Stunning hypocrisy from William Hague ?

Craig Murray writes on his blog about attempts to smear the man behind Wikileaks, but finishes his article with a comment about how he himself has tried to clear his name of accusations and smears put across by the Foreign Office.

To quote Craig

Yet, even to this day, the FCO has refused to acknowledge in public that I was in fact cleared of all charges. This is even true of the new government. A letter I wrote for my MP to pass to William Hague, complaining that the FCO was obscuring the fact that I was cleared on all charges, received a reply from a junior Conservative minister stating that the allegations were serious and had needed to be properly investigated - but still failing to acknowledge the result of the process. Nor has there been any official revelation of who originated these "serious allegations".

 Now today William Hague has released a statement making clear that false allegations made against him are untrue and have no basis in fact. This must be very upsetting for William Hague. So why won't William Hague or his department do the same for Craig Murray and clear his name ?

Isn't this a case of absolutely stunning hypocrisy ?


Anonymous said...

Hague is a lying, hypocritical, thieving hoon

his days are thankfully numbered and don't pretend you didn't know it all along.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post. Well said.

It's always so different when its them as opposed to us, isn't it?

Steve said...

You make a very good point. I was feeling sorry for Hague today till I saw this.

Anonymous said...

Well said. It is an outrage that Hague fails to help Craig Murray legitimately clear his name but feels wronged wheen people point the finger at him.

Double standards from Tories ? We'd expect nothing less.

jailhouselawyer said...

"Ministerial Code

3.2 With the exception of the Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers may each appoint up to two special advisers (paid or unpaid). The Prime Minister may also authorise the appointment of one or two special advisers by Ministers who regularly attend Cabinet. All appointments, including exceptions to this rule, require the prior written approval of the Prime Minister, and no committments to make such appointments should be entered into in the absence of such approval. All special advisers will be appointed under terms and conditions set out in the Model Contract for Special Advisers and the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers".

Did Hague breach the Ministerial Code, or did Cameron authorise what he is now claiming was Hague's misjudgement?

Chris Paul said...

So, Cameron must have approved this? Was that simply numerical? As in "hey Dave, I feel I need three political slaves, can I have an extra one at pin money prices?". Or did Hague somehow side-step the rules? We should be told. Good find John Hirst.

However I cannot agree with this non sequitor of a ConDem confusion of a post itself.

1. Did Hague himself stop a FCO admission that Craig Murray was cleared of all charges, or did some other lickspittle spike it?

2. Are not the results of the investigation in the public domain? A matter of record as they say? And would an acknowledgement from the FCO (a) be usual or (b) all that?

3. Are these cases even basically comparable? Isn't your "absolutely stunning hypocrisy" the result of an absolutely stunning syllogism or absolutely stunning category error?

4. Hague and his former employee have been smeared by an idiot blogger. Someone who took great joy in outing Damian McBride for essentially NOT publishing some made up, untrue, unproven, silly, irrelevant, unkind etc etc rumours and gossip.

5. None of which, not even the lies about the unnecessarily self-outed Naydeen having a fling with a married MP and having a battery powered device along with her, none of those vile smears and put up jobs and 4th form humour attempts stack up to what Staines has ACTUALLY PUBLISHED.

5. Staines is worse than McBride. Official. He is Mister GuFf. With knobs on.

Norfolk Blogger said...

If you read my short piece, I included a question mark, so asked the question.

Secondly, if you care to read the previous story, I have no time for Paul Staines.

Thirdly, comment in haste, look silly for a long time. Long words that are not used by normal people don't make you look clever, indeed quite the opposite.

Lastly, if you read a little more than one story you will see that references to the coalition are pointless as I am no supporter of the coalition.

Chris Paul said...

PS As far as I recall it was Mister GuFf that orchestrated said Naydeen's unnecessary self-outing. Wasn't it? And later formed part of her hefty phalanx of conblogger and contweeter process servers .. though not actually the confused Iain Dale's informant when he spent all day and via the Mail the next morning spreading defamation.

The married MP supposedly involved has still not AFAIK been named as included in this McBride lie. And relatively speaking he has had no career stutter. Unlike the ill-advised Naydeen. Thanks to Paul Staines? Possibly? So it seemed at the time anyway.

If Staines or Blaney or that Harry Hill character with the Blue Bear have been advising Naydeen on her main home story handling or more recently her extraordinary city story then they have really stuffed up don't you think?

Finally .. why would you be running cover for Paul Staines Nic? On its merits this is a nasty mess and it seems to be stinking up Staines' doorstep.

Chris Paul said...

Nic - it's illogical OK? Will that do. It's not the same.

Sorry to all readers for using twatty long words and concepts. Mea culpa. Really stupid of me. Soz. It's been a long day etc.

Supporter of the coalition or not, and lover of GuFf or not, you Nic are in effect assisting him by wrongly (in my view) implying Hague is a hypocrite who had it coming. Even as a series of question mark ended points.

If Hague is guilty of "absolutely stunning hypocrisy" (Staines would certainly appear to be) you have not IMO made that case with this twaddle.

Anonymous said...

I note that everyone is blaming Guido ..or at least bloggers and the net... for the Hague story, but I can remember way back, when he got married, that the word "beard" appeared on numerous occasions about ffion.

William was being compared to Prince Edward at that time

Even prior to that there was rumour and speculation. I don't know what it was based on... it never seemed important enough for me to show any interest in it... but one heard it.

Who on earth gives a fig who he shags? I certainly don’t. What a dismal thing to be interested in.

However, he must have been aware of the rumours over the years. He therefore might have had the good sense not to share twin bedded rooms with anyone, let alone a good looking young man whom he had appointed to his staff despite his having no experience to offer the FS.

Mr Hague's judgement is often suspect. The Belize tax affair and the Nobleman demonstrate that he is either incredibly naive, and slack (he never checked up to ensure that what that crook Ashcroft promised was actually delivered, important though it was) or he was complicit in the deception.

‘You give me a title and make me a member of the aristocracy, and I will pay your tax... maybe...’

I think Mr Hague might be better in a rather less prominent role. His last cabinet position was as Welsh Secretary. That might be a good idea until he learns how to make sensible judgements.