So, thousands of soldiers lose their jobs. The very people who have risked their lives every day in order that the BBC can function and fail, over and over, to support the sacrifice they make .
The BBC will only receive the equivalent of a 16% cut over five years. That just isn’t good enough.
Just what the fuck does that second sentence mean? It makes some sense up to the comma, where you start to feel the rage stoked by the army cutting the numbers of soldiers turns Dorries’ limited ability to construct a coherent sentence to goo.
5 years? 16%? Is that it? Oooh, those bloody lefties have gotten away far too lightly. Again.
The BBC has done a very good job over the last thirteen years to support the Labour Government. They have facilitated the very process which has resulted in the cuts every family in the nation has to bear. The blood which will flow from the cuts is all over BBC hands too.
And the BBC will undoubtedly be a little more bias towards the Tories, because although there is the independent board of what-ever-they’re-called running the BBC, it is still the government of the day that pulls the strings and can completely fuck the BBC if they wanted.
Although the BBC might have been a bit soft on the Labour government, I think Nadine will find that it was the Labour government and it’s love of the ‘wealth creators’ of the city that facilitated the slide down the u-bend in to the cess-pit we currently find ourselves. You can hardly say the BBC were willing facilitators. You’ll probably find the current demand to fuck over the BBC is just a continuation of the shit started in 2004 by, yes the Labour government. Bullied into submission that it is still trying to recover from.
Having displayed such bias, the Corporation should take more of the pain.
Oh? How, Nadine? Please, do tell.
We should demand to know what each presenter is paid. Because we pay. Students who have to buy a TV licence for each room in a student halls. Each person who is ill, elderly or infirm – we all pay from our taxed income.
We? who the fuck is this ‘we’? Some people might want to know what the presenters and ‘stars’ are paid. Some people couldn’t give a shit.
We know what teachers, nurses and MPs are paid. Why is the BBC allowed to function under this veil of secrecy?
We know what MPs’ are paid because they proved themselves to be extremely untrustworthy when it came down to spending and justifying the spending of other peoples money. And until recently MPs’ set their own pay. Who the fuck else got to pay themselves what they wanted from other peoples money?
We know the pay of some of the top paid headteachers, but not because of any dishonesty or lax rules, but because the information got leaked or the head disclosed it themselves. And nurses? Where can I find out how much a specific nurse gets paid? Go on, where?
The ‘veil of secrecy’ that the BBC is supposedly operating under is probably less secret than Nadines recruitment process for her constituency helper. *cough**daughter**cough*.
We need to know the exact cost of every production. How much each person on the production team receives. Every expense receipt going back over five years should be produced for everyone to see. Because we paid.
We need to know, do we? Does it really matter what the runner got paid, or the second soundman? It’s the total cost of the production that should be monitored, if you wanna go that way. It probably is already. Programmes rejected or not commissioned because of cost.
And where is the money going to come from to gather and collate and show this information in a meaningful way? From the BBC itself, so that there is less for actually producing shows or is this another job for the Big fucking Society?
That just sounds like petty vengeful snarking. ‘I’ve got to so you have to, too’ kind of thing. Oh fuck off you stupid fucking bint*.
The argument to justify the BBC licence fee used to go that the BBC made outstanding period dramas.
…and documentaries. Don’t forget documentaries, because everything else the BBC is utter shite.
I have a two word answer to that. Downton Abbey.
Man, that’s one killer argument. What’s Downton Abbey? I’m guessing it’s a period drama, but is it a shit BBC drama that proves the BBC don’t make outstanding period dramas anymore or is it an ITV one that shows that the BBC must be a shit waste of money because someone else can do good drama too?
So is Ming going to do it? That’s hard to say but there’s one strong point in his favour – his wife, Lady Elspeth, is never in a million years going to make an arse of herself on Twitter
Mrs Bercow has bugger all to with with House business, and neither will anybody elses spouse unless they are elected.
Maybe it would be a better course of action to look who is leading this and how much of an arse they are rather than their other halves before deciding which way to vote on Bercow.
