient for the powerful.


  3. 6

    They really didn’t like you did they?

    Keep up the good work!


  4. 9
    Tom Watson says:

    Turned over good and proper Fatty Fawkes. You didn’t lay a finger on me.


  5. 11
    Laurie Penny says:

    All bloggers are closet rapists – IT’S A FACT


  6. 12
    Billy Bowden is the greatest umpire ever ! says:

    And Guido, why did you refer to Neo as “Junior”, surely news editor or assistant editor would have been better?

    Dont worry Neo , we know who does the hard work ;-)


  7. 13
    Dr Finlay says:

    The man on the right looks like he’s got AIDS or anorexia.


    • 15
      Kered Ybretsae says:

      AIDS my arse…more like Alzheimers!!


    • 19
      I ain't no weirdy beardie says:

      Maybe he’s a vegetarian.


    • 73
      SpAd says:

      It’s Ben Bradshaw, Labour MP. He became a minister when the box-tickers at the top of the Labour Party needed a token ‘out’ gay man in government.

      Famously appeared on Question Time as Culture Secretary at the time of the Roman Polanski extradition row and admitted that he’d never actually heard of Roman Polanski.


  8. 16
    Popeye says:

    Its easy to see why these tossers get so ANSI with bloggers, when said bloggers are exposing the shortfalls of said tossers.
    Hard to believe but these people really think they are our betters.
    I go on record with the fact that I have never fiddled expenses or claimed for my natter-jack toads or whatever.


  9. 18
    Drop a daisy cutter on the BBC says:

    I thought all the bloggers did well, the hive mind of the dross around that able was self evident though.

    What did disappoint was that no one mentioned that the press lobby fodder (like Toenails off the BBC) are all in league with the politicians.

    Are we really supposed to believe that the press pack didn’t know about the abuse of expenses by MP’s? Come on the lobby pack knew, just as they knew Gordon Brown was a thug and a bully, yet deliberately hid that from the public until long after Brown left office.

    Why did they comply? Because they were shit scared of being cut out of the loop, not getting exclusives and getting the boot from their editor or producer.

    Those politicians don’t get it, you can’t silence Twitter or the bloggers, there will always be journalists who will simply leak stories to Twitter on on social media as one of the bloggers there pointed out.

    They were also spot on about the super injunction crap, if you’re a 16 year old kid re-tweeting something about a footballer shagging a prozzie, how is he or she in contempt of a court when they haven’t been informed that a super injunction exists in the first place.

    Could we really have a law that prevents British citizens from tweeting about a story but everyone else in the world can?

    The politicians tried it and failed with Spy Catcher long before the internet, they failed then and they will fail again.


    • 22
      Moussa Koussa says:

      You know as well as me , that Guido was toe curling. I almost felt sorry for him


    • 23
      Politicians may as well try and catch the breeze says:

      The point is that they can try to regulate the blogosphere or pass laws but much like Fox Hunting they’ll be ultimately difficult if not impossible to enforce…after all can they lock up 60 million people ? As one of the bloggers said…like the mass trespass on the countryside in the 1930’s for freedom to roam this law would not stand…and yes I agree with Guido Judges are the last people who should be deciding on these matters of privacy/injunctions despite all the tosh from the judge on the commitee that judges know all the facts and therefore know best…LOL

      Methinks we should have a First Amendment style law as in the USA


    • 24
      Just asking says:

      It says comment, not article.


  10. 20
    Just asking says:

    Where’s Guido’s jaw line? Next big story?

    This was painful to watch. If anyone pushes the blogasphere towards regulation, it’ll be Guido.


    • 57
      Timmah says:

      “If anyone pushes the blogasphere towards regulation” UK Politicians need to grasp that you can’t regulate the Internet in other countries.


    • 60
      Peter Grimes says:

      Did you watch any of the footage, fuckwit?

      Guido FatBoy might not be as articulate as the silver-brown-streaked tongued Lords and lawyers, but just about every point he made was endorsed and amplified by the lawyer blogger from the 4.

