Julie Moult – Wilful ignorance

August 28th, 2008 § 0 comments § permalink

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

Yup: Julie Moult.

=========== THE JULIE MOULT IMAGE CHALLENGE ==============

[[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.


A percentage of what, multiplied by what?

August 27th, 2008 § 0 comments § permalink

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

On a new thing in town

August 27th, 2008 § 0 comments § permalink

Went for a ride with my son on my bike (he sits on the crossbar and then tries to exert some influence on our direction) down by our local river.
It’s quite nice. Lots of flora and ducks and stuff.

Even the guys that work in the factory/warehouse on the other side of the river enjoy it on their breaks.

It’s quite enjoyable, I do recommend it, especially when you get to the lock and the weir.
Hold on, what’s that? There in the corner.

Oh no. Not more bloody houses.

Hmm. Well it’ll probably look alright once the gardens get established and the cover for the wildlife returns, albeit probably a slightly different type of wildlife.


Just lay a fucking RSJ across the river, why don’t you! Bollox to trying to make it pretty, or blend it in, like [[popup:riverwalk_6.jpg:a bridge a little further down the same stretch::1:left]] of river. Just: Bam! – Industrial shit! With some [[popup:riverwalk_8.jpg:weird plaques::1:left]].

Steel and metal and industrial stuff is fine in it’s place. I quite like it. But not in the middle of a nice wildlife area.

Give ’em a uniform…

August 24th, 2008 § 0 comments § permalink

All this guy is missing is a very small moustache, and the rule book.

Via and also.

August 22nd, 2008 § 0 comments § permalink

From Where Are The Dogs Humping.com

Tell them where to go

August 22nd, 2008 § 0 comments § permalink

Enemies of Reason:

Let’s get the X-Factor out of the way first. It was creaking when it was created, a hotch-potch of the Pop Idol format slung together with a few bells and whistles that weren’t, as it turned out, enough to save it from the threat of legal action for being, well, essentially Pop Idol, but with a few bits tacked on the side. It was a Ford Mondeo with a Ferrari badge on the front. It relies on a clapped-out ‘audition’ section combining the truly awful, deluded and borderline special needs contestants who go home crying, with the epiphanous revelation of ‘the contenders’, who tell their lachrymose backstories to a schmaltzily pitiful glurge soundtrack to try and make you go “Awww, innit sweet, innit sad”. Fuck off! It’s a turd-stained toilet bowl of light entertainment. Ooh, here are the loonies, look! They think they’re good, but they’re not! (Well yes of course they do. They’ve been through seven bloody auditions already before they got in front of the cameras, at each of which they’ve been told to stay behind, all the time seeing half-decent singers get booted off for not being televisual enough) And here are the great ones! Aren’t they rounded human beings with sad little stories to keep you rooting for them all the way to the fucking dismal Simon Cowell dirge Christmas Number One piece of fetid dirty wank that will play over slow-motion highlights of the winner’s ‘journey’ from audition to ticker-tape celebration! Do me a fucking favour. Get the fucking Generation Game back on, Game for a Laugh, Blind Date, Jesus anything, even Jim cunting Davidson was better than this, any fucking thing other than this dogshit. Do the country a favour and crash those fucking helicopters at the start of the show, sparing us any more of Cowell’s beaming monotooth or Tweedy’s perfect dimples. Fuck! Off! Now!

‘Nuff said, really.


On paedophiles

August 21st, 2008 § 0 comments § permalink

Well, where the fuck to start?

DK has done a post about Paul Gadd/Gary Glitter. And to be honest, DK has shown himself to be a bit of a cunt. He starts off saying he thought the point was we punished people

for the bad things that they have done and then, when they have served their term, they are free to go: until they re-offend—if they re-offend—they are free.

