... I'm just standing there minding my own business when I suddenly find myself thinking; "Where the hell did all these boobs come from?"

On a totally different note, here's a few bloggers talking about a right tit:

Sim-O - Nadine Dorries & abortion: No reasoned argument then Nadine? Just a 'Pah! It's biased!' response.

Oldie but a goodie:

rhetorically speaking - nadine dorries: I'm really quite unpleasant when you get to know me: So, even though Dorries was completely wrong, and smeared Caroline Flint with manifestly false allegations, it's apparently unthinkable that she should apologise.

Another oldie, showing that she has past form using taxpayer's money for campaigning purposes:

David Reeves - Nadine Watch: Nadine was found to have clearly breached rules by the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges in 2006 when she used House of Commons stationary to personally endorse a candidate in a local authority by-election. (House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges, 12th Session Report 2005-06).

And, finally, a typically comprehensive post from Septicisle that pulls no punches at the end:

Septicisle - The lying lies and dirty secrets of Ms Nadine Dorries MP: Out of all the MPs that this blog has covered over the last few years, it's safe to say that none has been as underhand, as genuinely unpleasant, manipulative, vindictive and dishonest as both Dorries has been and apparently is. She is both a disgrace to politics as a whole and a liability to the Conservative party.

Hear hear.

PS - Note here that Nadine doesn't say 2000 what:

"After a slow start the 20 reasons for 20 weeks web site has suddenly begun to gather momentum. I have watched the ticker clicking by and I reckon within the next few minutes we will have passed 2000!" - Nadine Dorries

I've already bet 5 quid that Nadine was kept on a leash until after recent elections were over. I'd wager a second fiver on Iain Dale giving her advice on What Not To Say.

(Psst! And, like Iain, she appears to think that every visit to her website is a vote for her.)

Posted by Manic on May 10, 2008, 5:21 PM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Remember Steve Grover, the Burger King of sock-puppets? The matter is finally news in the UK.

If they start denying stuff, I have lots saved to disk... so I wish Burger King well with their whitewash.

[Psst! BK peeps! Why haven't you fired this git yet?]

PS - Totally unrelated, but this is all kinds of awesome. (via)

Posted by Manic on May 9, 2008, 9:00 PM in Consume! | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

There are already a few angry Tories buzzing about because I'm criticising their precious little darling Nadine Dorries so, to save time, here are two links from the sites of Nadine's staunchest supporters, Iain Dale and Tim Montgomerie, showing that they clearly disapprove of use of taxpayer's money for campaigning purposes...

Iain Dale - Labour MP Abuses Communications Allowance

ConHome - CCHQ highlights widespread abuse of parliamentary communications allowance by Labour MPs

... and I look forward to their blogging about it again soon because that's just what Nadine Dorries has been doing via her website.

I should make it clear that as far as I can tell, Nadine's website was and is - as stated on her website - funded from the Incidental Expenses Provision and not the new Communications Allowance, but I would advise any MP who is confused/concerned about such things to read The Communications Allowance and the use of House stationery (2.31MB PDF) because, until the Green Book is revised, it offers the most comprehensive guide available on websites paid for with the public's money.

But in Nadine's case the misuse of taxpayer's money is clear and unarguable, so in this post we do not need to go any further than these extracts from Teh Green Book (870Kb PDF)

5.1.1. Scope of the allowance
The Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP) is available
to meet costs incurred on Members' Parliamentary
duties. It cannot be used to meet personal costs,
or the costs of party political activities or campaigning.

5.13.4. Communications and travel

Allowable expenditure:
- Printing and sending newsletters, establishing
and maintaining websites.

Expenditure not allowable:
- Campaigning on behalf of a political party
or cause
- Communications or travel on personal or
party political matters

There are so many examples of Nadine breaking these clear-cut rules on her website - particularly in that section she laughingly describes as a 'blog' - that it's hard to know where to start (or end) but I think a good example is her recent targeting of four Labour MPs over the abortion issue, as it ticks all the boxes; it's personal in nature (though most of the purely personal entries on her blog are more vindictive than this) , it's party-political (look at who she targets), and it's done in support of a cause.

I'll be quoting from those entries in full mainly because Nadine's permalinks don't work on her joke of a website that you and I paid for:

Nadine Dorries: Beyond The Limit
Posted Tuesday, 25 March 2008 at 11:45

Laura Moffatt. Labour MP, Crawley. Majority 37.

As a result of a number of polls, we know that the majority of the public, as many as 72 per cent, wish to see the upper limit at which abortion takes place, reduced from 24 to 20 weeks.

Many MPs, however, choose to use Parliament as a place to pander to their own preference, or ideology, rather than to represent the will of the people.

Each day, I am going to highlight MPs who may need to think very seriously when voting on the issue of reducing the upper limit to 20 weeks, because if they don't, they may see their majorities wiped out at the next election.

Laura Moffat voted AGAINST counselling before the termination of pregnancy in 2007; and abstained during a vote to reduce the upper limit to 21 weeks.

I have no problem with abstention on an ethical conscience issue, if an MP truly does not want to compromise their own principles, and ensure that they do not misrepresent the majority of their constituents' views.