The electorate are cunts.
Yeah, I know that’s a big sweeping statement but how else can it be explained? Dr Evan Harris (Lib, Oxford West & Abingdon) lost his seat and Nadine Dorries (Con, Mid Beds) retains her seat with an increased majority. What sort of society are we living in that chucks out an MP that has a rational, evidence based approach to scientific issues? An MP that is against the encroachment of civil liberties and has a positive record on gay issues?
Whereas the other MP, Nadine Dorries has a provable track record of obfuscation and smears. Would rather listen to religious fundamentalists on public health issues because they say things that confirm her own prejudices and dismiss anything that doesn’t. An MP that would rather shout ‘stalker’ that engage in debate.
Where is the justice? Where is the sense?
Tim Ireland went to Flitwick to record and broadcast a hustings that Nadine Dorries was appearing at.
It didn’t quite go to plan, due to a couple of misunderstandings. Even leaving those misunderstandings to one side, the amount of vitriol spewed by Dorries in the form of lies and smears is incredible. All of which she is unable, to substantiate.
and Adam Crofts’ post. Adam was attending the hustings and is not associated with either Tim or Nadine.
(Special mention also goes to Chris Paul that somehow also got dragged in to all this even though he wasn’t present and coined the phrase ‘The Flitwick Flounce’.)
Right, that’s it; I am thoroughly fed up with the notion that Nadine Dorries can lie and cheat her way through a term and expect to keep her all-too-safe seat. The good people of Mid Bedfordshire need to be warned about the party-political (and often all-too-personal) games that Nadine Dorries plays using the power they afford her.
So, along with Dave Cross and Sim-O, I have successfully negotiated 4 weeks off work & family duties, and together we intend to campaign against Nadine Dorries.
Running as an independent is a mug’s game, and we’re not going to pretend for a minute that any of us are prepared to represent the people of Mid Bedfordshire as their Member for Parliament. Hell, we’re not even going to endorse any of the other candidates. What we seek to do is inform the good people of Mid Beds of the full consequences of voting for Nadine Dorries (if they suspect they’ll have a mind to).
We all have our own ideas for what questions Mad Nad should be answering. Personally, I’d like to ask how many foetuses she saw ripping holes in their mothers’ stomachs whilst she was a nurse. But we need to realise that what’s important to us might not be import to the people of Mid-Narnia. Hence the need for the wiki. This afternoon we’ll be throwing it open for people to suggest questions for Ms Dorries. Once we have broad agreement on the contents of the “people’s pamphlet” we’ll lock the page and print copies of the pamphlet to be distributed in Narnia.
The relevant wiki is brought to us by the capable and clever Dave Cross (cheers, Dave):
Fellow Traveller’s Wiki: Home of the People’s Pamphlet
Anyone claiming this to be a personal attack of bile and vitriol is going to look a little bit foolish (not to mention dishonest), as it’s designed from the ground up to be as relevant and issue-driven as possible. The whole exercise revolves around deciding on the best issues to put forward, and the fairest (yet most effective) way to present them.
Transparency? The whole thing will be built/negotiated in public, which normally would give the subject plenty of time to prepare for any of the questions raised… but the difference with Dorries over many other MPs is that there are now far too many pertinent questions that she has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid, and by now she cannot afford to answer any of them with any honesty.
So, unlike the baseless, childish and pathetic #kerryout attacks, this will be an issue-driven campaign that will be more transparent than anything that’s come before it.
I feel honoured. I feel like my application to a gentlemans club has been accepted. Although membership isn’t as exclusive as it once was, I feel I’ve worked for this and earned it – without being rude or abusive either.
If you’ll excuse, I am now going to don my smoking jacket and settle into a high-backed leather armchair with a big cigar and fine single malt.
Just a quicky about a couple of tweets from Nadine Dorries.
From the surrounding tweets, Nadine is arguing against the governments drugs policy, and how effective it is. I don’t know the exact argument but you don’t need to here as the statements made by Nadine are absolutely ridiculous and even I could do better.