That is correct. Do your time and usually that is it. Whether your a murderer or a shoplifter, your previous crimes cannot be counted against you.
Some crimes are so serious that there has to be conditions imposed upon release from custody. For example, murderers are on license for the rest of there lives (page 3, item 6 [pdf]). It is arguable that murder is the ultimate crime, deliberately taking a life, and so these people need keeping an eye on.
The same for paedophiles. These people completely fuck up the lives of others for their own pleasure. How can a five, ten or twelve year old give consent to what a paedophile wants? They don’t know their arse from their elbow at that age.

Unfortunately, with all the bloody parents who simply cannot be arsed to look after their brood screaming “what about the chiiiiiildren?”

Fuck you. You fucking cunt. I would now go on about hoping that some sick fuck comes along and fucks your kids, when you have some, in various ways while you think they are safe and sound at nursery while you’re at work or your best fucking mate does unspeakable things to them when babysitting while you’re out for the evening.
But I won’t because I’m not a cunt.
In todays world, a parent cannot stand on their own two feet independentley, with or without tax credits or child allowance, without handing over their child to other people. Some have the luxury of having family to look after the offspring, but even that doesn’t always guarantee a happy ending.
Most people have to employ, yes DK, employ, not have paid for us, nurseries or childminders. When I leave my child in childcare I am putting the most precious thing in my life in the hands of strangers. So excuse me if I would like paedophiles kept track of and barred from working in those sort of places.

Right, that’s the emotional rant over and ignoring the rest of DKs’ dismissal of parents concerns, justified or not, the post does go have a general theme of ‘is paedophilia a crime or a mental disorder?’.
It is a very good point. Quoting from Carol Sanger (whoever the fuck she is):

If we accept that paedophilia is an illness – and there are reasoned voices who say that it is – then, by definition, we accept it as being beyond the control of its sufferer in exactly the way that we accept schizophrenia. Therefore, we should respond as such: if a man, for reasons not remotely his fault, is posing a risk to others, he should be subject to sectioning under the Mental Health Act, with all the appropriate regret, sympathy and kindness that accompanies such a move. Given the grip of the current bogeyman frenzy, it is hard to see that one playing in Peoria; nevertheless, it would be the only humane response.

If we accept that it is a crime, however, then it is something which the perpetrator can control. He may choose to offend or not, and if he chooses what is unacceptable, again we should respond as such. We catch the bastard, try him, lock him up by way of penalty and then – this is the crucial bit – once he has served his sentence we restore his liberty. In full.

Carol has a good point. But it isn’t as simple as that. For a start no body knows if paedophilia is an illness or just criminal behaviour. If it is found to be a proper mental condition, then section them and cure them of their deviant behaviour. When they come out of their treatment, they will still be monitored, because other peoples mental and physical well being is at risk. Not just anyone, but the most vulnerable, the people in our society least well equipped to deal with it or defend themselves through physical resistance or knowing where to go for help.
If it’s shown that paedophiles just like fucking kids, then they should still be monitored on their release. These guys know it is against the law, they know it fucks kids up mentally, yet they still do it. will face prison for it. I don’t give a shit if they can’t make proper relationships, if they didn’t get enough love from their mother when they were kids. Why should my kids be the ones that proves that Mr Cunty is not a reformed character? It’s not like a fucking joyrider or burglar.

Another of this Carol womans’ quotes:

Putting children in danger outweighs almost any other consideration – except, perhaps, the danger of the precedent set by singling out one identifiable group and excluding it from the principles of law that apply to all others.

The principle of law is that everyone is treated equally, that two people who commit similar crimes receive similar treatment, one is not treated differently because of class or colour or nationality, that a sentence is passed upon the crime and not the person.
A burglar gets treated differently to a dope smoker, who gets treated differently to a counterfeiter, who gets treated differently to an assassin.

But all this appears to go by-the-by where the fucking chiiiiildren are concerned. But this is to debase our justice system and ourselves. As Sanger says at the finale…

The solution, therefore, is either to declare all those on the sex offenders register to be unwell and apply open-ended treatment, compassionately, according to the severity of their condition – or to declare them criminals, take our several pounds of flesh and let them go. Mad or bad. But we can’t, in conscience, have it both ways.