However, trotting through the noe lobby on a 20 week amendment will be something entirely different.

If you know your MP's voting intentions, please link to the Alive and Kicking campaign web site and let them know.

-

Nadine Dorries: Beyond The Limit (2)
Posted Wednesday, 26 March 2008 at 12:07

Barbara Follett MP. Labour. Stevenage. Majority: 3139.

Barbara Follett is the founder of Emily's list, which provides financial help and assistance to women wishing to become Labour MPs. In order to receive funding they have to support Labour party values, and be pro-abortion.

This means that any potential candidate of faith, ie, Jewish, Christian, Sikh, Muslim or Hindu would not qualify, which makes the list discriminatory .

Barbara Follett MP has voted against reducing the upper limit and against a bill introduced to provide counselling and support.

72% of her constituents want the upper limit reduced to 20 weeks.

Will she represent their views at the next vote, or her own?

If you know your MP's voting intentions, please link to the Alive and Kicking campaign web site and let them know.

-

Nadine Dorries: Beyond The Limit (3)
Posted Thursday, 27 March 2008 at 11:28

Jacqui Smith (Labour). Redditch. Majority: 2716.

Jacqui Smith has abstained during many abortion votes, however, she has taken funding from Emily's list on the basis that she supports pro-abortion values.

As I've said before, abstention is fine if she feels that by voting for her pro-abortion beliefs she would be mis-representing her constituents. One to watch.

If you know your MP's voting intentions, please link to the Alive and Kicking campaign web site and let them know.

-

Nadine Dorries: Beyond The Limit (4)
Posted Wednesday, 2 April 2008 at 10:21

Margaret Moran (Labour) Luton South. Majority: 5650.

Margaret Moran MP has abstained during many abortion votes, however, she has taken funding from Emily's list on the basis that she supports pro-abortion values.

As I've said before, abstention is fine if she feels that by voting for her pro-abortion beliefs she would be mis-representing her constituents. One to watch.

If you know your MP's voting intentions, please link to the Alive and Kicking campaign web site and let them know.

All but one of these entries included the following banner promoting her cause...

... and now she's pushing the new 20 weeks website/campaign on the front page:

It's too much. She's stepped way, way over the line in pursuit of her anti-abortion agenda and she needs - and deserves - a damn good slapping for it.

----------------

UPDATE - Via Unity, a report that Nadine Dorries has campaigned as a pro-choice candidate. Heh. I'm not sure if this was *quite* what Dr Crippen was after...

Posted by Manic on May 9, 2008, 12:30 PM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Nadine Dorries has been making out that her campaign crusade to restrict abortions is nothing to do with her religious beliefs... so why, pray tell, is her campaign crusade so closely tied to a network of Christian politicians and evangelical organisations?

(Psst! Christian Concern For Our Nation / CCFON are a modest lot; take a look at where/how they list themselves as 'supporters' on websites they created here and here.)

Even more soon... let's give Nadine some time to take this on board first. Nadine? Any response?

PS - Watch Tim Montgomerie completely fail to declare an interest as he hails this "cross-party campaign" (supported not by 200 MPs as he claims but instead 13 Conservative MPs and one MP each from Labour and the Lib Dems).

Posted by Manic on May 8, 2008, 5:15 PM in Christ... | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Please excuse the mind-dump, which is untidy in places. Wading through Nadine's bullshit gives me a headache at the best of times, but I needed to get all of this out of my head before starting on a fresh slapping of this stupid, deceitful woman:

1. She presents myths as facts:

The clearest example of this is her use of the 'Hand of Hope' myth which - even after a thorough debunking (that she described as "an amazing response") - she still uses as the lead item in the 'pictures and video' section of 'her' campaign website. It's worth looking closely at this one, as Nadine's apparent belief in this myth now relies on her belief that militant pro-lifers made the surgeon change his story about a foetus capable of punching through human flesh. You can find more here and here.

2. She refuses to be held accountable for her lies 'mistakes':

In late 2007, Nadine Dorries aimed a false accusation at Dr Ben Goldacre. Instead of facing up to the many comments in defence of Dr Goldacre (and simple common sense) she simply stopped accepting comments on her 'blog' (more)... and then had the temerity to play the victim!

3. She has no bloody idea what she's doing most of the time:

The above incident showed that Dorries is ignorant of parliamentary procedure, but there's an even more recent example of her ignorance; this week, Nadine staged her first ever press conference (bless!) but was surprised to learn that in most cases filming is not allowed in the Palace of Westminster without permission (note: in most cases). And, as with the Goldacre matter, she went on the offensive and had a full-on rant over an issue she knows sweet bugger all about. Because she's as vindictive as she is ignorant.

4. She's a liar:

And, when she was forced to relocate her press conference to College Green, she was shocked to discover that she needed a permit there, too (and permission under SOCPA). To get her way and get her face on camera, she lied... outright and without shame:

"As it was we de-camped onto College Green. Within seconds another security guard arrived. He asked me did I have a permit? I said yes. I lied, we began. Perhaps someone would now like to report me to the standards committee?" - Nadine Dorries (07 May)

I've used this rather benign example because (a) here she admits it and (b) all of the other times she might be called a liar (example), one cannot rule out her instead being understandably mistaken because she is so impossibly stupid.

