TPA: Transparency Please, Arseholes

August 5th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

The Taxpayers Alliance…

The Gazette: Doctor is earning more than £380,000 a year

FACT!!1!!one!l!
Doctor fucking-is-earning a fucking fat wodge of dosh! That’s what ot says isn’t it?

It was revealed yesterday that a GP in the NHS North East Essex area, which covers Colchester and Tendring, earns £380,394 a year.

The Gazette has tried to contact every surgery in the area, but none that responded admitted the megabucks medic is based there.

It is understood the figure may be the total amount earned by a practice, which would be used to pay the GP’s salary and the costs of running the practice.

Who the fuck is this ‘Gazette’? There’s no external link to anything. Is it TPAs’ ‘in-house’ bullshit spewer?

Who revealed this mystrious Dr is on over a third of a millon bucks? Someone at the Primary Care Trust? A ‘source close to a Doctor’? A dustbin?

If the figure “may be the total amount earned by a practice”, then logic also dictates that the Doctor ‘may not have’ earned a squillion quid, hmm? Eh? Maybe that’s the reason no one owned up to knowing Dr Loadsamoney?

Oh and btw, how much does the TPA bring in? And where from? Why the shyness?

PCC statement on phone message tapping claims

July 9th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

PCC statement on phone message tapping claims

In 2007, the PCC conducted an inquiry across the whole of the British press into the use of subterfuge by journalists. This followed the convictions of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire for offences under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Criminal Law Act, which the PCC considered threatened to undermine public confidence in investigative journalism. While the specific allegations of criminal behaviour were matters for the police and the courts, the PCC made clear that there were outstanding questions about the application of the Code of Practice, Clause 10 of which bans the practice of intercepting phone calls and messages unless there is a strong public interest.
As a result of its inquiry, the PCC published 6 specific recommendations to publishers to ensure that phone message tapping – where it had taken place – was eliminated, and that steps were taken to familiarise journalists with the rules on using subterfuge in the law and the press Code of Practice. It also had a number of specific questions for the News of the World.

The PCC has previously made clear that it finds the practice of phone message tapping deplorable. Any suggestion that further transgressions have occurred since its report was published in 2007 will be investigated without delay. In the meantime, the PCC is contacting the Guardian newspaper and the Information Commissioner for any further specific information in relation to the claims, published today about the older cases, which suggests the Commission has been misled at any stage of its inquiries into these matters.

The phone hack story on the front pages

July 9th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Here is the main stories on the front of the online editions of the papers at a bout 9 o’clock this morning:

The Mail goes with Prescott calls for police probe into claims Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper bugged his phone down at the very bottom of the page..

The FT has Murdoch reporters accused of phone hacking.

At the top of the shop in the Independent is Commons to study phone tap claims and a couple of small links to related stories underneath.

The Guardian has at the top of it’s page Murdoch papers paid £1m to phone-hacking victims, with a picture of a rather fed-up looking Rup and another story under that, Met pressed to investigate hacking. Both have links to related stories under them too.

On the pile of internet vomit that is the Express frontpage, that is in apparently still in beta according to the URL, has nothing.

The Times, the Sun, unsurpisingly, also have nothing to say on the subject.

Update:
Arse! I knew I’d forgotten one. I needn’t have worried, the Telegraph has bugger all about it as well.

Update II (I am trying to work as well, you know):
And then there’s the Mirror, too. They’re a bit quiet and all.

While I’m here, the Star is not just missing this news of the phone hacking, but just news in general really. Nothing new there then.

An easy boycott to make

July 7th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

I am boycotting this years Total Politics Blogging Guide.
I’m not so deluded to think that this place is popular enough to get in and so me saying I’m not going to participate is a bit like saying ‘next week, I’m not going to walk on the moon’. The same amount of effort is required to achieve both.

But I am saying I want no part of it. Rather than just watch the poll happen and have no part in it, by not voting for anyone, although there is a fucking huge list of people that deserve a vote in a propor poll, and also by virtue of being part of that niche blog genre I like to term Rather Shite.

The reasons are two fold.

