[syndicated profile] political_betting_feed

Posted by TSE

The fieldwork was Friday to Sunday inclusive, so some of it was conducted during Mark Reckless’ defection and Brooks Newmark’s resignation. There’ll probably be relief at Tory HQ, given that and the the polling was conducted in the aftermath of the Labour conference that they are up 1% and not down a significant amount. As with most other pollsters, there’s been no bounce for Labour post their conference. As ever, conference polling can be erratic, and we should wait until the after the conference season before reading too much into the polls.

On dealing with ISIS

Some 45 per cent of the public trust the Prime Minister to make the right decisions on tackling the jihadist group, but only 28 per cent trust the Labour leader to do so.  Although 49 per cent do not trust Mr Cameron to make the right judgements on  the issue, some 63 per cent do not trust Mr Miliband. Four in 10 (41 per cent) of Labour voters trust Mr Cameron to make the right decisions on Isis, but only 18 per cent of Conservative supporters trust Mr Miliband.

Some 48 per cent believe that taking part in such action will make Britain safer in the long term, while 42 per cent disagree. Men (53 per cent) are more likely to agree that such action will make the UK safer than women (41 per cent).

Only 38 per cent agree with the statement that the situation in Iraq and Syria is “none of our business and we should stay out of it,” while 56 per cent disagree.


David Cameron has lost his way and the Tories should split

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 09:04 pm
[syndicated profile] liberal_england_feed
I have read two good articles today on the problems facing David Cameron and the Conservatives.

Alex Massie writes about how David Cameron has lost his way:
What is David Cameron for? What kind of party, what kind of government, does he want to lead? If he knows, he’s done a grand job keeping his thoughts to himself. 
And yet there were once ideas. There was compassionate conservatism and the Big Society. There was the Global Race. Nor were these necessarily contradictory. A reformed, retooled, Britain is necessary to leave Britain better placed to thrive in the years ahead; that doesn’t mean rejecting social solidarity – social decency – at home. On the contrary, the two could be woven together. 
Events matter. Of course they do. But they need not – at least not necessarily – knock a government off-course. Cameron was elected as a new kind of Tory but, too often, has governed as just another Tory. He has counterfeited his own promise.
And Ian Birrell has a radical idea for curing the party's malaise:
The failure to learn the lessons of the past by banging on endlessly about benefits, Europe and immigration is astonishing. There needs to be more, not less, modernisation. Instead, the Tories focus fruitlessly on these fearful older voters largely lost to Ukip, an inevitably declining sector of the electorate, while reinforcing an image that drives away the younger, female and ethnic minority voters needed to survive and thrive as a political force. 
Ultimately, the question is not why are these MPs defecting, but why do politicians with such divergent views stick together? Perhaps politics is going through a process of disruption similar to that driven by technology in almost every other aspect of life. It does seem absurd to expect our tired model of binary party politics to endure in a time of transparency, with all that tedious tribalism and parroting of lines. 
In the short term, the Tories must decide either to offer an optimistic vision of the future or just pander to the pessimists in a probably doomed bid to win the election. 
Beyond that, it is hard not to wonder if these divisions need to be resolved with a cathartic full-blown split, as with Labour in the early 1980s – although this time it would be the militant tendency on the flank shearing off. As always in politics, there are egos and personal vanities in play. Yet what really binds the many decent and tolerant conservatives to those misanthropes filled with fear and rage against modernity?

Another clip from Brond has appeared on Youtube

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 08:22 pm
[syndicated profile] liberal_england_feed

A couple of days after I wrote my post on Brond, another clip from series appeared on Youtube. Not only that, it contains the dialogue about the Scottish soldier that I quoted.

There are also some photos of John Hannah in the drama to be found on a fan site.

Microsoft unveils new way for PCs to make you cry

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 07:08 pm
[syndicated profile] newsarse_feed

Posted by Editor

Windows-10-unveiledThe latest version of Microsoft's flagship product, Windows 10, was released today introducing millions of PC users to unprecedented levels of tear-inducing frustration.

Lord Bonkers' Diary: The Well-Behaved Orphans' quiz

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 08:05 pm
[syndicated profile] liberal_england_feed

I have never been a great lover of school dinners – I date the beginning of my long career in public service to my time on the Escape Committee at prep school – so when I heard about Clegg’s new policy I was less than impressed. I am, however, at a loss to know how to intervene as the man simply won’t listen to me on the subject.

Still pondering, I take myself off to give the prizes at the annual Well-Behaved Orphans’ quiz. There are no shocks and the bookies’ favourite – a bright little nine-year-old – wins by several lengths and secures the traditional bag of toffees.

Lord Bonkers was Liberal MP for Rutland South-West 1906-10.