5. She claims to be a blogger when she is not:

The permalinks don't work in most browsers, she no longer accepts comments; let's face it people, this is not a blog. And it's nowhere near as popular or successful as Nadine makes out...

6. She misrepresents passing mentions as awards:

Dorries once issued a press release claiming that she had been named 'princess of the blogs' by the British Computer Society. Anyone reading that press release or seeing the big button on her website might have got the impression that Nadine had actually won an award or even the competition overall, when this simply wasn't the case. She even went so far as to state that hers was "one of just three MP's websites to be highly commended" while completely failing to mention that 11 other MPs, instead of being 'highly commended' had to make do with being finalists and/or actually winning awards.

7. She misrepresents overtly critical articles as endorsements:

Nadine has been running another promotional button on her website, and you can see a grab of it to your right. It's enormous, it's on the front page and it's complete and utter bulldust. "As featured in Private Eye" might suggest to more trusting readers that Private Eye had run a positive or flattering feature on her 'blog', when in fact they had run a small item (following what can only be described as a rant about that magazine on her site in Nov 06) that read; "Mad Nad appears to be getting even madder"... and "she shrieks on her blog". It did at one stage say that "the Dorries blog is full of delights", but the delights they mentioned were her inability to recall the name of the first woman MP and her interest in "hunky personal bodyguards". They closed by responding to a dark/vague threat (Nadine's great at these) by asking; "What can the old fruitbat mean?"

Nadine responded (in Dec 06) by thanking them for traffic and claiming to have more readers. Later, when all the fuss had died down, she re-ran events according to her own version of reality and the illusion of an endorsement was born.

She is a piece of work, isn't she?

8. Even the Daily Mail is embarrassed by her bullshit:

The online version of this story peddling Nadine's nonsense originally carried a graphic of Nadine's '20 reasons for 20 weeks' list... until it was picked apart again and again and again. Yesterday, they replaced the graphic of Nadine's list with a stock image of the MP.

Oh dear.

9. Even those who support her campaign's aims are embarrassed by her bullshit:

Dr Crippen wishes she could be more honest about the abortion debate and her position on abortion.

(Note for regulars: and he manages this with the handicap of generally taking Iain Dale at his word.)

[/ends]

Yes, I know that's only 9, but like I said, this is just a mind-dump and there's a fresh item on the way...

:o)

Posted by Manic on May 8, 2008, 4:46 PM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Work, work, work, work, work!

Sorry, folks.

Here you go... enjoy Rhetorically Speaking ripping Nadine Dorries' '20 reasons' to shreds while you wait.

(5 quid says someone at CCHQ had Nads on a very tight leash until after recent elections.)

Posted by Manic on May 7, 2008, 8:13 AM in Updates | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Congratulations, Boris.

For a number of reasons I stayed out of this fight, but let me point you in the direction of some opinion now that it's all over and the Conservatives have a cherry atop their cake.

(Psst! Enjoy your celebration, boys... but mind how you go on the way home.)

Chicken Yoghurt - Constructivism

Blood & Treasure - the mot juste

Schrodinger's Pig - An open letter to Labour MPs from Labour voters.

Septicisle - "We're all fucked. You're fucked. We're all completely fucked."

I didn't even bother watching any of the election coverage, which turned out to be a blessing:

Liberal Conspiracy - BBC: From dumb to dumber

Ministry of Truth - Election Night Redux

Oh, and I can now share with you the following story:

Months ago, Boris Johnson's newly-formed campaign team wanted temporary access to his main website so they could add a splash page for a day. Clive and I were a teeny bit insulted not to be trusted to handle this small job ourselves, and a tad concerned about the track record the Tories have on the web (many don't know how to handle the technology and most who do can rarely be trusted with it), but we sorted out an FTP profile for them and the following is a transcript of the phone call made to issue the password for that profile:

Tim: OK, have you got a pen?

Team Boris: Yes

Tim: Right, the password is; one...

Team Boris: One.

Tim: ... two...

Team Boris: Two.

Tim: ... three....

Team Boris: (sigh) OK, I see what you're getting at...

Posted by Manic on May 2, 2008, 11:59 PM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

(checks watch)

Yep, there it is.... 3:30 in the afternoon on the 2nd of May. I have now officially been in your beautiful United Kingdom for a decade.

[SFX: 747 landing (ext.)]

[Musical Montage: Tim arrives as a penniless waif, makes his way to the big city, doesn't quite make it to the position of mayor, but does eventually become so jealous of the Prime Minister that he decides to attack Tony Blair for no good reason... or something like that.]

I may miss my family and bitch and moan now and again about one thing or another that's wrong with this country, but I love it here. Lots. Let me tell you about some of the things that I love the most...

(Note - To avoid putting you offside, I'm going to list my 10 favourite things about this glorious nation without mentioning one your women that I married and one of your jobs that I took.)