  1. All the underhand techniques used by the Fail Dale to keep himself ‘right’ and the results of stuff like this poll with the right results.
    All that stuff is understandable. The blog is part of Iains’ revenue generation machine. It is a small part of his TV appearances, speaking engagements and publishing ‘things’. It may not actually generate revenue itself, apart from a small amount from Messagespace, but it is where people can find him, where Iain can show off his expertise, his knowledge.
    Iaian needs to be right on his blog, otherwise it will impact on his other areas. And a man’s gotta eat. Right? It may not be right, but it’s understandable. That’s business.
  2. The second reason is because Iain Dale is a cunt.
    It’s one thing having a commentor leave a comment accusing someone of being a member of the Labour Party or refusing to engage in debate on neutral territory, so that you can’t control it, when you’ve been called on a point. It’s really childish to play the victim instead of just apologising for/removing the offending article. They’re relatively small things. Leave teh internets and these things disappear, or at the worst need a little explanation/can be laughed off.
    It’s a completely different when help is requested and offered but then not given and still insistent that it was. Especially when the help is to investigate proper, serious accusations and isn’t just a load of hot air but involve the Rozzers, in the real world.

So there you have it.
Who needs a rigged and flawed beauty contest anyway?

BT suspend Phorm

July 7th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Guardian

Shares in Phorm, the Aim-listed technology firm, have plunged after it emerged that BT has quietly pulled plans to roll out its controversial advertising system, which tracks the internet habits of customers and has been attacked as online snooping by privacy campaigners.

BT was a key player in the development of Phorm’s Webwise system, which uses information about which sites an internet user visits to target them with relevant advertising on subsequent pages. News that BT has in effect mothballed the technology sent shares in Phorm down 40% by lunchtime today.

Via Manic

It’s called a Freedom of *Information* request

June 18th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Like most people today*, I’ve had a quick squint at my MPs’ receipts that have now been published, thanks to a FoI request, on the parliament website.

The following picture is a snapshot of one of the .pdf’s and seems fairly typical (click to enlarge)…

harris_expenses_example

What bloody good is that? You can only presume the two bits go together by the total, as on the proper receipt even the name of the company is blanked out. Why is that? Why can’t we know the company that issued the receipt?
Why are the items blanked out? Why aren’t we allowed to know what the £64 was actually spent on?

All that tells us is that Dr Evan Harris spent £64 on something from a company that might be called Caudwell Communications.

I can understand the blacking out of an MPs’ phone number or most of their address, though there is no reason to black that out completely as just leaving us with the town or city would be enough to give some scrutiny. But to leave a receipt with just a total figure and present it as being open and transparent is just complete bollox. The receipt could be for a bucket of used condoms from ‘Cocks R Us’. How would we know?

MPs’ reckoned they were sorry. My fucking arse, are they. Even when told to be open and transparent, they still try to cover up. They knew they had been milking the system, it was never ‘sloppy accounting’ or errors of judgement, as we were kept being assured.

If it hadn’t been for the Telegraph, these money grabbing shits would’ve been able to blag their way to keeping their seats and their reputations (ha!) thanks to a metaphorical black marker.

It’s called a Freedom of Information request, dummy. So lets have some information.

*actually, most people are probably having a long hard look.

On the naughty step

June 1st, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Nadine Dorries has still not published my comment, even after allowing for a weekend when Dorries usually goes ‘somewhere else’.

Looks like I’ve been sent to the naughty step for trying to misrepresent her position.

All’s Fair in War and Politics – comment

May 29th, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

Just a record of a comment I’ve left at Nadines’ place in case it doesn’t get through moderation…

Nadine, why have you changed the contents of the post completely without even mentioning the fact?

The original post is still available on Googles cache for all to see so it now looks like you’re trying to hide something.

Oh, it also looks like your commenters have completely ignored your post and started chatting on their own about something else.

http://sim-o.me.uk/2009/05/alls-fair-in-war-and-politics/

Oh, and I bet this comment doesn’t get through moderation.

