1. And the Screwing the Taxpayer Award goes to...2. Norfolk Blogger on why Ken is rattled.
3. Ben Brogan thinks John Reid is very very clever.
4. Philip Oppenheim on post office closures, fat cats and Animal Farm.
5. Nadine tells of the Hand of Hope, is then slammed by Bad Science, who says it's a hoax, but he is contradicted by the photographer, Michael Clancy, who took the picture. You pays your money...
6. Fraser Nelson describes the National Security Strategy as "weak".
7. Shane Greer supports the Gurhkas.
8. Red Box on the Stephen Carterisation of the Cabinet.
9. Sky's Niall Paterson makes a passionate defence of the Gurkhas.
10. Cassilis presents his weekly think tank roundup.
11. John Redwood on a house price crash.
12. Kevin Maguire reports on another political reporter leaving the BBC to join the ranks of New Labour.
19 comments:
Bit off topic but I have just watched newsnight and I'm getting fed up with the continual attempts to re-write history over the invasion of Iraq by Bush and on Blairs behalf.
It was said several times on newsnight that Bush's reason for invasion was solely to get rid of Hussain and also that Blair also believed that it was the right decision to go to war to depose Hussain.
They are lying!
WMD was their reason and if as they now say it was to depose Hussain that makes them war criminals!
"7. Shane Greer supports the Gurhkas.
8. Red Box on the Stephen Carterisation of the Cabinet.
9. Sky's Niall Paterson makes a passionate defence of the Gurkhas."
Gerkers eh?...Yep, that's a bugger if you're too lazy to use your Spellchecker.
I think that Mad Nad has stolen the end of my movie
Fcuuc off Borris and your EUssr greater London denial of the English Capi8tal City' Open it up to the whole of England you over educated Twatt
Rex. You are naive. It wasn't WMD. It was the building of a SECULAR SOCIETY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
All these years, and you missed it? How's life on the forklift?
Carrie - Who cares?
Very off topic but relevant to a general "round up" of media over the last week.
There was a very good Radio 4 profile on Nick Clegg this week.
Apparently, Leon Brittan employed him in his cabinet when he was an EU Commissioner.
Paddy Ashdown came to visit and Brittan urged him to take this “highly intelligent man” into the Liberal Democrats.
Nick Clegg had hardly covered himself in glory, so the question must be whether or not Nick Clegg is Leon Brittan’s trojan horse in the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Ashdown went onto become “High Representative“ in Bosnia- Herzegovina. Indeed, he was effectively the EU Viceroy and boasted of sacking several Presidents of Bosnia- Herzegovina. Needless to say, President Karzai of Afghanistan did everything he could to avoid having “The Viceroy” foisted on him by the UN.
There is a very good article on Red Ken in this week‘s “Private Eye”. They say he has fallen out with a member of his Trotskyite sect, “Socialist Action” because that member disapproves of his support for Muslim fundmentalist groups who hate Wimmin, Gays and Jews. That member has, according to Private Eye, been grassing up Ken and his mates to the newspapers.
Ken was interviewed by Nick Robinson yesterday and said “Paul Merton says Boris will take London back to the 17th Century”. So, this was the origing of the ridiculous claims covered by Iain on this blog. Ken doesn’t seem to understand that “HIGNFY” is a comedy programme.
In any case, support for Muslim fundamentalists suggests a medieval frame of mind. This puts Ken several centuries behind Boris.
Lastly “Private Eye” have started a “spoof” of people who post on blogs under the title “From The Message Boards”. The first one was a fortnight ago and contained a fictional posting by a “Cordelia” Her posting was eerily reminiscent of Verity’s late night musings.
Re : permex
You are not alone, Iain. A foreign relative of mine once came back from a visit to Sandhurst and asked me “Who are these Gherkins?”. I ascertained that my relative was referring to the brave Nepalese and not the pickles.
Verity
No not naive. I am talking of the reason both Bush and Blair gave in their officially stated reasons for going to war.
Perhaps you were up to your eyeballs in nappy changing or was it hot flushes but are you aware that Blair had an "inquiry" by Lord Hutton to defend his position on WMD. As a result the BBC has now become a mouthpiece for NuLab and appears to be complicit in re-writing history.