1. No redbacks, funnel-webs, taipans, tiger snakes, brown snakes, red bellied black snakes, sea snakes, crocodiles, man-eating sharks, blue ringed octopi or box jellyfish to worry about. In fact, the only things likely to leap out of the bushes and kill me are, I'm reliably informed, roaming gangs of teenagers and paedophiles*.

(*Why we haven't simply set one onto the other is beyond me.)

2. Cold water from the tap. From the TAP!!! For upwards of ten months a year, too. A little luxury I've yet to take for granted.

3. Somewhat related: it rarely gets too hot here and - from time to time - we are rewarded with snow. Lovely, lovely snow:

4. In most parts of Australia, unwanted goods are sold at garage sales. Here, the far more sensible boot sale dominates... and haggling is not only tolerated, but expected. Almost every wonderful or useful thing I own was bought at a boot sale.

5. Monty Python, The Goodies**, The League of Gentlemen, 2000 AD, Viz, and all of the other quality mental entertainment that this country produces.

(**The original plan for today was to play Land of Hope and Glory on milk bottles pint glasses for you, but even though I followed the instructions from The Goodies File as best I could, I didn't get any further than a series of dull thuds. I think I'll steal some real milk bottles for my next attempt. And maybe use water instead of beer.)

6. Tabloid newspapers. Many feature topless women on a daily basis. Even the more restrained titles will use any excuse to show a woman in a bikini ("Skin cancer scare!") or skimpy knickers ("Breast cancer shock!") and even one of those titles is owned by a pornographer. I'm guaranteed amusement with a simple visit to the newsagent.

7. Especially so every second Wednesday. Hooray for Private Eye.

8. The nutters here are gloriously nutty. And the bastards are complete bastards. Life here seems richer and more colourful, from every crisis to every Christmas.

9. In most parts of Australia, the suburbs all melt into each other and if it weren't for the road signs you would have no idea that you'd passed from one place to another. You've got to keep a sharp eye out for the creep of xenophobia, but I love living in a village. I especially adore the nooks and crannies; you can go for a short walk on a public footpath or bridleway, turn a corner and find yourself in a whole other place. It's like magic sometimes. Having a few buildings here and there that are more than a couple of hundred years old adds to that.

10. Finally, I'm going to put you lot on the list. I've met a lot of nice people since I first arrived, but the very nicest of you take the time to read what I write. Cheers all.

Posted by Manic on May 2, 2008, 3:30 PM in Updates | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

Words spoken just this moment by one of our younglings:

"There's no cheating in footsie!"

So true.

Posted by Manic on April 30, 2008, 6:51 PM in Inneresting | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Well, maybe it is a bit.. but only to the extent that in some small way I may have contributed to a festive, carefree air on the evening of 16 April...

Independent - Pandora: Blogger 'Guido Fawkes' is led off to the Tower: (Guido Fawkes)... the famously thirsty troublemaker, real name Paul Staines, was up before the beak at Tower Bridge Magistrates Court last Thursday. He admitted driving while under the influence and without insurance after being stopped by the Plod in the small hours of 17 April, driving his wife's Volkswagen fast and swerving across lanes in south London. He was breathalysed and found to be almost twice the legal limit. Asked by District Judge Timothy Stone whether he had an alcohol problem, Staines said: "Possibly." Sentencing is on 15 May. It is his fourth alcohol-related offence and second drink-driving reprimand - he was banned for 12 months in 2002 - requiring the judge to consider a jail sentence.

I'm declaring a zinger competition in a vain effort to jump on board this bandwagon or witch hunt or piffling trifle whatever he plans on calling it before swiftly jumping off again. Then we'll crack on. Promise.

I'll start a sequential list here. We can argue and vote later:

Unity: "Do they have internet access in Wormwood Scrubs?"
Justin McKeating: "What's the libertarian argument for driving whilst uninsured and over the legal limit for alcohol?"
Tim Ireland: "Would it help if I turned up as a character witness?"
Bob Piper: "Not only will the judge be considering a custodial sentence... but Gordon Brown has intervened to freeze his wages."
Professor Paul: "That explains his visitor figures. He sees everything double all the time!"
OneHourAhead: "For the story in the Independent go here, for schadenfreude go here, here, here or here, for no comment go here or here."

Posted by Manic on April 30, 2008, 11:35 AM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack (1)

JOKE:

Q: What is the difference between kinky and perverted?

A: Kinky, you use a feather. Perverted, you use the whole damn chicken.

-

FACT:

In the UK, it is legal to have sex with a dead chicken, but not a live one.

(Sexual Offences Act 2003; refers quite specifically to sexual activity with a "living animal")

-

FACT:

In the UK, it is (generally) legal to have sex with a live person, but not a dead one.

(Sexual Offences Act 2003; refers quite specifically to sexual activity with a "dead person")

-

FACT:

In the UK, it is legal for you to pretend to have sex with a live chicken or a dead person, but soon anyone who looks at photos/video of you engaging in this legal activity will be breaking the law.

No, that's not a joke... it's labelled quite clearly:

The Register - 'Extreme porn' law could criminalise millions

-

TRIVIA:

It's been a whole year since I published anything on Celebrity Bestiality.

-

LINKS:

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

Cheers to Clive for the heads-up.

I told you so.