      And a know- nothing fuckwit like you posts bollocks about matters you can’t even comprehend!


  11. 21
    Moussa Koussa says:

    What I enjoyed most about Guido’s day in the very very dim limelight was the crowd…packed to rafters….errrr

    A few classics from Guido, which I’m sure Guido will omit.

    “”Bloggs ISP registered in USA in order to assume 1st Amendment rights””

    “”I’m ( Guido ) registered in Ireland, so I can take advantage of the Irish Human rights protection”””….LOL

    “”There we will have to agree to differ””…. Classic cop out line, from an amateur.

    “”Privacy is just a euphemism for censorship””…..Yeah brother power to people yeah. 6th former answer to a question.

    I suggest you all watch Guidos performance in full…totally embarrassing, most of the questioners all looked up to heaven, while trying not to titter every time Guido opened his mouth


    • 26
      Pretty low key stuff and nobody was any the clearer including the bloogers says:

      It was hardly in the category of MUST watch….the Committee tried to grasp the concept and tie down the bloggers but failed and were even more in the dark at the end of the session than when they started it


    • 29
      The hallmark of a retard says:



    • 38
      Seb coe's a cunt says:

      OK maybe he’s not the Einstein of the genre,but MR Fawkes does a
      much better job at ‘getting it out there’ than MOST !!


  12. 25
    Spotty Lizard says:


    You came off looking like a lightweight. Sorry. The two Lords in particular owned you. Shame, because I’m broadly sympathetic to your views.


  13. 27
    Spotty Lizard says:

    I do like the way that that smug twat Ben Bradshaw sat there trying to look knowledgeable even though he had absolutely nothing to say.


  14. 30
    Just asking says:

    4 good writers, 2 good orators. You decide.


  15. 33
    Fish says:

    I was trying to watch it live but the PC kept freezing and I ended up with a ‘buffering’ message.

    Buffering – how appropriate. Bloody clever these Microsoft people


  16. 44
    Desperate Dan says:

    Excellent. I enjoyed that.


  17. 46

    Listened to it all, after the shattering forst 10 minutes of beeps!

    Very interesting and yes, Guido, I did notice the smug look on your face when the MPs were unhappy about your blog being hosted outside the UK jurisdiction! :-)

    Thanks for posting this.



  18. 48
    Heretic says:

    Keep up the shit stirring,LOVE IT !!


  19. 50

    who was that slimy git in the black-striped shirt…what is he so keen to hide?


  20. 56
    Hamish says:

    I’m just taking a break from watching the first hour of the video of the proceedings to say congratulations to the four bloggers for expressing so well the principles of free speech.
    Very different individuals, coming from different perspectives, clearly not pre-rehearsed, some a little tongue-tied to begin with. But every one made telling points.
    By contrast the Committee members who spoke were worse than caricatures, languid, patronising, ignorant. The only time they showed a flicker of interest was when asking how much money the bloggers made.
    If you don’t watch another video this year, watch this one.


  21. 59

    GF “There are no financial and business gossip blogs because the owners will sue.”
    Glad you’ve been paying attention.


  22. 61
    saffron says:

    And that was supposed to be a committee,best laugh for ages.


  23. 62
    Uddin's at the udder says:

    Will somebody just tell me what this Tom Watson story is.


  24. 65
    Anne Keene can i charge for two funerals says:

    Lot of long winded “But we have to protect the children” from the expense grabbing MP’s


  25. 67
    Ed not Balls says:

    So Guido, if c50% of the income is from selling on stories, do you always pass on fees to those who give you the tip off or idea?


  26. 68
    Displaced Brummie says:

    And yet Tom Watson was allowed to say whatever he liked about Murdoch…


  27. 69
    Not too bad says:

    Not a Guido fan, but he did alright in not caving into admitting to exceptions and instead he stuck to his principles; well that may be the wrong word – stuck with his key point. Dave Green was well briefed (by himself), Richard Wilson spoke for everyman, and on the right were the two commercial bloggers and of course Jamie and Guido made easier targets, but both managed alright…even getting a laugh when Guido suggested he had been slandered. I wonder why Craig Murray wasn’t invited?


