Sim-O

(I was gonna post this last night, but completely forgot. So, I’m late to the party, as usual)

[[image:ailing_sample.gif:Ailing Standards:left:0]]
Andrew Gilligan is still not answering the question

Do you deny leaving comments underneath your own articles and articles about you, whilst pretending to be a third person?

So Manic The Sockpuppet-Slayer has branched out into his own free newssheet which was handed out out the front of the offices of Associated Newspapers, the publishers of the Evening Standard, Gilligans employer.

Go see Tims’ post for the full story.

Simon Warr of the Lap Dancing Association a House of Commons on lap dancing clubs:

“People go for the alcohol and the entertainment – so, the entertainment is nude. But it is not sexually stimulating.”

He’s either trying to pull a fast one or he’s never been in a lap dancing club.
OK, they’re not everyones cup of tea. Some people aren’t going to be ‘sexually stimulated’ by a lap dance, but that’s not through bad design.
What then, is the point of paying a young lady to jiggle about with very little or no clothing on, very closely to you, if it’s not for walking away with a big woody?

PetrolPrices.com:

The changes are designed to be neutral, but calculations by PetrolPrices.com show that there will be a slight increase at the pumps of 0.4p a litre, or 20p per average 50 litre tank of unleaded when the changes come into effect on December 1st. The fact that fuel prices will increase at all is contrary to the message from the Chancellor that the changes will be revenue neutral.

I thought that all these revenue changes were meant to stimulate the economy, to help minimise the effect of a recession.
If so, what the fuck is the point in them being neutral?

They’re not neutral, it’s just sleight of hand.

Iain Dale:

The Comment threads on this blog have not quite descended to Guido-esque levels yet, but it seems to me that’s where they are heading […] In addition, the number of anonymous comments on some threads make it impossible to follow who is saying what. Indeed, sometimes, I wonder if some of the anonymous commenters aren’t in fact the same people, pretending to be different people.

Comment registration is now on, so at least if you disagree with Iain you’ll know which of his/his fanclubs’ alter egos is attacking you.

But remember…

Strong views and strong language are fine, but insults and intimidation are not.

Unless…

And while I was writing the previous post, Iain Dale has posted the full list of winners* in the Spectators’ parliamentarian of the year Awards.

I have just this to say about it:

The readers of The Spectator are twats**.

*Same as be fore applies. Might not be correct. Or scientific.
**At least the ones that bothered to voted for Nadine Dorries.

The results are out for the Spectators’ Parliamentarian of the Year Awards.
Iain Dale:

who should win the first award, Newcomer of the Year? Yup, Peter Mandelson

What. The. Fuck?

how the fuck can that slimey shister Mandelson be called a new-comer? I don’t know how long Peter has been in politics but he was one of the architecs of New Labour so that’s got to be at least 15 years.
It probably only count’s for his latest venture into power, but even so, hat the fuck has he done in his two months of unelected cabineting (I just made that word up, if you couldn’t tell) to deserve a fucking award?

Surely if the award meant anything it should’ve gone to a true n00b, not some disgraced politician returning from a busmans holiday.

*The info came from Iain Dale, so it may not be correct. Or scientific.

Paul Dacre:

Now some revile a moralising media. Others, such as myself, believe it is the duty of the media to take an ethical stand

Ethics and morals are subjective.

As far as I’m aware, Justice Eady is applying the law as it is written. As it has been debated and voted upon by democratically elected leaders. That is his authority. Justice Eadys’ decision can be appealed. It is expensive and time consuming, but that is a different argument.

What authority has Paul Dacre got? Was he elected? Was he even appointed by anyone who has been elected? Has Mr Dacres ethics and morals been debated and voted on? Does his industry take the time to listen to all sides without exaggerating or scaremongering? Why the fuck should I listen to Paul and his gangs moralising?

There isn’t a plethora of websites dedicated to watching the right wing press for no reason, and just because a lot of people read your paper, doesn’t make your opinions and views right or any less disgusting.

Update:
Just spotted this Dave Osler/LC:

Few would argue that adultery is commendable in any positive sense. But it remains a popular pastime. It happens in life. On some estimates, a full one-third of over fifties are having affairs.

What’s more, two-thirds of unfaithful over 55s reportedly do not feel ‘any regret about straying’; I read that fact in the Mail of Sunday, the Daily Mail’s sister paper. That alone would seem to indicate that Dacre is seriously out of touch with his readership base.

It all sound very nice and balanced and even handed, but this sentence regarding Palestinians exiled to the refugee camps says it all.
Iain Dale:

Until there is an acceptance that there is no going back it is difficult to see how life in the West Bank can be normalised

“Well done, Andrew, on your nomination for the Paul Foot Award. Some good work on the ‘Lee Jasper affair’. Definately shoo…Oh Hi Tim.
You what? He’s been caught doing what?
Where?

Oh.”

Nadine has got an interview in the Metro. It’s a bit good.

Tim spotted it earlier and has already fired off a letter to Metro letters, giving us a sneak peak:

Your interview with Nadine Dorries only furthers her reputation as a self-publicising fantasist. In it, Nadine claims to get 500,000 hits a month on her website (which is not even a blog as she claims). Elsewhere, she has claimed that she has 800,000 readers a month. Never mind that her traffic claims are so fantastic as to be laughable; because ‘hits’ describes the number of files downloaded (pages, images, etc.), this figure cannot possibly be smaller than the number of readers. Nadine’s either making things up, or becoming very confused again.

I don’t know when the article went up on the site proper, but when I looked about an hour ago there were no comments.

I thought I should leave one.

I’ve got some questions for Nadine too if you don’t mind, I’ll ask them here seeing as Nadines’ ‘blog’ doesn’t allow them.

1. When is Ben Goldacre going to get his apology?
2. Do you think it is ok to mislead (putting it politely) people into thinking that the complaint about your behaviour regarding your ‘blog’ was dismissed when, in fact, it was upheld?
3. Re: ‘Hand of Hope’: Why do you keep pushing the lie that the 21 week old foetus pushed it’s hand out of the womb when the doctor performing the operation says that the foetus and mother were both anaesthetised and could move?
4. Any chance of someone explaining to you how to explain interpret statistics properly?
5. Is the person you email your ‘blog’ posts to, to put up on your ‘blog’ paid by your Parliamentary Communications Allowance?

That’ll do for now, don’t want to get meself labelled as a stalker.

Hmm. “All comments are moderated”.

Update – 30/10/08 08:30:
Still no comments have been passed and there were definately others who commented, without being rude or abusive, too.

Update II:
At about noon some comments have been published. Well, a couple anyway and both critical of Nadine.