[For those who came in late: PROOF: Rebekah Wade is a guy!]
In the case of Tony Blair, my two eldest boys were a bit young to fully appreciate the implications of burning someone in effigy (a situation that led to the creation of The World According to Leo Blair), so the creation of that guy was very much a personal affair.
This year, however, it was very much a family affair…. which I thought fitting, given The Sun’s reputation as a family newspaper.
Anyway, the whole clan chipped in this year (even the very youngest crumpled a bit of newspaper), so we were free to enter the guy into the competition line-up under the ‘9 years and over’ category.
Which. We. Won.
I was called in on spruiker duty at the last minute, so I missed the judging… and the burn… but I did get to enjoy a fair bit of back-patting as the torch-wielding villagers filed past the main gate on their way into the bonfire.
I’m pleased to report the following:
– The guys were arranged with slightly less care this year, but the end result was quite pleasing; Rebekah Wade appeared to have been cast aside like the trash she is.
– I also have reliable testimony of distinct toe-curling before Rebekah was consumed by fire (see the pre-burn report for why this is important).
I was, however, slightly disturbed to learn that the mock-up of the newspaper proved surprisingly resilient to flame, and survived well past the point where the heat of the fire made it impossible to get any more photos:
A clear indication, I would think, of the challenges to come.
The next morning, the boys and I returned to the site of the burning to complete the ceremony by collecting some ashes.
These ashes will be put to good use very shortly. Watch this space.
In keeping with tradition, she will first be paraded in front of the townspeople, and then ceremonially placed upon the bonfire.
Then (and I am not kidding you, as we take Bonfire Night very seriously around here) villagers will throw flaming torches at her and cheer as she burns.
To prepare for her weekend adventure, Rebekah has chosen to spend today relaxing in the garden, enjoying the fruits of her labour:
– The head itself is empty, but at the last minute it will be filled with roughly one kilo of rancid porridge (which is right now quietly decomposing behind the shed).
– Rebekah’s face, rather than being painted, has been finished with a lovingly-applied layer of her own lies.
– She is dressed, as you may note, in the type of power-suit she favours when badgering vulnerable young women into spouting right-wing propaganda, and her body has been stuffed with the finest copies of News of the World and The Sun that the local bins have to offer.
– Special care has been taken with the stuffing of her (ahem) reproductive area, which has been carefully lined with used sandpaper.
– I decided against shoes or boots at the last minute, and instead chose a pair of striped stockings for her feet. This is exactly what the Wicked Witch of the East was wearing *just* before a house fell on her.
I’ll be watching very carefully to see if her feet curl as she burns on Saturday. Only then will I know if my voodoo is strong.
An innocent man has been
murdered health-and-safetied to death, the verdict is ‘guilty‘, but Ian Blair is still clinging shamelessly to his job, and the public gets to pay the fine.
Oh, don’t look so surprised.
No doubt her name will now be added to the rather selective list some people use to convince others that I’m a Tory-basher, but that’s life.
[Note – Garry has also blogged about this, because
we have similar views on how bloggers should conduct themselves we’re both part of the same vast left-wing conspiracy.]
We were greatly concerned to read in the Guardian on 27 October an article clearly aimed at undermining the credibility of Professor John Wyatt, which contained detailed information about Wyatt’s evidence, which was passed by him to the committee after his oral evidence session, and which could only have been passed on to the journalist concerned by a member of the Select Committee. There should be an enquiry about how this information got into the public domain and as to whether such a personal attack represents a serious breach of parliamentary procedure given that witnesses were told by the committee that any disclosure of personal interests would not prejudice the hearing of their evidence.
Just quickly, here’s a simple courtesy that Nadine couldn’t manage herself; a hyperlink to said article. There’s a mirror of it on the author’s weblog. (You may note distinct differences between the two versions… yes, the blog version contains more of those pesky hyperlinks.)