-

UPDATES:

A correction from Scott of loveandgarbage, who says; If you check s 142 you will note that the 2003 Act does not apply in Scotland (the law in Scotland on these topics is based on case law - on the position relating to actions with the deceased see para 5.28 of the following Scottish law Commission report (link) which indicates that there is difficulty in fitting it into any particular criminal act at the moment; and on animals our law the position was established in a case in 1845 that it is a crime to have "unnatural carnal connection with a beast" and whether or not the beast is alive is not specified in the commentaries - and it is suggested in the leading modern criminal law textbook that it is only a crime for a man to do so, the position for women is not clear). Under cl 149 of the new bill the provisions in Part 5 that you refer to do not apply to Scotland.

OK, who wants to be first to point out that Scott's correction includes a link to a PDF file?

Posted by Manic on April 30, 2008, 10:59 AM in The War on Stupid | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

[NOTE: a lot of this will seem familiar to most regulars... but I'll only be mentioning one obvious name that came up recently anyways.]

The CIW (Coalition of Immokalee Workers) recently found a spy in their midst. They have also been the victim of a series of anonymous comments questioning their honesty, integrity and motives.

See if you can spot the cleverly hidden smear in this statement from Burger King denying their involvement in such things;

"I have no idea what should be secret about helping farmworkers" - Keva Silversmith, spokesperson for Burger King (source)

An entertaining intervention from Mr Silversmith, but the man to watch here is Steven F. Grover, Burger King's vice president in charge of food safety, quality assurance and regulatory compliance (i.e. ethics).

Steve Grover was last year compelled to withdraw several claims and suggestions that he could not substantiate about the CIW pocketing money meant for workers.

Soon after that, someone was making very similar claims anonymously:

Take a look at this comment by 'Activist2008' under an article by Amy Williams:

Activist2008 wrote:

Unfortunately, with a little research you will find that the CIW is a self-serving attack organization that has no real members. See their IRS filing form 990. (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php ) The CIW creates conflict and spreads misinformation to reap millions in cash. As I read in your article Burger King supports the CIW's goals and has has tried to work with the CIW. Why don't you question that with the CIW?. Sounds like you support the unquestioned internet extortion tactics the CIW is so good at. For 6 years the CIW protested YUM, McDonald's and now Burger King and the workers in Immokalee are not seeing a single penny of the money nor audits. The CIW has accomplished nothing in the last 6 years with its self-serving missinformation and attacks. The CIW is not helping the workers by speading this missinformation and asking others to follow in its self serving attacks.

3/6/2008 1:18:28 PM

Now take a peek at a comment by this same individual under another article Amy Williams about these and other anonymous attacks being traced back to Burger King:

Activist2008 wrote:

What a paranoid rant, I have never seen such a crock. For the record my comments are my own and have nothing what so ever to do with Burger King. I like how you attack your reader s freedom of opinion and speech! Sounds like my poor little opinion has really made the CIW mad along with their little writer. Tells me that the CIW has something pretty big to hide and might just be up to no good? Instead of the paranoid rant how about proof that the workers are really getting the money the CIW says they are. I suspect changing the subject is a lot easier than that proof!

4/13/2008 9:42:57 PM

We're really in familiar territory here, aren't we? There's an added highlight posted under the equally convincing username 'humanrights'...

humanrights wrote:

I note that the CIW is always attacking and trying to pick a fight with Burger King, Subway, Whole Foods Chipotle and others? If the CIW was truly about helping workers why are they always on the attack, picking fights and so totally paranoid. Any real human rights group that is truly out to help workers would be happy to have a big company attend their meetings. The company might learn something! Now the CIW is calling that spying! Clearly the CIW must have a lot to hide and I don't believe they are out for the workers at all.

4/15/2008 3:45:28 PM

Activist2008 was also active on YouTube under the name 'activist2'. This since-deleted comment was made 3 weeks ago under this video of a CIW demonstration and press conference...

activist2 (wrote):

The CIW is a self-serving attack group with no real worker members. The CIW creates conflict and spreads misinformation to unquestioning duped supporters via the internet. The CIW reaps millions in cash from unknowing or duped supporters. Burger King does not hire tomato pickers, you might as well protest yourself for buying tomatoes in the supermarket. The protesters are supporting the CIW extortion tactics to line the CIW's pockets. Who is really exploiting the workers!

Again, I ask you to compare these comments with a recent view/position expressed by Mr Steven Grover...

Independent - Slave labour that shames America: "We see no legal way of paying these workers," said Steve Grover, the vice-president of Burger King. He complained that a local human rights group, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers "has gone after us because we are a known brand". But he added: "At the end of the day, we don't employ the farmworkers so how can we pay them?"

Now we're near the really fun bit, and some very, very familiar ground. Watch this:

One month ago, 'activist2' posted the following to another CIW video...

activist2 (wrote):

The CIW is a bunch of fools who don't have a clue how the world works. People need jobs and these folks are protesting the wron people.

But the most interesting entry is this entry from two months ago by 'surfxaholic36' under that same CIW video...

surfxaholic36 (wrote):

The CIW is an attack organization lining the leaders pockets by attacing restaurant companies. They make up issues and collect money from dupes that believe their story. To bad the people protesting don't have a clue regarding the facts. A bunch of fools!

