Suicide is Painless
On Saturday, Donal Blaney, “Guido’s” legal muscle, wrote an extraordinary post in response to Unity writing at Liberal Conspiracy. Iain Dale thought Blaney’s post was worth including in his “Daley Dozen” and I agree that it should be read as widely as possible. Probably not for the same reasons as Iain though.
Here’s a, er, highlight:
It says a lot about these people that they are desperate to import negative motives into the actions of those with whom they disagree. Not only does it show intellectual weakness on their part but it suggests they are deeply unhappy, insecure and lonely people. Their bitterness at life radiates from every sentence they write. You wonder whether they’d be better off ending it all so as to avoid the further trials and tribulations of life.
Remarkable, isn’t it? And in a post bemoaning the “venom and vitriol” of his critics.
Blaney central, er, argument is that his critics “will not engage in honest debate”.
I submitted a comment to his post yesterday afternoon. Blogger told me that my comment would be visible after approval by the blog owner. Blaney has published three posts since then, one last night and two this morning. No sign of my comment yet though.
I was going to write this post after my attempt to conduct an honest debate with Blaney but it isn’t going very well so far. Perhaps he thinks I’m “cowering behind the written word”.
(Possibly more later this afternoon when I’ve got more time . A veritable smorgasbord of possibilities are contained within Blaney’s post.)
Update
Still no sign of Blaney actually wanting to participate in honest debate. Rather the opposite, in fact. Checking his blog to see whether anything else was happening (it wasn’t), I’ve just noticed that the three posts referred to above all have something in common.
I’ll save you the bother: the comment feature has been disabled. Without wishing to leap to conclusions, this does rather suggest that Donal has taken another* leaf out of the Nadine Dorries’ book of blogging (foreword by Iain “I taught her all she knows”Dale).
* He’s already done the whole “I’m under personal attack from evil bastards” bit.
Perhaps an explanation for the apparent removal of the comment facility will be forthcoming in due course but in the meantime, it is not possible to express an opinion on Blaney’s new posts. Admittedly, I wasn’t able to express my opinion on his old post either so this might not be a hugely significant turn of events…
Update 2 (9.30pm)
My second attempt to leave a comment (around 7pm this evening) has not been published either but there has been movement in the thread. A comment by Quinn was also not published but a second attempt was. Quinn merely mentioning this has resulted in Blaney accusing him of paranoia. Absolutely textbook. Quinn appears to be well able to defend himself though. And then there’s the threats…
Blaney does at least acknowledge that I’m trying to communicate with him in his latest addition to the thread (at 8.18pm).
I’d really welcome the chance for Unity, Garry et al to come and take part. I’m sure a true forum for debate - which we could maybe film too - would do more for advancing ideas on all sides of the argument than anonymous blogging.
Progress, ladies and gentlemen, progress.
No explanation has been given as to how someone “cowers behind words”. Perhaps, Blaney doesn’t want to have an honest debate in just words.
So, on to the sort of invitation. Blaney is a trained solicitor, one time 18 Doughty Street co-presenter and chief executive of an organisation which runs media and public speaking training. I’m a blogger who has never appeared on TV or radi and have had no media or public speaking training whatsoever. I feel slightly uncomfortable when a family member breaks out the camcorder.
I just don’t understand why Blaney prefers the one method of debate over the other…
DonaldS said,
February 25, 2008 @ 11:55 am
>It says a lot about these people that they are desperate to import negative motives into the actions of those with whom they disagree… it suggests they are deeply unhappy, insecure and lonely people. Their bitterness at life…
Fantastic, isn’t it? Truly beyond satire.
Garry said,
February 25, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
Indeed. If it wasn’t for the fact that Iain Dale’s constant attempts to boost Blaney’s blog profile have removed any doubt as to his identity, you’d have to consider whether he was a strawman sockpuppet.
Iain Dale said,
February 25, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
The fact remains that whatever you think of his views he is a better writer than you (or indeed I) will ever be. It’s his blog. If he doesn’t want comments that’s up to him. I know you and your little gang would love us all to obey the rules dreamt up by your Lord & Master but in the end it’s a free country and a free blogosphere. Personally I can’t see the point of a blog without comments, but that’s my view. I don’t pretend there aren’t others. And unlike Tim Ireland, I don’t expect people to obey my rules.
Garry said,
February 25, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
Iain, yes, he did use very nice language to discuss whether his political opponents should kill themselves. I was moved to slightly incredulous laughter.
Anyway, you’re misrepresenting to a small but crucial degree when you talk about rights and rules. Here’s a super-short general version. When too many people abuse their rights to act selfishly, government intervention is more likely. When people treat others with respect, government intervention is less likely. As a Conservative, I imagine you’d prefer more of the latter; people regulating their own interactions sensibly without need for state intervention.
