1. Iain Lindley says the Chipmunk is in danger of losing her selection battle.
2. Jailhouselawyer reckons prison food is better in the private sector. I'm tempted to say, 'he should know', but I'd better not.
3. Dan Hamilton looks at the likely outcome of tonight's Michigan primary on CentreRight.com.
4. Burning our Money warns you never to trust the government. Especially on NI numbers.
5. Newsnight has the text of David Cameron's letter to the Electoral Commission re the flights they mentioned on their programme last night. That's that then.
6. Dr Crippen has a question for Gordon Brown.
7. Simon Collister asks if blogs influence broadsheet newspapers.
8. Joey Jones on Boulton & Co asks what nationalisation of Northern Rock would mean. We'll soon find out.
9. EU Referendum reckons broadsheet journalists are living in a parallel universe.
10. Tim Ireland (for it is he) has an EXCLUSIVE. Except he doesn't. Norfolk Blogger beat him to it by four days.
11. Guido should get a knighthood for his work on the Peter Hain scandal. He's uncovered an uncanny coincidence.
12. Aussie uberblogger Tim Blair has cancer. Best wishes from the UK blogosphere for a swift recovery.
And a late entry: Westmonster's Top 5 Clues Peter Hain Should Go
16 comments:
Is that how you spell Rawnsley?
It's a demo.
What are you doing giving publicity to someone who robbed an old lady of her life, while her back was turned!
The pretentiously named Jailhouse Lawyer (an American term so we already know he's an inadequate wannabee), hacked his elderly landlandy to death with an axe - while her back was turned - because she had left the lid off his jar of marmalade.
So a serious commentator.
He was banged up for something like 18 years because he never showed remorse. And he got a pointless law "degree" in prison - as though anyone would dream of retaining a killer for legal help. I don't think many - if any - have, actually, as he seems to live on British taxpayer "benefits".
I seem to remember that he was hopeful of getting a gig on 18 Doughty Street as some nutjob advocate of votes for prisoners.
Shame on you for giving this violent taker of a frail human life a link, Iain!
Shame! Shame! Shame!
You say "I'm tempted to say, 'he should know', but I'd better not". Obviously, temptation got the better of you. However, I am not offended. I do know that the food is better in the private sector prisons. This is because some of the money saved by employing less staff in the private sector is diverted into the food budget.
Whilst there are public prisons and private prisons, there are only public prisoners ie responsibility rests with the Minister of Justice on behalf of the public.
I argue that the discrepancy in food budgets between the public and private sector cannot rationally be justified.
Is the public sector employing too many prison officers? One way to improve the standard of prison food in the public sector would be to cut the amount of staff. If the private sector can manage with less staff why cannot the public sector?
When privatisation of some prisons first came in I was against the idea because before the state took over control of prisons they were in private hands and abuse was rife.
Having now experienced the private prisons, I firmly believe that they not only are run better but operate more humanely for prisoners and this can only benefit society. That is, prisoners come out less damaged and society is less damaged by those who re-offend.
verity: Please do get your facts right. It was blackberry jam and not marmalade (I make the jam and the judge makes the marmalade and we trade jars), and you are confusing a joke quote in an article about me in recent times with something that happened almost 30 years ago. Do keep up.
The term jailhouselawyer did originate in the US and was adapted from the barrackroomlawyer from the army. As I was a lawyer representing prisoners in jail fighting the system, I think the name is appropriate.
Inadequate wannabe, speak for yourself. I am recognised as the foremost prison law expert in the country.
Definitely a serious commentator. For once you are right.
25 years, actually, people don't get banged up for showing no remorse. Two Court of Appeal decisions are authority that I showed remorse. What you think doesn't really matter it's the law that counts.
I don't think that any law degree is pointless, look how many lawyers were involved in the cash for honours scandal. The benefits don't even fill the petrol tank of my BMW 520i SE. I prefer cash presents. It's like prostitution, no offence is committed if the lady gives her services for free and her "client" gives her a cash present.
I was unable to make the 18DS gig, therefore Jeffery Archer stood in for me. He's another former prisoner didn't you know?
As I understand it, the Daley Dozen picks up on interesting posts on other blogs. No shame on Iain for this is deserved. If you was to start your own blog, and had anything interesting to say, no doubt Iain might feature one of your posts. In the meantime, jealousy will get you nowhere.
Goodnight. I hope the bedbugs bite.
ZOMG!
IM N UR BLOG
SUKN UP YR TRAFFIK
Does this mean that the ban on links to Bloggerheads has finally been lifted?
PS - The post acknowledged from the get-go that it wasn't quite an exclusive. One of those in-joke things that you may have missed.
(waves to JHL)
(ignores verity)
It's a dmeo.
Indeed.
What's the source of that Rawnsley quote, Iain? (i.e. when and where did it appear and what was it referring to?)