But like many people who blog in the style of Iain Dale, Nadine Dorries has learned the value of not actually linking to the item/person she’s attacking. This is a most-useful technique to use when you are launching an ad hominem attack on someone by falsely claiming that they have launched an ad hominem attack on yourself or one of your associates.
[It is here, class, that I must refer you to a related chapter showing you how to further perfect this technique by also refusing, redirecting and/or fouling *inbound* hyperlinks.]
My article did indeed contain detailed information about Prof Wyatt’s evidence, but I suspect any enquiry set up to examine how I managed to obtain that information would finish its work well before the first set of tea and biscuits arrived, since all the facts came from the written evidence published openly and in full during the select committee hearing. There’s nothing clever about what I do, let me promise you.
Chris Rodger said…
I have posted this on Nadine Dorries blog:
You make a serious allegation against the Guardian and by implication the journalist (Ben Goldacre) that wrote the piece. Yet as he explains here (http://www.badscience.net/2007/10/oooooh-im-in-the-minority-report/#more-561), he based his article on published information.
You should either justify why you have de facto accused him of “a breach of parliamentary procedure” or apologise and withdraw the comment.
October 31, 2007 10:09 AM
That comment was not published by Nadine Dorries. Needless to say, she didn’t withdraw her false claim or apologise for making it, either.
This distinct lack of accountability didn’t escape the attention of comment-contributors to Ben Goldacre’s weblog. One of them posted this:
(October 31, 2007 at 2:39 pm)
“It’s open for comment …”
Hmm, strange that all the comments seems to be positive. Let’s have a go and see if anyone can get her to approve a critical comment on that page…
[It should be noted for the record that another graduate of the Iain Dale School of Blogging classifies this kind of behaviour as a Denial of Service Attack.]
But the only challenging comments Nadine (eventually) published were so gently obscure in nature or so completely lacking in detail that they did nothing to actually challenge what she had to say (example: “I think you’re wrong here Nadine”). There was certainly no published reference to her false claims about Ben Goldacre.
Nadine Dorries then sought to address this little problem by refusing to publish *any* comments until further notice because she’s ‘too busy':
No More Comments
Posted Thursday, 1 November 2007 at 00:00
I am no longer going to post comments on my blog.
Please don’t send any more comments – It’s a time thing, I don’t have any.
I have to rely on the patience of others to read and post the comments for me. I am never in front of a computer for more than a couple of minutes at a time and this has now made reading the comments before they are posted impossible.
Knowing that there are comments on my site which I may not even have had time to see, makes me uncomfortable.
If any one wants to contact me you can still do so via the email facility on the home page.
I will continue to blog each day as I can do that on the run!!
Like yet *another* graduate of the Iain Dale School of Blogging, she has cleverly made a false claim and run away when it has been challenged.
[Psst! It is at this point, Nadine, that the Iain Dale Guide to Blogging Like a Complete Twat recommends that you scream “Personal attack!” and/or “Vitriol!” in a way that allows you to refuse all references to Ben Goldacre, instead of refusing comments altogether. Even if these claims are completely without basis, you need not be concerned because… you will be refusing all references to Ben Goldacre! A case study of the master at work is published here.]
Ben Goldacre and his readers have reacted in a suitably ‘obsessive’ fashion by ‘secretly conspiring’ in the following manner:
(October 31, 2007 at 10:45 pm)
“There should be an enquiry about how this information got into the public domain and as to whether such a personal attack represents a serious breach of parliamentary procedure..”
I think we should start a petition for that inquiry right now! Presumably we can then all submit written evidence on ‘how to download stuff’ and ‘how to read stuff’.
Ben Goldacre said,
(October 31, 2007 at 11:14 pm)
ok seriously. that’s what I want for xmas. only you can give it to me. nothing could make me as happy as a response from the number10 petiton people on this petition. can anybody be bothered to start one? I reckon if you worded it right it would get through.