That second comment was made using the YouTube account of... the daughter of Steven F. Grover, Burger King's vice president in charge of food safety, quality assurance and regulatory compliance (i.e. ethics)!

Amy Williams - Daughter of Burger King VP says dad wrote anti-coalition postings: Although Shannon Grover also uses the name surfxaholic36 - mostly on social networking sites - she said the anti-coalition posts are her father's alone. "I don't really know much about the coalition and Burger King stuff," she said, reached by phone at the family's Miramar home Friday. "That was my dad. My dad used to go online with that name and write about them." Asked if she'd ever written about the coalition online, she was adamant: "No, that was my Dad. That was him." Steven Grover did not return calls to his home or office, nor did Burger King spokesman Keva Silversmith respond to calls and a request to speak to Burger King CEO John Chidsey.

Click here and scroll down for the rest of that article (it's under a mirror of the AP article)... oh, and do look out for this comment that appears to be an authentic intervention from Mrs Grover. Watch closely as she plays the victim, lays the smear and makes her threat:

mdmom2008 wrote:

This is a little girl, far from 18 years old! This reporter and publication choose to cross that gray area and speak with her, without parental concent. The reporter, according to my daughter, did not make it clear that the was a reporter, only giving her name and that she was from Ft. Myers. I, as her mother, am livid that the Senior Managing Editor Cindy McCurry Ross allowed reporter Williams to expose the screen name and personal name of my young daughter, exposing her to the dangers of the internet. I am even more so apalled, as Ms. Ross states that she is a mother too, and she understands, but it seems she is more interested in producing this type of yellow journalism, than protecting children and tomatoe pickers alike. She also refused to give me the steps involved to get Shannon's info. She suggested she close any use of identity they used. So, this child who as you can imagine, has not been to PR training was frightened and still recovering from this incident.

4/28/2008 1:47:59 PM

Later in that same thread, 'humanrights' makes a welcome return...

humanrights wrote:

Well it looks like this totally proves what surfxaholic36 was saying. The CIW and their writer at the News Press are far more interested in attacking Burger King and anyone associated with the company than helping farm workers! What does all this have to do with helping farm workers at all. Comrad Williams you ever heard of free speach? My guess is you do not think much of it and would stamp it out if you could.

4/28/2008 10:53:54 PM

Yes, that's the spirit. You keep reaching for that rainbow... and a bloody spell-checker!

(ahem)

I would like to make my position on this clear if I may:

This was a clumsy, blunt, and downright dirty PR campaign to begin with.

Exactly how much of the anonymously-delivered portion Steve Grover was directly responsible for remains unknown, but he either knowingly posed as his daughter in order to anonymously smear the CIW or (more likely) was doing a little work from home and - like Grant Shapps - used the wrong account during this sock-puppeting attempt.

For that alone he deserves sacking.

Unless of course Burger King are a bunch of bastards who reward such behaviour, in which case Grover should get a raise and his daughter should get a pony (or a car, depending on how old she is)... if she can be convinced to play ball and keep her mouth shut in future.

-

UPDATE (10pm) - I just spent a few lazy minutes trying to find out how reporter Amy Williams might have made the Grover connection and/or discovered the number for the family home. I got very far, very fast. I tried it again from another angle and quickly ended up with the same information, plus some added details for Mrs Susan/Susie Grover... who will probably shout at me if I show you those details and the names and photos of both of her young daughters that she herself has published online alongside a nickname/email used by Shannon, thereby (*dramatic pause*)... exposing her to the dangers of the internet!

[Psst! At that same location, Steven Grover also makes a contribution which neatly ties everything back to his role at Burger King; the page displays the bulk of Steve's work IP address next to his entry which is in the range 65.174.40.112-119 and most likely to be 65.174.40.114 specifically.]

-

UPDATE - A lovely round-up from The Consumerist

UPDATE - Oh, and I really should mention that while Burger King is using the cheapest of tricks to cheat workers out of a pennies, they are also launching a $170 burger in the UK. Class.

-

UPDATE (30 Apr):

1) My tracking reveals that a few people from the Burger King Corporation dropped by last night. One of them had a bit of a poke around. Hello Burger King, peeps. With you in a sec...

2) All comments from the latest Amy Williams article were deleted at some stage last night. Since then, a number of other comments have been published screaming about the right to free speech, liberal Nazis, etc.... it never gets old, does it? Emailing, watching and waiting today to see what happened to the old comments.

3) Mrs Susie Grover has removed some of the sensitive material that she herself put on the web (this time, it was her turn to exploit Shannon in pursuit of a buck) but I won't be linking to it or even dropping hints about where it can be found, as it still reveals their home address, Susie's mobile number and a fax number which is actually their main phone number at home. (She's the wife of a VP and she can't afford a dedicated fax line? Burger King must be squeezing every penny.)