In blogging terms, there are currently many people abusing their rights and acting selfishly. And, importantly, what they do can have a significant impact on others. For example, falsely but very publicly accusing someone of being a paedophile could have very serious consequences. That’s why “Guido’s” beloved “my house” analogy is so misleading. The world can’t see what’s written on Paul’s walls.
There’s an irony in all that which I won’t bother to spell out.
In this specific case, the fact is that Blaney has made a big deal about “honest debate” and has accused others of refusing to participate in it. My attempt to enter into any sort of debate on that post have not been very fruitful so far. And now he appears to have decided not to allow any honest debate on his own blog. Subject to confirmation, this is starting to look like the very definition of hypocrisy.
I’d add that having the comments off is an improvement in a way; at least it removes the false impression that honest debate is allowed.
septicisle said,
February 25, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
I think Iain when his views are a complete caricature of what Unity wrote, and when Mr Blaney variously refers to Unity and whoever else criticised his post as “stupid”, “venal”, “intellectually insecure”, “onanists”, “intellectual[lly} weak”, “deeply unhappy”, “insecure”, “lonely”, and “bitter”, that maybe you shouldn’t be defending someone who resorts straight off to ad-hominem attacks as someone as disagrees with them. It doesn’t matter if the guy writes wonderfully or not; what matters is how he decides to engage, and he’s engaged in a way typical of how others have responded to Tim Ireland, and indeed how you responded to a mild ribbing on my blog by calling me a first-class prick. This isn’t about anyone’s “little gang”; it’s about discourse that doesn’t make us look like a bunch of schoolchildren. Mr Blaney has completely failed that test.
hellblazer said,
February 26, 2008 @ 3:45 am
Iain Dale said:
The fact remains that whatever you think of his views he is a better writer than you (or indeed I) will ever be.
Well that’s fairly depressing, because anyone who writes a post in which they wish to avoid coming across as a pompous whinger shouldn’t start with
This morning I was rudely awakened from my slumber
Er, what else would you have been awakened (or woken) from, Mr. B? A coma? Narcolepsy?
Then, in his response to Unity, after getting up a head of steam with the shrill
It says a lot about these people that they are desperate to import negative motives into the actions of those with whom they disagree. Not only does it show intellectual weakness on their part but it suggests they are deeply unhappy, insecure and lonely people
– a diagnosis which might be applied to itself — Mr. B continues by lamenting that
All too often those of us who dare to have a differing worldview will allow themselves
to be bullied into submission…
Us? Them? Make your mind up, sir; are they us or we them, or … no, sorry, my brain’s melting from the good writing.
john stuart millennium said,
February 26, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
While we’re at it, does this modern-day Burke really mean to use “import” in the phrase “to import negative motives”? I’m sure a really top brief (you know, Horace Rumpole, John Cage, Sir Wilfred Robarts and the like) would have used “impute”.
Garry said,
February 26, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
hellblazer and jsm, heh! Much as I’d like to join in, my, er, liberal attitude to language means I’d be asking for trouble.
Also, having attempted to discuss various issues with Iain, his opening line looks very much like one of his standard diversionary tactics. He does this a lot when he’s got no real point to make. As septicisle says, in the end it’s not about how Blaney writes but about what he writes and how he engages with others.
No More Progress | Big Sticks and Small Carrots said,
February 27, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
[…] So, what conclusions can be reached about attempts to have an honest debate with Donal Blaney? […]
Lobster Blogster said,
February 29, 2008 @ 12:29 am
I must beg to disagree with Iain Dale about Blaney’s writing prowess. Blaney has a vapid style which is used to disguise a dishonest philosophy. It reminds me very much of the scandal rags which to his client used to contribute. Vaguely linked facts are used to connect arguments, poorly sourced quotations are use in an exaggerated manner to overstate an opponent’s veiwpoint.
Unity does use the terms “racist” and “fascist” in his post, but Blaney has added “homophobic” as something he is supposedly accused of. You almost get the feeling that Blaney wanted to be labelled as such, Unity ducked out, so Blaney just had to add it back in for good measure. No doubt in Thatcherite/Libertarian circles this is seen as a great wheeze, intellectual riguor is not a quality very much prized by their ilk. Personally these “liberty lovin’” clowns do little for me, and I doubt that they exert anywhere as large an influence as they often (boastfully) proclaim.
Devil's Kitchen said,
February 29, 2008 @ 4:39 am
“No doubt in Thatcherite/Libertarian circles this is seen as a great wheeze…”
Please don’t tar us honest Libertarians with the Blaney brush…
DK