(November 1, 2007 at 9:03 am)
Regarding Ben’s Xmas present:
The petition should be unsarcastic – phrased correctly you could probably even get a anti-abortionists to sign it.
“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to support the call by MP Dr Bob Spink and MP Nadine Dorries for an enquiry into a recent article in the Guardian newspaper. The said article discussed the evidence of John Wyatt to the recent select committee discussing abortion law reform and was clearly aimed at undermining the credibility of his evidence. We ask the Prime Minister to ensure that concerns raised by Dr Spink are fully investigated, specifically:
* How did the journalist (Ben Goldacre) gain detailed evidence of Prof Wyatt’s oral submission
* How did the journalist gain access to evidence Prof Wyatt submitted after his oral submission
* Did a member of the committee act as a ‘mole’ for Ben Goldacre and pass on this information by some clandestine means
* Whether this constituted a personal attack and a breach of parliamentary procedure”
OK – who is up for actually starting the petition?
(November 1, 2007 at 9:23 am)
OK changed the wording a little – removed names (apparently not OK to name people). If they accept it it should be:
[mod: I’ve snipped this URL, as it’s unlikely to be functional/useful at this stage, as the next comment makes clear]
Ben Goldacre said,
(November 1, 2007 at 9:31 am)
far be it from me tt involved in my own xmas present but I think it should simply demand an enquiry into how I obtained the oral and writtwn evidence to the committee as suggested by spink and dorries. and mention me by name. to be really christmassy.
I’m sorry, but I’m laughing too hard to write up a coherent conclusion. This lesson is over. Class dismissed.
UPDATE – Ah, I see that’s she’s learned consistency from Iain Dale, too. Despite claiming that she’s not publishing any more comments, Nadine is now publishing comments of support. For extra credit in this course, see if you can sneak a comment that is dripping with sarcasm past moderation.
1. Craig Murray – A Dark, Dark Place: I cannot believe Alisher Saipov is dead. When last I saw him he can only have been 23 years old, and was so brimming with energy, life and optimism. Now at 26 he is dead, just the latest dissident to be murdered by the Karimov regime. (more)
2. Septicisle – It really is all about the oil. Oh, and don’t forget the arms deals.: Petty insults aside, the sheer gall of New Labour in inviting those ultimately responsible for the torture of four British citizens wrongly arrested for a series of bombings in the country shouldn’t be surprising, but the pulling out of all the stops for their visit is the equivalent of a kick in the teeth to those who dare to suggest that the government ought to be consistent in its approach to all those who deny basic human rights to their people… Saudi Arabia is an theocratic autocracy. Its strict state sponsored interpretation of Islam, and efforts to spread such an interpretation has greatly contributed to the rise of takfirist Salafism, the kind which al-Qaida takes its cue from. It is endemically corrupt, one of most corrupt regimes on the planet, and it effectively steals the wealth that should belong to its people. The fact that it supports either the “war on terror” or that if the regime fell the replacement could possibly be worse shouldn’t really enter it to it.
3. BSSC – Let’s Celebrate!: And that explains why the government still thinks there’s a possibility that they can spin their way out of this bloody shambles. If an Iraqi ex-employee of HMG is shot in the back of the head and there are no British troops around to hear the gunshot, does it make a sound? The government thinks not.
A week ago, there were 35 signatures on EDM 2057. Today, there are… [drumroll]… 38! My MP made it totally clear to me that she thought the current state of affairs was unacceptable, but she hasn’t signed this EDM yet and hasn’t explained why. In fact, the number of Tory MPs who have signed this has stood rock-steady at 3 for weeks now. What could possibly be holding them back?
4. Meet Rebekah. She burns on Saturday:
If you don’t know why this might (stress might) be of interest, then you may as well move along now.