  28. 70
    Les Abbey says:

    Although being on the opposite side of the political spectrum to Guido I think he did quite well. The obvious thing to bring up is that the Telegraph was breaking laws when it bought the CD and published the MPs expenses. If the politicians had their way this should never of happened and if it did the editor of the Telegraph should be imprisoned. They would be happy to have bloggers also doing time if it stopped stories about themselves ever being published. Politicians are not neutral referees in the privacy law debate.

    Having said that, Guido’s relationship with News International is still in doubt in my mind. I think it was the Milly Dowler family’s solicitor who said that by investigating him News International was playing the man rather than ball. So is Guido working for the Murdochs by playing Watson rather than James Murdoch.


  29. 71
    Godfrey says:

    Having recently watched Holy Flying Circus, and it’s dramatisation of Malcolm Muggeridge and the Bishop of Southwark laying into the Pythons, it seems that very little has changed since 1979.

    In both cases, the “Establishment” seemed to tend towards the idea of control, regulation and suppression of free speech rather than encouraging the democratic benefits that open and uncensored debate can bring. The tone of the Bloggers’ Inquisitors was very reminiscent of the earlier defenders of blasphemy laws: pompous, ossified and blithely unaware of how the real world has changed. It seemed that the only questions being asked were ones where they expected answers that would confirm their authoritarian pre-judices.


  30. 76
    Anonymous says:

    The liblabcons are gonna get you, Guido.


  31. 77
    Anonymous says:

    what are you doing to your pen while you talk?


  32. 79

    Ah Guido. I think they backed you into a corner there! You’re dead right about there being a formula for weighing up public interest. The problem is that we no longer trust the judges to carry out that balancing act.

    We have seen utterly barmy cases where judges have granted injunctions on the grounds of mental health issues (ZAM) without providing one scintilla of medical evidence to back up their decisions. We have had injunctions granted on the grounds of blackmail where there is a complete absence of a crime number. All of which is backed up by overblown and contradictory European case law under Article 8, in which people in a public place with no expectation of privacy, lo and behold, have an expectation of privacy!

    The solution is simple: Publish the judgements in full through Bailii, or some other legal database. Attach supporting evidence, and open these proceeding up to the public. Redact any parts of the transcript which might identify the people in question (names, dates, specifics of the case) . That way, even if we don’t have all the evidence before us, know that the rulings are the result of open and transparent justice! At the moment we simply have closed proceedings in secret courts presided over by people acting more like high priests than high court justices!


  33. 80
    Anonymous says:

    What is the Tom Watson story? We know he is a fat slimy Hunt so please spill the beans!


  34. 81

    Question Number 1) What are your revenue streams?
    Thought Number 1) How can we disrupt them in order to make your life harder.

    But of course disrupting the advertising that pays for the broadcast of the product is not censorship. The government doesn’t do thing like try to reduce the number of promoters so there are fewer of them because if you have fewer broadcasters and promoters it’s easier to exert political control.

    Clearly they want to know more but it seems to me the more they want to know is rather too much about the functioning of your business practically and rather too little about the ethical issues. I see they’re still trying to define “the public interest” with regard to what we can read. One wonders what Dickens’s novels would have been like if he’d had the public interest to worry about before putting pen to paper. All this regulation of what can be written about the “absurdly personal” is like something out of Doctor Zhivago.

    People not like your blog. Who not like? Why not like?

    On a more artistic level I was quite sad to see you have shaved off the moustache and beard, Guido. I think you should have gone appropriately attired in 17th century costume …or at least made yourself look a bit more like the Master. Remember this is showbiz.


  35. 82
    HappyUK says:

    Lord Dobbs “How do blogs make money?”
    What a clueless no-nothing huhne.


  36. 83
    HappyUK says:

    The bloggers are 100% correct – we need a USA-style 1st Amendment, whereby people cannot sue you just because they don’t like what you say.


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:


AddThis Feed Button

Guido Reads

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,646 other followers