4) Most of Mrs Grover's gripe is likely to come down to the reporter initially assuming that young Shannon was 18, because Shannon claimed to be 18 on one of her main online profiles. If the Grovers can't be bothered to check their daughter's public profiles - when not using them to engage in flame warfare for their corporate masters - then they've only got themselves to blame and they have no place playing the victim or waving little Shannon in our faces (again).

5) Psst! Mr and Mrs Grover! You might want to have a quiet word with Shannon about toilet-papering people's houses. Seemingly harmless pranks like this can end in tears. Perhaps Steve can sit down with her for a bit and teach her how to treat other people with kindness and respect.

6) Hello again, Burger King peeps. Will you be firing Steve Grover over this smear campaign or not? Normally, I wouldn't expect you to, but a VP using his daughter's YouTube profile to smear activists looms before you as an international PR disaster. Just something to think about.

-

UPDATE - One of the photos published by Mrs Grover is a classic of the 'family portrait at the mall' genre (right down to Vaseline on the lens), and I wanted to share it with you. I tried a version using facial pixelation, but that seemed too creepy. This is better, yes?

Posted by Manic on April 29, 2008, 7:56 PM in Consume! | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Something in this article about (username) Harriet (password) Harman caught my eye...

BBC - Spoof blogger attacks Harman site: Last year, Conservative housing spokesman Grant Shapps was targeted by hackers who broke into his YouTube account to post a message under his name saying the party could not win the Ealing Southall by-election.

Beg pardon? Who did what in the where now?

The person who wrote this article about (username) Harriet (password) Harman clearly did so after scanning, but not reading, this article. Even if one takes Shapps at his word about this - and very few people do - the version of events published on the BBC website is wrong, wrong, wrong, as a mere glance at the comment involved should make clear:

"Okay, realistically we're not going to win though. Especially since the Tories have just received 5 defecting Councillors from Labour. Don't quite know how they've done it, but the Tories have stolen a march on us this time."

As you can plainly see, the person making that comment is not posing as Grant Shapps saying that his party (the Conservatives) could not win the Ealing Southall by-election.

Instead, the person making that comment is posing as a Liberal Democrat saying that their party could not win the Ealing Southall by-election.

Jonathan Calder has similar concerns about this poorly-researched nonsense appearing on the BBC website.

I've emailed the BBC about it, but have yet to receive a reply.

(Oh, and sorry for the quiet week. I forgot my nicotine patch on a Sunday and a Tuesday two weeks back and made it through most of both days without noticing, so I figured I'd press ahead and have a go at cutting off the regular nicotine supply a little bit earlier than scheduled. Like about 6 weeks ahead of schedule. I've been off the patches since the 18th. The only side effect involves brain. Cannot put words together goodly all time. Make blogging tricky.)

-

UPDATE - The entire 'Shapps' paragraph I've quoted above has been removed from the BBC article (see comments).

UPDATE - But, as Alex notes, the paragraph was 'disappeared' with; "no apology to those of us who complained, no clarification, no correction".

Posted by Manic on April 28, 2008, 10:32 AM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

I'm kind of new here, but as far as I can work out, today is all about giving the BNP a platform in exchange for temporary use of their official trademark.

Well, I do like to play Little Johnny English from time to time, and if I'm to wave the flag today I'd best earn my turn by saying three nice things about the people what own it...

1. I love their ambition:

Petition to: erect a life size statue of Enoch Powell, in Westminster, right next to the one of Margaret Thatcher to mark the 40th anniversary of his 'Rivers of Blood' speech.

2. I love their modesty:

The 2008 British National Party Election Broadcast has many charms (lovely smiles at 00:24, 01:14 and 01:21), but my very favourite part appears after the numerous cash promises to hard working people. Check it out right about 02:30 for a glorious "Oh, and we also have this policy on immigration..." moment.

3. I love their confidence:

Who does this remind you of?

Video #1 claiming BNP website is "the most popular in politics" with "more hits than all other parties put together" is followed by Video #2 claiming that this involves "thousands of hits per week". Might be some confusion there.

OK, that's three niceties. That means I'm good to go for approximately 30 seconds of flag-waving.

So, for England! Let's have it, then! Huzzah, I... no, wait... what are you...? What the..?!

Well, can't have any of that!!! Oi! You there! Come back here! Rah!

Posted by Manic on April 23, 2008, 3:19 PM in Tolerance | Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)

The Register - UK Office of Government Commerce cracks one off: Quite remarkably, our informant suggested that, having spent the cash, OGC intends to roll out the logo anyway. Well, we contacted the OGC for comment, and a spokesman gamely explained:... "The proposed version, which you have sent over, has been shared with staff, and is now going through final technical stages."

Tch. I am greatly disappointed that they did not use the word 'retooling'.

Apparently, this is the result of a year of development! A whole bloody year! I'm in the wrong game.

(If you're having difficulty seeing what's obvious to filthy-minded proles like myself, simply tilt your head to the left.)

Posted by Manic on April 22, 2008, 3:50 PM in Consume! | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

With you shortly.

Posted by Manic on April 22, 2008, 10:42 AM in UK Libel Law | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

... remember to wave to the nice Americans.