Lamb made the point that based on statistics, alcohol is more serious than drugs. I’ve never seen anyone selling booze at a school gate.
Can you guess the reason Nadine has never seen anyone selling booze at a school gate? Could it be something to do with shops and pubs? Kids aren’t stupid, why would they be risk getting into trouble by buying booze from a dodgy bloke outside school in full view of the authorities (teachers and other people that will report them) when they can just as easily get lashed on drink bought by themselves or their older looking mates from an off-licence?
I’ve never heard of anyone stabbing or murdering someone or trafficking for a drink and our Prisons aren’t full of alcoholics.
The MP for Mid-Beds has never heard of drink dealers stabbing and murdering each other because the criminal element has been taken out of the system. The business of selling alcohol has been put into the hands of proper, licenced business men. The role of contraband booze has been left with the the small guy that does a booze cruise and sells to his mates or the big criminal gangs that make counterfiet vodka. The role of the nasty vicous bastards you get in the middle of the drugs trade is non-existant because you either need lots of equipment and time and an investment and the demand for hooky booze is negligible and so not enough money in it. Drugs are easy money.
Prisons also may not be bursting at the seams with alcoholics, but you can’t walk around a prison for very long with out bumping in someone with a problem…
Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate he has made of (a) the number and (b) the proportion of prisoners diagnosed with alcohol problems in each prison in England and Wales, in each of the last 10 years. [265702]
Mr. Hanson: A number of studies have provided a picture of the alcohol-related problems experienced by those entering prisons:
Research(1) carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in 1997 stated that 63 per cent. of sentenced males and 39 per cent. of sentenced females reported a hazardous drinking pattern in the year before coming into prison. This figure rises to 70 per cent. in the case of young adult offenders. The numbers who are physically dependent on alcohol, which can be defined as those who need alcohol detoxification (Tiers 3 and 4 of Models of Care for Alcohol Misusers (MoCAM)), are much lower at around 8 per cent. of females and 7 per cent. of males.
The Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SCPR) study(2), a large national longitudinal survey of newly sentenced adult prisoners, reported in 2008 that 36 per cent. of the sample could be classified as heavy drinkers. However, heavy drinking—defined as drinking more than twice the recommended sensible daily limits—is not directly comparable to the hazardous drinking category used in the ONS report.
Off licences don’t control housing estates and publicans don’t run brothels, control child prostitutes and fund trafficking from booze.
Would drug dealers be able to control housing estates and fund people trafficking from drugs if drugs were legal like booze? I strongly doubt they would.
I also doubt that drugs fund people trafficking and prostitution to as greater extent that is usually portrayed.
Criminals are in drugs and prostitution for the money. That’s why there isn’t a black market for alcohol as there is for drugs. Think about it. Why would you break the law for lots of work, lots of hassle and no reward? Are criminals using prostitution as a loss-leader, like Tesco does with milk? Of course not.
The points above are supposed to be argueing in favour of stricter, harsher drug laws. They fail completely.
Mid-Beds, this is your MP. Please learn from your mistake at the next election.
Oh, and drugs are bad, mmkay?
Update:
Two more posts on the same set of Dorries tweets, the first from JDC325 who has more detail on the figures and stuff, and the second (via JDC325) from Mark Reckons which contains this nugget of comedy…
[Nadine tweets:] When I visited a womens prison, 100% of inmates were in for drugs related offences. 100%
As El_Cuevro tweeted, HM Prison Service says that 33% of female prisoners are in for drug offences. Nadine’s figure of 100% can only be because she must have visited a drug offenders institution.
I applaud the society of Chiropodists for pointing out to me the dangers of this; however, having done so I now respectfully ask them to leave it me and every other high heel wearing woman in the land to decide whether or not we wear high heels in the workplace..
[and yes. Dorries did put a double full stop at the end of that sentence. Probably the equivalent of 'hrumph']
I realise that aborting a feotus(sp?) and wearing heels are slightly different but the principle is the same. It’s about autonomy over your own body.