Oh, and if you have a moment to answer my other question in your own time, that'd be cool.
Oh Tim, another conspiracy theory? Let's shoot it down in flames, shall we?
That quote came from an email to me from Andrew Rawnsley on 13 June 2006. If you still find that impossible to believe, you should feel free to email andrew. His email address is andrew DOT Rawnsley AT Observer DOT co DOT uk.
As to your other question, if there ever was a ban, the fact that I linked to you here rather indicates it doesn't exist. If it ever did.
*sigh*
Iain, I couldn't find the source of the quote myself, so I asked you a simple question in a civil manner. Now you want to be difficult about it.
Re: The email from your archives
1 - Iain Dale (March 2007): "I have looked on Tim Ireland's site and he quotes three emails from me.... It was over a year ago, for christ sake and if you expect me to remember I don't. Obviously some people keep their emails and sent items going back 10 years. Tim Ireland is one of them. Well bully for him. He obviously gains a lot of pleasure from them."
2 - Man, I wish I had the guts to source a blurb from a private email. I'd have some right whoppers... including one from Cherie Blair. (I think I still have that one somewhere, as I'm the obsessive type that keeps emails from the last year or few.)
Re: The link ban that you claim never existed
Iain Dale (April 2007): "Scott, I have made no secret of the fact that since the March figures I have banned Tim Ireland from my site. That includes links to him. Simple as that."
Iain Dale (October 2007): "If people wish to go to Bloggerheads they're very welcome, but I don't see why I should provide a link (even in comments) to a site which persistently slags me off... if someone calls me a liar, says I am corrupt or worse, then don;t expect me to allow it on this site, or to allow a link to another site which accuses me of those things."
Iain, if you want me to stop calling you a liar... then stop lying.
Also, please be aware that if you ever do get the opportunity to become an MP, then little things like LexisNexis and Hansard work in much the same way as blogs in that they archive your past comments and make them available to journalists and/or the public. Just something to keep in mind.
(PS - Please also note that it wasn't your linking to me that prompted the above, but your jumping down my throat and telling outright lies in response to two perfectly reasonable and on-topic questions. If you can't handle that sort of thing, then perhaps you should join The Nadine Dorries Club and disable your comments feature.)
Yes, sigh indeed. And here we go again.
I kept that email and others like it because I used to use them on my blog banner. And I am about to again.
I banned you from spam linking to stories on your blog calling my a
liar and worse. I did not have a ban on ANY link.
And the way you're going I may well rethink my decision to unban you from this site :).
On every thread you comment on you decide to "have a go". I have had several emails from people who are even less tolerant of you than I am urging me to do reinstate the ban. But I'm a tolerant kinda guy. Mostly.
1. Iain, it should be obvious given that I keep an archive of my emails that I am not going to fault you for doing the same.
2. The ban was total under comments from anyone (here's Garry talking about a comment that you deleted because it included a link to me), and it even applied to your stat-porn at times. Please stop pretending otherwise. You lied, and you got caught lying.
3. Ah, the link-spammer claim again. Iain, you may notice that in this and many recent threads I have linked to relevant reference material to back up what I have to say (something you seem rather shy about in many ways). Many of those links are to your own damn website. But in the past, I have been forced to link to my website because that is where I've hosted evidence of your deletion of this evidence from your website (like this, for example) or provided a summary of a conversation on/involving your website that would otherwise be rendered unreadable by the many, many sock-puppets that inhabit this 'blog'.
4. Please don't call me a link-spammer again. It's not in any way true, it is merely a claim you make to justify keeping evidence from your readers. It's also a bit cheeky of you to do this sort of thing and then cry 'smear' when you get caught red-handed at one thing or another.
5. Ban me? For what? Would you care to make the reason(s) clear this time? Because you refused to do so last time.
6. Since you have lifted the ban on my leaving comments on your website, I have made several polite and on-topic comments. But it has primarily been *you* 'having a go' at *me* - often in direct violation of your clearly stated comments policy - throughout. And even if one does take the more challenging (and yet ever-so-polite) comments of mine into account, this is, after all, what comments are for. When you run a weblog that allows comments, you must be willing to have what you say queried and/or subjected to scrutiny. Can you handle that or not?
I;d love to spend the rest of the day on this, but I do have a life.
And since I have just had some rather bad news regarding my health, which I may or may not say more about, I'm not really in the mood now, if you'll forgive me.
Go back to your life with my blessing. I have a SOCPA submission to crack on with myself. Best of luck with your health.
But later, when you're ready, perhaps you can explain to me why, if you're in no mood to be rebuked yourself, why half-an-hour later you'd seem perfectly willing to berate someone else.
Like I said; no rush.
First of all, I have berated no one.
Second of all, the sight of Dr Starkey cheered me up. The prospect of a to-and-fro with you for the next six hours depressed me. It still does.
Post a Comment