So you pick.

Yes I fucking can. And until someone comes up with a better way I will have it both ways.

Titles for professional charlatons

August 19th, 2008 § 0 comments § permalink

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.

Report: Mandatory abortion counselling not needed

August 18th, 2008 § 2 comments § permalink

I tried to find a good snappy short excerpt from the following article, but couldn’t so I’ve quoted a lot.

The Times:

Women do not put their mental health at risk by having an abortion, according to an authoritative study that will undermine the campaign to tighten the UK’s abortion laws.

A comprehensive review of research by the American Psychological Association (APA), one of the world’s most influential mental health bodies, found no evidence that the majority of abortions cause psychiatric problems.

By challenging a key scientific argument for reform, the findings will hinder the latest effort to make it harder for British women to obtain terminations, which is to be debated by the House of Commons in October.

Anti-abortion MPs have tabled an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that would require all women to be counselled about psychiatric risks before they can be cleared to have a termination. They cite research suggesting that mental health issues such as depression and anxiety are more common among women who have had abortions.

The APA report said that the findings of such studies were unreliable because they either failed to distinguish between abortions of wanted and unwanted pregnancies, or they did not consider factors such as poverty and drug use that raise the likelihood both of having an abortion and suffering mental illness.

The APA found “no credible evidence” that single abortions could directly cause mental health problems among adults with unwanted pregnancies. It called for more well-designed studies to investigate the issue.

Even the evidence for adverse psychiatric effects of multiple abortions was equivocal, it found. Higher rates of mental illness among such women could be explained by social factors, such as poverty or drug use that also put them at higher risk of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy

Supporters [of mandatory counselling and a ‘cooling off’ period for abortions] pointed to research such as a New Zealand study led by David Ferguson, of Christchurch School of Medicine, which found in 2006 that women who had had abortions had an elevated risk of mental health problems.

The Ferguson study was among those whose design was criticised by the APA review, in this case because it did not distinguish between abortions of wanted and unwanted pregnancies.

So, now we have evidence that voluntary abortions do not have any long term psychologically detrimental effects. This I would presume is because the person having the abortion has had a little time time square the decision withthemselves about what they are doing with an unwanted pregnancy, whereas the people who experience miscarriages or have to terminate for medical reasons do so out of choice and losing as it is generally a wanted pregenancy.

Oh, hi Nadine.

Mrs Dorries said: “If this rehashed, inconclusive and dated research is being used to deny women in the UK who seek an abortion the right to counselling, then it’s a fairly desperate act on behalf of the abortion industry and those who wish to deny women the right to make a fully informed decision.”

FFS, Nadine. First of all, there’s a pot here that wants to meet your kettle. %This report isn’t trying to deny women counselling, it is just saying that mandatory counselling isn’t neccessary. I’m sure a doctor isn’t going to deny counselling if it is needed.
It is also pointless making counselling mandatory as those that do not want it will not participate properly and it will just end up a waste of time for the patient and time and money for the health service.

An unemployable politician?

August 17th, 2008 § 0 comments § permalink

DK quoting Tamsin Dunwoody from somewhere else:

Tamsin Dunwoody, Labour’s unsuccessful candidate at the recent by-election caused by the death of her mother Gwyneth, tells Mandrake that she will not put her name forward for the general election.

“It’s the hardest decision I’ve had to make in my political life,” she says. “I’d love to have done it, but the simple truth is that I can’t physically afford to move up there from west Wales with my five children and give the seat my full-time commitment.”

She adds: “I’ve not been able to find a job since losing my seat in the Welsh Assembly a year ago and I don’t have a pot of gold, so I can’t just go off and do what I want. People don’t like to employ ex-politicians, especially Labour ones like me who might unionise.”

Fucking good.

I saw her on the telly during bye-election and she came across as a smug, self-satisfied piece of shit.

We need less like her.

Where am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for August, 2008 at Sim-O.