So has Steve Grover been sacked yet or not?

Amy Williams – Burger King fires two for filings about farmworkers: Burger King has fired two employees who made online postings that “did not reflect the company’s views and which were in violation of company policy,” the fast-food restaurant chain announced Tuesday. In an e-mailed statement, the Miami-based corporation also said it has stopped using Diplomatic Tactical Services, a Hollywood, Fla.-based investigative firm, because it violated Burger King’s code of conduct. The company would not say which employees were fired.

So, Burger King, what you’re telling me is that action was taken over Steve Grover’s sock-puppeting, but you’re not going to tell me exactly what action (if any) was taken against Steve Grover. Meanwhile, numerous sock-puppets remain and continue to fight your corner over the CIW matter throwing punches you’re forced to pull (e.g. claims that this is a vendetta, that CIW are corrupt, that the pickers are illegal immigrants, etc.) under this very article.

You’ll have to do better, I’m afraid.

UPDATE – Tch. Too late for Burger King to grasp the nettle now:

Amy Williams – Two identified as no longer working at Burger King: Although Burger King won’t say which two employees it fired for vilifying the Coalition of Immokalee Workers online, the company’s main phone system contains no extensions for vice president Steven Grover or spokesman Keva Silversmith. Both numbers worked Tuesday, the day Burger King announced the firings without naming which employees were let go, but this morning they didn’t. An operator at the company’s Miami headquarters who declined to give her name said neither Grover nor Silversmith work for Burger King any longer.








Posted in Consume! | 1 Comment

Nadine Dorries finally plays the victim

Bolder than expected, but sadly inevitable…

Nadine Dorries’ most recent ‘blog’ entry, reproduced here in all its textual glory for two reasons:

a) Her permalinks don’t work

b) I suspect she may one day delete this (as she has other entries on her site that she has later regretted)

Nadine Dorries: Hounds of Hell
Posted Wednesday, 14 May 2008 at 11:07

The Hounds of Hell are chasing me.

We received another unpleasant parcel in the post today. Nasty web sites set up, email account and post bag bombarded, people crawling all over my expenses, which they are entitled and I am very very happy for them to do…

Scary, threatening angry and downright nasty phone calls. A message smeared on my window.

This is all meant to destabilise or distract me.

I have a very clear message to those who are attempting to do this – back off. You will not stop me, you will not undermine me, you do not scare me. In fact, you make me much more determined than I ever was before. You give me strength.

I received a lovely email today from the photographer who took the picture of Samuels’s hand reaching through his mother’s womb during the operation when he was 21 weeks gestation.

The picture below is of Samuel giving evidence to the US congress five years later.

The email reads:

“Dear Ms Dorries,

I can’t tell you how honoured I was to hear that you had posted the picture of Samuel reaching from his mother’s womb on your blog in an attempt to lower the age abortions can be performed……

I have been on pins and needles trying to keep up with the vote there in the UK….I would love to know if the attempt is successful…”

Michael Clancy

I will Michael if I survive long enough!!!

Beginners to Nadine’s particular style of blogging will want to study the subtle techniques that Ms Dorries uses here to tie her critics to alleged threats of violence or harm and thereby undermine their credibility.

Also note the cool efficiency of the entry; she is cleverly playing the victim while smearing others (genius multi-tasking there), and she manages this without linking to a single item or producing one shred of relevant evidence as she (again) recycles the Hand of Hope myth.

No wonder Iain Dale rates her so highly.

UPDATE – Loving this reponse from Unity…

Ministry of Truth – A Hell-Hound responds…: Take a look around and ask yourself just where your ‘friends’ are? Where are the massed ranks of the supposedly ‘dominant’ Tory blogosphere and why aren’t they leaping to your defence?








Posted in The Political Weblog Movement | 12 Comments

Some free advice for Jonathan King

Via the latest B3ta newsletter I learn of Jonathan King’s promotional video and ‘single’ Wilde About Boys from his free-to-view-online musical Vile Pervert (NSFW*):

Excuse me while I fire off a quick open letter:

Dear Jonathon,

1. If a major point you wish to get across is that you haven’t been buggering boys, then don’t make the catchiest part of your song a statement saying that there’s nothing wrong with buggering boys… or people are most probably going to take it the wrong way.

