Sim-O

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.

http://twitter.com/NadineDorriesMP/status/6168531952

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?

http://twitter.com/NadineDorriesMP/status/6168961615

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.

http://twitter.com/NadineDorriesMP/status/6169016126

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.

So, Nadine Dorries, who wants to interfere with womens bodies and say what women can and can’t do with them when it has nothing to do with her, doesn’t like being told what she can and can’t do with her body…

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.

Once again, Dorries dismisses the medics.

Nadine Dorries gets it wrong concerning the new law regarding names on birth certificates…

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?

…despite the Tories.

I don’t know if Bercow is the best speaker or not, but it sure did piss off Nadine Dorries.

And that, is a Good Thing.

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.

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

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.

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!

As of Tim Ireland of bloggerheads just twittered, Iain Dale claims Dorries has spiked the Telegraph’s guns when she’s really shot herself in the face.”

Oh what fun!!