Mazher Mahmood is not the real enemy

I'm afraid I am going to have to take issue with some of my most prominent fellow bloggers on the issue that currently seems to be dominating the political blogosphere - whether or not "fake sheikh" Mazher Mahmood's identity should remain secret.

For those not in the know, Mahmood is the News of the World's investigations editor, and is currently being subjected to an attempt to "out" him by publishing his picture on the internet.

The attempt is being spearheaded by an unholy alliance of George Galloway, the most ridiculous man in British politics, and Roy Greenslade, the most ridiculous man in British journalism.

The NoW originally obtained an injunction banning publication of his photograph, but this has now expired and three of what I consider to be the top political blogs in the country, Guido Fawkes, Recess Monkey, and Bloggerheads are all carrying various versions of his picture.

I respect their reasons for doing so. Guido is a libertarian and any attempt to gag him is going to be met with this sort of response. Recess Monkey is first and foremost a satirist, and so anything is fair game. I'm not entirely sure where Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads is coming from on this issue, but I assume he has good reasons for branding Mahmood a "tosser."

But I am frankly puzzled by a claim on Guido's site that he and Tim are standing "shoulder-to-shoulder against the common enemy."

I assume they mean the "common enemy" are the lawyers who were seeking to enforce the terms of the NoW's original injunction and get Mahmood's picture taken off their sites, but I think that in this case they're shooting the messenger.

Isn't the real enemy those who, like Greenslade and Galloway, want to neuter investigative journalism and remove the threat that it presents to those who abuse their positions of privilege and power?

Let's remind ourselves of some of the services that Mazher Mahmood has performed in the interests of the Great British Public over the past few years.

It was Mahmood, for instance, who revealed that Sven Goran Erikkson was a duplicitous little turd who was planning to abandon England after the World Cup to go and manage Aston Villa of all teams.

It was Mahmood who revealed that Countess Sophie Wessex was a money-grabber prepared to abuse her Royal connections in pursuit of a few bucks.

And it was Mahmood who revealed to Newcastle United supporters what their club's chairman Freddie Shepherd and then deputy chairman Douglas Hall really thought of them - and their women.

More seriously, it was Mazher Mahmood who was responsible for the jailing of a husband and wife in Huddersfield who were sexually abusing children in a council-run home.

He later received a letter from a 13-year-old girl who had been involved saying: "Thank you for saving me from this evil couple. Thank you for saving my life."

Guido is himself an investigative journalist of some distinction as his coverage of the loans-for-peerages affair has demonstrated, so I am particularly puzzled as to why anyone with his track record would align himself with a prat like Greenslade.

This is a man who calls himself a "media commentator," but his brand of commentary invariably consists of defending the Establishment against the depredations of a nefarious media, even to the point of becoming the mouthpiece of Alastair Campbell in his long campaign to persuade the public that it was really we who were guilty of "spin."

I have never met Mazher Mahmood, even though he went to the same journalism college as me, and I certainly hold no brief for the NoW or the Murdoch Empire as those who know me well will certainly testify, but I do believe that the kind of subterfuge Mahmood employs is sometimes a necessary tool of good journalism.

This attack on Mazher Mahmood is nothing less than an attack on journalism and an attack on freedom.

Has Cameron got a bit of temper on him?

Nearly four months into his leadership, the first chinks seem to have started appearing in David Cameron's armour.

I listened to his response to the Budget debate a couple of weeks ago and, while I thought it was totally over the top, I dismissed it as routine politicking until I heard some gossip to the effect that, for all his apparent affability, Cameron has a notoriously short fuse.

Today's ill-considered outburst, branding the UK Independence Party "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" shows at best lack of judgement, at worst an inability to control his tongue.

Gavin Ayling cites another example from the leadership campaign when he apparently lost it with David Davis.

I'm all for politicians using colourful language when appropriate, but given that Cameron is basing part of his political strategy on being a sunnier, more uplifting character than Gordon Brown, I think this sort of thing could turn out to be significant.

I suspect Labour will now be monitoring Mr Cameron very closely to see just what presses his buttons.

Draper and White go head to head

Following on from yesterday's posts, the two principal points of view on the Blair v Brown story are well represented in an excellent online debate currently taking place on the Guardian's Comment is Free blog.

As I noted yesterday, Michael White takes the view that much of the current round of speculation has been got up by the media, that Blair still wants Brown to succeed him, and that Alan Milburn is not a serious candidate for the succession.

Since then, former Mandelson spin doctor Derek Draper has hit back with a piece provocatively entitled Michael's Whitewash which argues that the relationship has descended to visceral loathing and that Blair has hatched a dastardly plot to prevent Gordon entering No 10.

I'm with Michael up to a point, but top marks to CiF for allowing two of their contributors to tear strips off eachother in this way.

I think Rachel Sylvester puts her finger on it in this article in today's Telegraph, arguing that Blair remains committed to the "orderly handover" so long as it's on his terms.

"The louder Mr Brown, or his allies, shout 'off with his head,' the more intent Mr Blair becomes on staying. Advisers who assumed he would stand down next summer now say they think he will try to stay until 2008. 'He's very angry and it's hardened his position,' one said."

I do in fact still think he will go in May next year - but only if the Brownites stop trying to hurry him along.

Update: The Draper-White exchange on Comment is Free eventually ran to six posts. Here it is in full:

Draper "reveals" Blair's masterplan to block Brown
White says the rivalry is not as bad as all that
Draper accuses the former Guardian pol ed of "Whitewash" (geddit?)
White accuses Draper of "naivety"
Draper says it's going to get worse before it gets better
White urges Draper to calm down