A function to attend mid morning and then the rest of the day peppered with interviews regarding the new law about to come into effect with allows lesbian couples to name who they wish on the birth certificate of a child they may have conceived and given birth to via fertility treatment.
A child with two mothers, neither of whom may have any DNA connection with the child.
So, lesbian couples are now allowed to name who they want on the birth certificate. That’s fucking great. If I was a lesbian couple, I would put on it put Batman and Marge Simpson. That’ll be something for the nipper to talk about later in life, wouldn’t it?
Seriously though, if two women are having fertility treatment, then there are two lots of egg, two uterii (*shrugs* I don’t know) and it’s gonna be highly unlikely that the treatment will involve nothing from the couple themselves, is it?
What is the difference between the women and a male and female couple having no DNA connection to their eventual offspring? Sorry, did you say something? No? Wouldn’t that make adoption for any kind of couple undesirable, regardless of sexual orientation?
…until this week was the strong and legal requirement issued by government that a birth certificate required the names of a child’s mother and father, a man and a woman.
To rephrase, until this week was the strong (wtf?) and legal requirement issued by government (it’s the law, yes?) that a birth certificate has the names of a childs’ mother and a male name. That male name could be Fred Fucking Flintstone for all the law cares, if it does actually care.
The evidence to prove that the traditional family structure, of mum, dad and children is the one which works best for a strong society is overwhelming.
The evidence may *prove* that the traditional family that Nadine suggests works best, but then it would’ve been not long ago that the traditional family structure of mum, dad, children and grandparents works best. Before that, the evidence would probably suggest that ot would be better to have lots of uncles and aunties living in the family too.
The evidence may suggest that mum, dad and the kids works best because of the lack of evidence of other family structures. What does the evidence say about kids with two mums or two dads? Does it say they grow up ok, mentally balanced and productive members of society or would the kids be turned into Teh Gays? Or is it growing up with homosexual parents going to make the young ‘un a axe wielding maniac or compulsive shoplifter?
I support civil partnership. I voted for it and I think it is fantastic that gay couples can be afforded the legal protection they were once denied and lived without. I also believe that those relationships deserved the protection, status and emotional support and comfort all marriages benefit from and enjoy.
Isn’t it nice how those gays can play at happy families now. They can even have a ceremony where they get a certificate at the end of it and everything.
However, when it comes to the nurturing and rearing of a child, that is a decision that has to be selfless.
But kids… whoa! That’s taking things toooooo far! Cos straight people never do things selfishly. Never have kids to try and save a doomed marriage and condemn a kid to an environment of backbiting and sniping, at best, in the family home. Those gays, all they think about is bumming each other and marching about the place dressed up, or down, to the nines in one of those Gay Proud marches.
The legislation about to come into effect delivers the message that the family unit which has underpinned a functioning society for thousands of years is de-valued in the eyes of the government.
Thousands of years? Hahaha! Twat.
How about looking at it the other way…it’s not de-valuing regular, straight-up marraige but saying other types of unions between two people that love each other are ok. How about we introduce a Love Test for teh Gays, just to make sure they don’t just selfishly want a fashion accessory that’s a little different from the usual toy dog hanging off their arm?
Nadine’s not usually a ‘glass is empty’ person, is she?
There is no evidence that lesbian couples stay together longer than heterosexual couples.
Do homosexual couples need to stay together *longer* than heterosexual couples? How long is long enough? I was under the impression hetero couples stayed together for 30, 40, 50 even 60 years, but I also understand that hetero couples also break up after 6 months, 12months, 2, 3, 4 years and all the years in between, too.
No evidence to show they make better parents…
There was no evidence Nadine would make a good MP either. Oh, hang on. That’s not helping my point is it?
We have many kinds of family today. I’m a single mum. We have families which consist of step-parents and children and lots of people working hard to make their new families work.
I bet Nadine really hates it when people suggest that she is a crap mother or she’s not bringing up her kids properly because she is a single mother. Is there a difference?
Some of those people wanting to work hard to make their family work just happen to love someone of the same sex as themselves. Is that wrong?