I would also imagine that the real motive was also to prevent Iraqi oil from going to China more likely than creating a secular state.
Didn't know that you were versed in the use of forklift trucks or do you come across them when you are driving your lorry?
The civil service is not "the ranks of New Labour", Iain, however much New Labour would like it to be.
I can think of several BBC staff who've gone to work for the Tories, as well.
5. Nadine tells of the Hand of Hope, is then slammed by Bad Science, who says it's a hoax, but he is then contradicted by the photographer, Michael Clancy, who took the picture. You pays your money...
Whether or not the hand thrusting is true is completely irrelevant, I don't know why it's even being debated. The important thing is that a 21 week old foetus was operated on and survived.
Iain,
Why do you insist on supporting Nadine Dorris?
There may be good arguments for changing the law on abortion but she's not making the points ver well. Every time she posts something about abortion she ends up with serious credibility issues. (On her latest post, she is posting quotes from the surgeon which has disowned for example).
You run a great blog, but this makes you look rather foolish.
I enjoy this blog generally, but I cannot let this misrepresentation stand:
"5. Nadine tells of the Hand of Hope, is then slammed by Bad Science, who says it's a hoax, but he is then contradicted by the photographer, Michael Clancy, who took the picture. You pays your money..."
When you say Ben Goldacre "is then contradicted by the photographer" that's extremely misleading. Ben Goldacre LINKED to the photographer's (old) story in his blog entry, that was part of Goldacre's story.
If you believe an emotive story from the man who took the photo, instead of the description of what happened from the very surgeon who did the operation, and does the operation for a living, then that's your affair. But to suggest that Goldacre has been responded to and shown to be wrong is as misleading as the original Nadine Dorries story.
I genuinely think it's a shame that you feel the need to twist the facts on this, it does the debate on abortion no favours that it the waters are so frequently muddied with poor quality evidence like this.
Iain, I applaud you for supporting Nadine Dorries MP on the issue of reducing the upper limit for abortions. She is very brave to take it on, as are you to support her.
She has posted another blog today, Hand of Truth, as an excellent rebuttal against those who have attempted to dismiss the evidence she presented in her previous blog.
According to Dorries response the baby definitely pushed its way out of the uterus, despite what the surgeon himself says, and you can tell by looking at the photograph:
"...look at the tear in the uterus. See how jiggered it is just above the hand; and yet the rest of the surgically incised openings are controlled and neat.
"This is, in all likelihood, because the hand unexpectedly thrust out. It would be a poor surgeon who allowed the uterine tear to be so messy, and this is no ‘poor’ surgeon."
Goldacre has already responded. Just a flavour:
"My recollection, from assisting in many Caesarean deliveries in my earlier years, is that instead of making a big clean cut into the uterus (not a good idea for obvious reasons ie there's a baby in there) you make repeated shallow superficial incisions into the uterus, between which you spread the tissues by hand with your fingers, until it eventually (and satisfyingly, surgery's great fun) opens up.
"She's also very keen on the photographer's account. Which I linked to above. As I said, it's up to you whether you prefer the account of the photographer, or the surgon who does these operations for a living, and may know rather more about the subject."
I do think it was wrong of you, Iain, to suggest that the phographer had responded to Goldacre.
There are many reasons to worry about the limit for abortion, many of them moral, and using silly science and misrepresentation doesn't help anybody, it just makes the religious argument look foolish.
Giles, you have some very odd ideas about what constitutes an 'excellent rebuttal' if you prefer to the word of a photographer over that of the doctor who performed the operation.
Mind you, speaking of credibility issues, there is also the specious claim that the doctor has been somehow 'got at' by violent pro-choice supporters, when the truth is that the current headcount for abortion-related violence in the US runs to:
7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 cases of assault or battery, 3 kidnappings, 655 anthrax-based 'bioterror' threats, 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 'stink bomb attacks...
...all by opponents of abortion.
It seems absurd to open our doors to criminals yet slam them closed in the face of the Gurkhas!
Iain, may we take your refusal to challenge any of this as a 'no comment'...?
(This is not a trick question.)
Challenge any of what? Why should I? I provided the links for people to make up their own minds. I still can't decide what the truth is on this.
Post a Comment