UPDATE (12:10) – Tut. It’s about politics. I was expecting something interesting, like her warranty running out or something. I wanted to see a woman living on the *edge*…
UPDATE – Here’s what has Nadine’s frilly white knickers in a twist. If you like, you can enjoy some background from Rhetorically Speaking or Ministry of Truth. Or, you can meekly accept Iain Dale’s softballing of her views to the public, where the only challenges to this associate of his are the words ‘controversial’ and a recently-revised policy on deployment of quotation marks when using the words ‘abortion industry’.
Just when you thought that no-one could possibly compete with Grant Shapps in the ‘most excruciating online foul-up followed by poorest excuse’ category…
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a wiener!
Herald Sun – Family First reels over porn scandal: Andrew Quah was disendorsed as a candidate and expelled from Victorian Senator Steve Fielding’s pro-family party yesterday after the Sunday Herald Sun uncovered his indiscretions. Mr Quah, 22, had earlier admitted to posing for two images, one partly undressed and the other clutching his private parts, attached to an email circulating across the country. He said he could not rule out being responsible for producing a third image attached to the email featuring graphic shots of a man’s genitalia. Mr Quah yesterday said he did not create the email nor had he written the text in it. He believed he had been set up by political opponents.
SMH – Meet Family First’s member for nowhere: If you thought John Howard was having a bad election campaign, spare a thought for Andrew Quah, a candidate for the Family First Party. He has been dumped as its candidate for the western Sydney seat of Reid after photos of him parading his private parts appeared on gay websites and were emailed around the country. Mr Quah, 21, has also admitted to looking at porn websites in the past two weeks, which made his position untenable given his party’s strong commitment to protect children by making porn harder to access on the internet. Mr Quah told the Herald yesterday he thought it was possible that he had posed for the compromising photographs. “I might have been drunk off my face or my political enemies might have drugged me.” … One photo shows him exposing his private parts as he takes a picture of himself in a mirror. “But that’s not my penis,” he said. So whose was it? “Look, maybe somebody photoshopped it, and put another one on the photo,” he said. “I can tell you, it’s not me. I know these things. But really, I can’t remember … All I know, I have been humiliated.”
Andrew Landeryou’s weblog The Other Cheek has a breakdown of his excuses, a shedload of detail including those pictures of Quah’s penis I know you’re just dying to see (SFW until your curiosity gets the better of you)…. and details of rather familiar legal techniques being used to attempt removal of dick-related data.
(Note – Andrew Quah’s weblog has sat neglected for nearly a year, but there’s a very good chance that it could be brought back into service over this… or suddenly withdrawn on the advice of his lawyers.)
UPDATE – Andrew does appear to have been screwed over, but not by political opponents. Instead, he appears to have been screwed over by fellow former students who baited him via MSN Messenger. Belligerent and Numerous has the story, including what they claim to be log files of the alleged baiting, and a promise of; “more photos of the disgraced Mr Quah that prove the validity of the third picture he is so desperately protesting.”
UPDATE – A Wikipedia entry is born.
UPDATE – This discussion at Andrew Quah’s former stomping grounds makes it clear that Quah knew that these photos were out there and in the hands of multiple web users who would most likely be less than impressed by his standing as a wowser.
Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
The author of Belligerent and Numerous is a board member, and taking part in the discussion. A fellow board member and non-fan of Quah has claimed here that the log files published by Belligerent and Numerous are genuine
Some elements of the discussion (recalling previous bait-pwnage on the board) also reinforce material posted by Belligerent and Numerous suggesting that – at the time – Quah was under the impression that he was sending naked pictures of himself to girls he knew to be under the age of consent.
Also, (and do correct me if I’m wrong) but this discussion appears to include the first instance of someone with a semi-verifiable identity seriously airing the notion that Quah might kill himself if people keep pointing and laughing. Previous to this, all such comments were of the anonymous variety (example). I think there’s a very good chance that these messages come from Quah himself… and not in a ‘cry for help’ sense.
UPDATE – The Register also has the story.