Sim-O

A couple of days ago I posted about the result of the Sunnys’ complaint against the dappy bint of an MP, Nadine Dorries.

In it I only had information from your entry on your ‘blog’. But what Nadine failed to mention was that the complaint was UPHELD.:

The rules of the house, however, do require Members to make a clear distinction between websites which are financed from public funds and any other domain. At the time of your complaint, Mrs Dorries’ website did not meet that requirement. Nor was it appropriate that she use the Portcullis emblem on the weblog given its contents. And the funding attribution on Mrs Dorries’ Home Page should have been updated to reflect that the funding came from the Communications Allowance and not from the Incidental Expenses Provision.(source)

Bang to rights. But there are other issues that are to be explored:

There’s a few issues here. Firstly, Nadine Dorries is complaining that we have too much time on her hands. This is a bit absurd coming from an MP who has recently re-submitted amendments to the HFE bill that try to bring down the 24 week limit, even though that amendment was already voted down. Submitting the same amendment again is a waste of parliamentary time. So who’s the fool now?

And most of our ‘evidence’ was actually screenshots from her blog threatening other MPs with losing the next election just because they didn’t agree with her position on abortion. Yeah, she’s a real tolerant one, Dorries.

There’s another point. As the HFE Bill is coming back to the Commons for a third reading, Dorries will no doubt be ready to spout the rubbish she was last time, publishing hoax pictures and mis-representing the science. We’re putting together a briefing which collates all this information, exposes her true agenda, and more.

The more is the 20 weeks campaign and her links to fundamental Christians.

I’m looking forward to it.

/afterthought:
Will Iain Dale mention it, as he did with Nadines version of events, or will he keep quiet because it would involve ‘dissing’ on a friend in public?

Dear American:
I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you…

From via

Sunny, at Liberal Conspiracy, submitted a complaint with reference to Nadine Dorries’ blog a while ago.
The main points were:

• The funding of it. It was fully integreated with her main website, which is funded from a Parliamentary allowance, it wouldd be unikely the blog is funded from a different source.
• The use of the Portcullis device. Implying that it was a Parliamentary approved publication
• Because of the (possible) funding of the blog, the content involved in campaining and various other party political activities are not allowed, unless the fundin was found to be seperate

A reply from the Parliamentary Comissioner for Standards was issued recently, unfortunately I don’t have a link to it, but it completely cleared exonerated Nadine form doing anything wrong.
But Dorries, ever the gracious ‘winner’

The complainant clearly has a lot of spare time on his hands, so much so that he felt it necessary to submit a 21 page dossier to the House of Commons authorities, about my ‘conduct’ with regards to my blog.

Nadine, it is because of your conduct that Sunny made time to put the complaint down, with accompanying evidence, and it was the evidence that made up for more than half the pages. You can’t complain without any evidence.

I wonder how much time, resources and money has been used by the parliamentary authorities to look into the matter of my ‘conduct’

I wonder how much time, resources and money that you have and will in the future use inappropriately.

You were fucking worried. If you really had nothing to worry about, why did you i) remove the Portcullis device form you blog page and ii) change the URL of you blog, and stressing the point with a pop up box (which means nothing, and just looks like you’re stressing the point just a bit too much) as soon as you were notified about the complaint?

Ben Goldacre on The Guardian fighting a libel case brought by ‘vitamin pill’ magnate Matthias Rath:

I should also mention that I am extremely pleased and – cheesily – proud that the Guardian fought this case. It’s exactly the kind of thing I’d have expected from them, it’s the paper my grandparents bought, blah blah blah, and to me today everything they stand for is still very good indeed.
…
Newspapers can be very good things, and today the Guardian is a very good one indeed.

Bravo and well done to the Guardian and Ben, but if you read the piece, they have been awarded interim costs of about £250k, with the total cost of it all coming to about £0.5 million, which they are seeking.

if that had been a private individual, that money would need to found from somewhere, and in all likely hood, not found and so silenced.
Freedom of speech has a price. And that price is whatever the lawyers say it is.

my first post about the US elections, hopefully the first of few.

Peter Preston, in the Guardian, spots a bit of funny adding up by the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

It’s awful, says the Equality and Human Rights Commission: top women are even thinner on the ground than they were last year. The percentage of women national newspaper editors has plummeted from 17.4 per cent in 2006 to 13.6 per cent in 2007-08 (having happily risen from 9.1 per cent in 2003). And this sad slump in female fortunes gets big news treatment (including a full page in the Mail.

Yet puzzle over the figures a moment. At the end of 2003, there were four women editors already in place: Rebekah Wade at the Sun, Dawn Neesom at the Star, Tina Weaver at the Sunday Mirror and Veronica Wadley at the Standard.

The only change since then has seen Sarah Sands and Patience Wheatcroft sit briefly in the Sunday Telegraph chair, then depart.

How did 9.1 per cent in 2003 become 13.6 per cent in 2007 when the actual numbers involved are exactly the same? Maybe there should be more top women statisticians, too.

I’m no mathmatician, but even I know that one of the figures somewhere is wrong.

Two excellent new posts over at The Sun – Tabloid Lies.

The first, showing a case of complete bullshit reporting on the return of Gary Glitter.

The second, about aChristian fundamentalist extremist (call ’em what they are) bringing a private prosecution, against an art gallery, possibly because of a picture the Sun published of a different art installation . It features many of your favourite characters too.

What do you call someone who spreads bollox, and when told by Google how Google and Googlebombing works doesn’t listen?

Yup: Julie Moult.
(background)

[[image:julie_moult.jpg:Julie Moult. An idiot? Hmm. Let me think…:center:0]]

Step One – Create an image featuring the words “Julie Moult is an idiot” (or “Julie Moult is not an idiot, but instead a much-misunderstood campaigner for truth and a very nice person once you get to know her”).

Step Two – Include the words ‘julie’ and ‘moult’ in the filename for your image.

Step Three – Publish it on your website or weblog in a post explaining what it is and why it’s there (including, if you like, these steps and a link back to this article).

Step Four (optional) – If you really mean business, put her name in your article title and maybe even drop in some ‘ALT’ or ‘Title’ goodness for your image.

:: Please keep in mind that Julie Moult might be willing and able to sue you if she can prove that she isn’t an idiot (though I’m quietly confident that this won’t be a problem).

:: You may also wish to include a picture/glimpse of yourself in your image, as I have (above), so Julie is certain that real people, not invisible Google pixies, lurk behind the eventual results.

Notable search results will be posted below as soon as they start appearing, and a prize will be awarded for the best relevant performance in Google Images (not including mine).

Good luck to you all. I hope to see you in the top row soon.

Any insight that might have been provided by the survey is then completely lost in both the extrapolating and in the complete lack of any explanation.

Ah. It must be The Sun talking about a knife crime survey

The exceedingly Ethical Professor Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi:

Speaking during an exceedingly brief phone interview , Professor Obi said:

” Alternative Medicine Physicians , Alternative Medicine Practitioners , CAM Healers , Wellness Consultants , Native Doctors , Spiritualists , Psychics , Health Gurus and all other Alternative Medicine Professionals desperately need a Statutorily-Protected Prefix ; which will boldly appear before their names , so that all members of the public will clearly be able to identify them accordingly.

Hopefully, we will soon be able to lawfully announce the existence of such a Title , on or before the very 1st Day of November 2008 .”

Now that sounds like a good idea. All members of the public could identify them and act accordingly by ignoring them like the charlatons they are and going to proper doctors.