2. There’s no use you claiming a victory on the basis of being more enlightened than those who miss the point, because you are not in a position to be offering people the wrong end of any stick. No-one will really notice or give a damn that the opening lyrics of your song insist on the need for consent (presumably from those capable of granting it) or that you’re stepping into the shoes of Oscar Wilde or whatever…

3. You may not like it, but Oscar Wilde’s shoes are seen to be far, far bigger than yours. You look silly stepping into them, or making any statement that compares you in any way to Elvis or the Beatles.

4. You’ve been signed up to B3ta for nearly two years now, and in that time you’ve only ever turned up to plug your stuff or berate others for not being as appreciative as they could be of your outright spam. You may not want to be liked, but you need at least to be trusted… and nobody trusts a spammer.

5. You’ll need to do far better than this if you’re going to convince me that it’s worth sitting through your grand opus.

Cheers

Tim Ireland

[*NSFW – I am reliably informed that Jonathan King flashes the camera in the opening minute. There are genitals. You have been warned.]








Posted in Teh Interwebs | 2 Comments

What happens in Vegas…

Working on an opening post. Meantime, Mat Bowles brings to the table an issue worth watching.

UPDATE – Press Gazette – Johnny Vegas sues Guardian and Observer over ‘grope’ story: Comedian Johnny Vegas has begun libel proceedings against Guardian News & Media over two articles which claimed he had molested a woman during a stand-up performance. At the centre of the libel claim is a piece by Mary O’Hara, published in the Guardian’s G2 section on 1 May, headlined: “Since when is sexual assault funny?” O’Hara, who was in the audience at Vegas’s gig at the Bloomsbury Theatre in London, claimed in her report that the comedian “gratuitously groped a woman on stage”. The comedian is also suing over a follow-up comment piece in the Observer on 4 May, written by comedian Jackie Clune and headlined: “Sorry, but that really isn’t funny, Johnny”. Vegas has hired law giant Schillings to bring the action against the Guardian and Observer publisher. The two pieces have since been removed from the Guardian website.








Posted in UK Libel Law | Comments Off

Watch one plug into the other

Matthew Norman – ‘This year’s Scam award goes to…’: Meanwhile, a shift in emphasis on this subject is noted in The Sun. Whenever the BBC is involved in an appalling abuse, such as the misnaming of the Blue Peter kitten, the paper has gone to town, yet on Friday it relegated the ITV scandal to page nine – and even then the report was slanted in A’n’D’s favour by focusing on how appalled they were, and how abused they feel, to discover this appalling abuse. So let’s state for the record that this was solely a matter of news judgement, and had nothing to do with a) Rupert Murdoch’s unending crusade against the BBC, and b) Mr Murdoch’s large (although soon, touch wood, to be reduced) stake in ITV.

Quite a few of us watched the most prominent right-wing weblogs websites having absolutely nothing to say about the drink-driving adventures of one of their own. Even most comments relating to the event have been censored. The authors of these weblogs websites even had the audacity to later chastise left-wing bloggers for not blogging every moment of Brown’s difficulties.

Meanwhile, over at The Sun, the Turn to Tories is complete.

While you’re mulling this over, also consider how many ‘news’ outlets granted Nadine Dorries a free ride this past week, even though she’s been spouting transparently misleading nonsense.

Between you and me, I think we’ve entered a new age of political bullshit.








Posted in Rupert 'The Evil One' Murdoch, The Political Weblog Movement | 3 Comments

Every summer it gets me…

… 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 in The Political Weblog Movement | 4 Comments

Watch out for the pickle

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 in Consume! | 1 Comment

Nadine Dorries and the minor matter of misappropriation

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 in The Political Weblog Movement | Comments Off

Nadine Dorries and Christian Concern For Our Nation

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 in Christ..., The Political Weblog Movement | 5 Comments

10 reasons not to trust Nadine Dorries

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.

Nadine Dorries is so full of it7. 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 in The Political Weblog Movement | 9 Comments