Spot the non-sequiturs

Some hippy:

\”Half the baby food market is organic. This isn\’t just posh people making lifestyle choices. It\’s about people being worried about the quality of the food they give their babies and worried about the use of pesticides and antibiotics.\”

Not Ruth-less enough

Neither the government, nor Ruth Kelly herself are handling her \”disabled child at private school situation\” well, either on a moral or a political level.

On a personal level, I respect Ms Kelly\’s decision to do what she feels is the best for her disabled son. However, this does not make it appropriate for her to send her child to an independent school while remaining the government minister for education – given that this proves beyond any doubt that she does not believe the system you are running is capable of providing her child with the education that he needs.

In any line of business, refusing to use your own product shows that you are happy to inflict it on others while being fully aware that it is poor. Being minister for education, as it is conventionally understood, involves not admitting that the education system is poor. On this basis, Ruth Kelly has no alternative but to resign, and anyone seeking to defend her on the basis that she\’s doing the best for her family in a hard situation should have the knee-jerk sympathy beaten out of them with an iron bar.

However, shifting the goalposts a little, there is one way in which Ms Kelly could keep her job: if she publicly admitted that the education system does not adequately provide for the parents of children disabled in whichever way her son is disabled; announced the steps that her department was going to take to address these flaws in the system; and announced a date when the system would be sufficiently fixed to regain her own personal confidence. Sadly, this involves concrete policies, personal responsibility and admission of culpability, and therefore will never happen.

Meanwhile, David Cameron is absolutely cleaning up – unlike me, he can profit massively from the situation while not even having to criticise Ms Kelly. \”We all have to make the decisions as parents first, not as politicians. Ruth Kelly is a parent first and foremost\”, he says, while the papers do the job of pointing out the context that Mr Cameron has a disabled child who attends a state school.

Mr Cameron is an ex-PR man, and therefore definitionally unscrupulous and untrustworthy. I think it would be pushing it to suggest that he had his child deliberately disabled for political advantage, however. Also, fuck, this bastard is going to win, isn\’t he?

Update: Tampon Teabag makes the above paragraph look inoffensive.

Odds malkins!

From A Word A Day:

malkin (MO-kin, MAL-kin) noun

1. An untidy woman; a slattern.

2. A scarecrow or a grotesque effigy.

3. A mop made of a bundle or rags fastened to a stick.

Which definition do you think is most accurate?

Blogger writes most stupid and untrue thing ever

Last night, I wrote the following sentence:

Mr [Prince] Naseem, who is not a useless, worthless, waste of space

Even given the quantities of beer, wine and amyl nitrite that I\’d consumed before going online, this is the most shamefully inaccurate thing I\’ve ever said. Consequently, I\’ve committed ritual suicide as a penance and will do any further blogging from beyond the grave.

For the record, of course Prince Naseem is a worthless cunt; sending him to jail was the right thing to do; the people he crashed into are irritating whiners (if someone who harms you gets sent to jail, you should be fucking gracious about the fact that – entirely because of what the person did to you – he is having his life destroyed, because that is what happens to people when they are sent to jail); and stripping him of his MBE is pathetic.

You lame bunch of losers

This is all your fucking fault:

We are sorry to have to inform you that the pledge to which you signed up did not meet its target in the required time. It required 3,000,000 people, but achieved only 662.

The pledge, created by Stef, read: \’I will refuse to register for an ID card but only if 3,000,000 people will sign up.\’

This means you don\’t have to do your part of the pledge. Instead, why not sign up to local alerts at to find out when someone creates a new pledge near you, browse the pledges at or perhaps make your own pledge.

Yes, of course I was one of the 662. And you?

It\’s not difficult when I go away

Luckily, there are idiots willing to admit their own idiocy wherever I go.

Today\’s preferred idiot is Clare Burgin, whose husband was run over and slightly hurt by Prince Naseem, who is a slightly rubbish English boxer.

Because our courts are deranged, manaical, and don\’t understand the difference between some poor sod who fucked up and some evil cunt who needs killed, Mr Naseem actually spent some time in jail for his bad luck (whereas if someone beat the shit out of you with an iron bar because they were a mental chav, they\’d probably get off with probation).

Anyway. Anthony Burgin has come out of the whole situation without any serious harm. Mr Naseem has spent quarter of a year in jail. Mr Birgin\’s wife, being a deranged mentalist bitch who deserves topping, thinks that the person who\’s done badly out of this situation is Mr Burgin. She and he can fuck off; the only reason it\’s disappointing they didn\’t both die in the accident that marginally harmed Mr Burgin is because that way Mr Naseem, who is not a useless, worthless, waste of space, unlike the Burgin family, who are, would have had to spend even longer in jail.

And for hilarious comedy value, the mad cunts who run our honours system have stripped Mr Naseem of his MBE. Yes, Jeffrey Archer doesn\’t get his Lordship removed for lying to the Old Bailey, but Prince Nassem gets a half-arsed bullshit honour removed for running over a daft cunt.

Update: this post is utter bollocks – see here.

I don\’t feel good…

and I knew that I wouldn\’t, now.

It\’s a terrible shame. I suggest we all light up a crackpipe and down a bottle of Scotch in Mr Brown\’s memory.

Also, happy Christmas.

At least our press doesn\’t have a monopoly on \’terror\’ stupidity

My eyes are drawn to an amazingly ignorant article on ABC News inspired by John Reid\’s paranoid ravings, picking up and running with the whole \”we\’ll be lucky not be be blown up by Boxing Day\” meme. A bet that I\’ve already offered to one wingnut, and will quite happily offer to anyone else willing to take it, is £1000 that there will be no terrorist attack on the UK over the Christmas/New Year season.

Why am I so confident? Simply because the article says things which are clearly and demonstrably false about the August aeroplane bomb plot in order to make us more scared – and therefore it\’s reasonable to assume it\’s doing the same thing about the Evil Muslim Conspiracy To Ruin Christmas (\”maybe if we\’d called it Winterval instead they\’d\’ve left us alone\”, etc).
Specifically, he suggests that the August bomb plot was a serious threat, expertly planned with direction from Pakistan, and featuring people of great technical knowledge.

Back in the real world, it\’s been conclusively demonstrated that the bomb plot could never have worked, and the alleged mastermind in Pakistan has been acquitted of all terror charges. In short, the facts fit very well with the \”lack of professionalism in planning that are often the hallmarks of what are commonly called homegrown plots\”.

If that\’s indicative of the quality of this bloke\’s \’facts\’, I think my grand is pretty safe, don\’t you?

Sentencing question

Why is shooting an on-duty police officer considered 67% worse (35 years\’ minimum sentence) than stabbing an unarmed lawyer (21 years\’ minimum)?

I hope it\’s to do with the use of guns, the extent of previous convictions and the defendants\’ lack of mitigating personal factors, rather than any kind of bizarre fetishisation of the police as better than the rest of us…

Rule of thumb

If you follow a link to a blog you haven\’t heard of before, and the top post begins with:

There\’s an important post from Melanie Phillips

it\’s fair to assume that the rest of the blog is crazyarsedloonery and best avoided. Christian Hate? is no exception: it hates the charity Christian Aid because Christian Aid sometimes has a go at Israel without adding \”but the Palestinians kill Israeli babies for fun\” to each criticism it makes. This makes Christian Aid objectively antisemitic, obviously.

The linked Mel piece is, admittedly, one of her best – she has a full-on mentalist rant at pretty much all British Christians for sometimes having a go at Israel without adding \”but the Palestinians kill Israeli babies for fun\” to each criticism they make. This makes all British Christians objectively antisemitic, obviously.