Image here

All’s Fair in War and Politics

May 29th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

2 Things, that are quite apt for the title.
The first is Nadine Dorries (yes, yes) has been tried to unsay things on her blog, here’s the original post in full via Googles cache (and I’m also using the same title so it should show in searches, hopefully)…

My Labour opponent had a very strong letter in the Beds On Sunday this week.

In the letter he deployed his usual tactic of distorting the facts, something I’m becoming used to these days; however, he also said:

“I fought for as a soldier in Iraq in 2003”.

Anyone who reads my blog will know how pro-military I am.

I stand in awe and admiration of our soldiers, their professionalism and bravery.

Only last week, I wrote of how moved I was when I heard a Scots Dragoon Guard use his moment on TV to talk about the moment a soldier receives his pre-assignment message: ‘ contact with the enemy is certain’ – and what it is that fires that soldier on, one of our heroes, into battle.

So, you can imagine, when I read the words “I fought as a soldier in Iraq” I was quite impressed. Gosh, thought I, good job I’m the MP or I may be tempted to vote for him myself.

Only, did he fight in Iraq? Did he go out into the danger zones along with the a regiment on Op Telic 8, and risk his life and limb side by side with our soldiers, for the sake of freedom and democracy? The values for which he claims to have “fought in Iraq” .

I will be interested to find out the answer.

Claiming to be a hero when you write a political letter as the Labour candidate in a newspaper is a very big claim indeed. One that secures advantage and wins you votes.

Let’s hope it’s true.

Via Wireman
(also available here as a .pdf)

Quite a scathing attack. Calling into question whether someone has actually fought or not. And here is the New & Improved post

The local press are picking this up now, I will leave it up to them.

Anyone who reads this blog will understand that I have the hugest regard for all serving military personnel, TA, Army, Navy and Air Force and consider myself very lucky indeed to have two bases in my constituency. RAF Henlow, Chicksands and a TA training base.

I talk to many soldiers, regular and TA before they leave to serve, and as detailed in my blog, ‘A Soldiers Tale’, when they arrive home. I know and understand well exactly the danger and the operations they engage in.

However, the one thing I have learnt over the last few weeks is that in the battlefield of politics, one needs to be absolutely honest AND precise. Nothing less will do.

As you can see, quite a difference, with no mention of whether anyone has physically fought the enemy or just fought for democracy, which, unless one knew, would make you wonder what all those people in the comments were going on about.

Another entry on the catalogue of why Mid-Beds should vote for someone else when they get the chance.
(Update 06/06/09: Just noticed another proof of change)

Now, it is common knowledge that Nadine is friends with Iain Dale. They often post about various outings they have together. But, do you know how close they are? Apparently, it’s extremely close. So close infact, that Iains’ lawyers have warned Tim

Dale regards my criticism of Dorries to be aimed at him. I’ve been warned not to persist #sackdorries

Er, so. Tims’ criticisms of Nadine Dorries’ behaviour, even when not involving Iain Dale in any way constitutes and attack on Iain.

Bwa hahahaha! What a twat.

Protecting the fragile

May 25th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Just a quickie, it’s not gonna move the debate on at all but can I just say that whenever Dizzy, and to a lesser extent Iain Dale, come riding to the defence of Nadine Dorries, with their shiny armour and big facts, it always reminds me of the little exchange with Neils’ father that comes after this clip of The Young Ones (I couldn’t find a clip with the actual quote in it)…

Rick: Well you can shut up now, Vyvyan. You can just about blummin’ well shut up! Because if you’ve got anything horrid to say about Felicity Kendal, then you can just about blummin’ well say it to me first!
Vyvyan: Rick, I just did!
Rick: Oh you did, did you? Well I ought to give a ruddy great punch on the bottom for what you just said! You’re talking about the woman I love!
Neil: And me, I love her too!
Neil’s Father: Well I agree with the spotty twerps on that one. Felicity Kendal is sweetly pretty, just what a real girly should be. I mean, speaking as a Feminist myself I can safely say this; that Felicity Kendal is a wonderful woman, and I want to protect her.
Vyvyan: Well it’s the first time I’ve ever heard it called that!

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the cheats and liars category at Sim-O.