The Inquirer - Secret pact allows the US to spy on UK motorists: A Home Office spokesman defended powers granted by the "special certificate" on the grounds of "counter terrorism" and national security, as they always do, of course. Speaking anonymously, he said "We would like to reassure the public that robust controls have been put in place to control and safeguard access to, and use of, the information."... In other words, "Trust us."

(Ta to PF for the heads-up.)

Posted by Manic on April 22, 2008, 10:29 AM in The War on Stupid | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

1. A children's entertainer is issued with a caution, the Sun screams 'paedo' and publishes the guy's real name, a photo and his location. Next thing you know, vandals are attacking his home and he's running for cover. The Sun article is published under a banner reading; 'Sun Justice', BTW...

2. Of particular interest to Carl and other journalists who read this blog; compare this article from my local newspaper to this article from the Epsom Guardian.

3. Oh, and take a look at what one genius painted on the guy's door:

No, really... take a close look:

UPDATE - Heh. Still trying to work out if one guy got it right the second time around or if maybe there was a "Gimme that, you idiot!" moment over the spray can (i.e. where the *smart* guy from Mob Justice Headquarters takes over and shows the team the *correct* way to spray-paint the word 'paedo' on the side of someone's house). I suspect the latter, looking at the differences in handwriting spraypainting, and the idea of it makes me smile just a bit.

Posted by Manic on April 22, 2008, 10:05 AM in Rupert 'The Evil One' Murdoch | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Adults only beyond this point, please; some of the things we tolerate aren't at all pleasant to think about....

Posted by Manic on April 21, 2008, 11:11 PM in It's War! It's Legal! It's Lovely! | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

1. National Service is going ahead, but I can't sit around forever waiting for the money situation to get better, so, with Clive's help, I've built a little cash machine to help things along. That'll be with you shortly.

2. As you're probably aware, the more ridiculous aspects of SOCPA are soon to be binned.

3. Blair's coining it in while playing The Great Statesman, but he hasn't killed anyone lately, so I'm happy to leave him to it. Even if he does manage to buy a burial plot with armed guards and electrified fences, I doubt even that will keep me from somehow pissing on his grave.

4. Bush is finished and has been since the 2006 mid-terms.

5. The year or so of bloggage about Iain Dale and Paul Staines (and their overlapping team of wannabe thugs) looked very closely at the techniques used in their ongoing efforts to enjoy power without accountability... and from here it looks as if we've finally reached the bottom of their bag of tricks.

[Psst! Iain and Paul: Don't get your hopes up, you lovable miniature media barons. There are still some loose ends flapping and an almighty wrap-up to come, and I guarantee that you're not going to like any of it.]

So the time has finally come for a new ongoing project at Bloggerheads.

I have two projects in mind:

-

UK Libel Law

UK libel laws as they stand make it very difficult for any British citizen or resident to host their website in this country without fear of being silenced with quasi-legal threats (yes, even from total tosspots who can't afford real lawyers). Overseas hosts are also prone to intimidation, and they most likely won't give a flying toss about who is and isn't legally entitled to what, because you'll just be an unwanted headache to most of them.

After the Alisher Usmanov affair, I did some poking around to see what kind of support bloggers and other web-publishers could expect from the UK hosting industry we would most likely have to abandon en masse if this kind of thing continues... and I didn't get a nibble.

There were some fine print and television journalists batting for us here and there during the whole Usmanov thing, but challenging the status quo on something this big requires hefty editorial support. I don't like our chances.

The short version is as follows: if bloggers want to change or challenge the UK libel laws, those of us that do choose to stand together against this kind of nonsense will on our own.

On the surface of things, it's also a wee bit dry as a subject. But, then again, so was SOCPA to an extent. I'm sure that with some teamwork and creativity, we could paint some well-deserving individuals and organisations into some interesting corners (i.e. give those with the power to change it reason to do so... or at least something to think about).

-

Murdoch Watch

I'd like to (finally) devote some serious time to this by creating a purpose-built multi-author weblog that documents the many ways that The Sun newspaper manipulates and betrays their readers and the public in general.

There are now some excellent writers in the blogosphere with sufficient background, experience and credibility to take this on. I'd be devoting a good portion of my time to it, and there are a few people I already have in mind that I'd like to invite to do the same.

Of course, we'd probably have to host it overseas (see above), but part of this would be the development of a working [outlet]-watch from scratch for instructional and inspirational purposes anyhow ("You can do this, too for the Murdoch outlet nearest you. And here's how..."), so I don't see any reason why we shouldn't start afresh at Blogger.com or the like, just to prove it can be done and done well.

[Psst! Just in case you're not aware, a FOX News watchdog already exists.]

-

So, over to you lot...

One of the things that I care about most in politics is levelling the playing field; those who wish to engage honestly from any side should be able to do so without being silenced, shouted down, shoved aside or sabotaged.

Which project do you think is most likely to take us forward on that front? Or do you have some ideas of your own?

Now's the time to speak up if you have something to say.

-

UPDATE - Please note that I'll be out for most of Thursday April 17th, so if you're relatively new here or it's your first comment, your 2p worth probably won't be cleared for publication until late afternoon. Cheers all.

Posted by Manic on April 16, 2008, 5:48 PM in The Political Weblog Movement | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBack (0)