Previously in Lord Bonkers' Diary...
[syndicated profile] yesmeansyes_feed

Posted by Thomas

A federal judge once said to me, when I was just a young’un, that this is how you read a statute:  “from left to right; stop at punctuation.”  You don’t know what this thing says unless you read the text.  TL;DR from the headlines does not an analysis make.  So here is the pertinent text, the text of section (a), which is the part people are talking about:

(a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following:
(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:
(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.
(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.
(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.
(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.
First, the plain language tells us that this statute is not a criminal law, or an obligation that the State of California imposes on any person directly.  It is, rather, a change to what California requires of colleges to be eligible for state financial aid.  So it doesn’t apply to any college that already forgoes aid for any reason, for example.  It has no impact of people who are not in college and not employed by a college, except in the sense that it may change the cultural conversation.  If you’re in high school, or not in school and working, or not in school and not working, or in the service, or in any other walk of life except attending college in California, this has no legal effect on you.
Second, all it requires is adoption of a policy that the school is required by federal law to have, and that that policy contain certain elements unique to this statute.
Subsection (a)(1)
One of the unique elements, the Affirmative Consent standard, is set forth here, and it isn’t what some people seem to be assuming.  The common rhetorical device is that affirmative consent requires some particular form of communication — notarized contract, filled out in triplicate, raised seal, etc.  Far be it from  me to criticize anyone whose kink is to have a bunch of suit-wearing functionaries watch their sexual encounters.  De gustibus non disputandum est, which I think is Latin for “your kink is not my kink but your kink is okay.”  However, the idea that that’s what the statute requires is just bullshit.  It’s not in there.
Here’s the heart of it: ” “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity.”  (Emphasis supplied.)  It doesn’t say what form it has to take, or how one has to ascertain it.  It doesn’t say anything about filling out a form, using an app, signing a waiver.  It doesn’t even say you have to say any particular word.  It doesn’t even require the word “Yes”!  It just says that the absence of “no” isn’t necessarily yes, and it’s your responsibility, if you’re a student in a college in California, to make sure you have a yes.  You can do that any way you like; it’s up to you how to see if you  have a yes.
There are lots of ways to ask for a yes.  If you lean in to kiss someone and they lean in to kiss you back, that’s yes.  If you ask someone if they want your cock and they say, “I want your cock,” that’s yes, and if they put their mouth on it, that’s yes, too.  If you’re fucking someone and holding them down and you’re both sweating and maybe bruised and you lean in and your hand is on their throat and you say, “can you still say no?” and they say, “yes,” that’s yes.  We’re not kids here, right?  We’ve all been there, and we know that people say yes, mean yes, shout yes and do yes in sex all the time.  Those of us who don’t want to force anyone to do anything they are not into, don’t want or need sexual encounters where people are not doing yes as hard as they can.
The rest of (a)(1) is pretty straightforward — it simply lists myths that won’t fly.  Consent to sex with someone one time isn’t consent to sex with that person every time.  Shouldn’t be controversial.  The absence of no isn’t yes.  Since people who are passed out can’t say no or yes, this should be obvious, and  is impossible to intelligently argue against.  I know CeeLo Green said otherwise, but that’s because CeeLo is a very bad person (and now, a convicted felon). Good vocalist, bad person, sorry to break it to you. Consent can be revoked at any time.  Again, impossible to intelligently argue with.  People are free at any time to decide the sexual encounter is not working for them, put on their c lothes and go get a slice of pizza.  This is not up for debate.
Subsection (a)(2)
Another element in section (a) is the standard in the disciplinary process in (a)(2).  It’s not a defense to say you believed  someone consented:
(1) because you were too drunk or too reckless to know whether they were consenting or not.  Good rule, right?  If I’m so fucked up that I may rape someone, that’s kind of like being so fucked up that I shouldn’t drive home because I might crash.  It was an adjustment for a lot of people when we began actually enforcing drunk driving laws in this country!  People said, “but how am I supposed to get home from the bar!”  And we all decided that not having drunks kill and maim people was important enough to make them take responsibility for how they get their drink on, and we did, and the republic did not fall.
(2) because you didn’t bother to find out if you had a yes.  This is the teeth that makes (a)(1) work.  If you know you have a yes, you’re good to go.  If you don’t know you have a yes, it’s on you to find out.  If you don’t, and this is important, if you acted reasonably to find out, you’re still okay.  Reasonably under the circumstances is a hard standard to argue against.  The only ways to argue against it are either (a) I want to act unreasonably and it should be okay, or (b) what I think is reasonable is not what the people enforcing this think is reasonable.
The nightmare scenario that rape apologists trot out is the one that Katie Roiphe made up (because she lives her life to piss on everything her mother stands for), the “morning after regret.”  I think it is impossible to find a case where someone was convicted of rape because one of their consenting partners later claimed nonconsent — in all the terrible history of black men being falsely accused of rape, almost always there was no actual sexual contact at all, and the rape was simply a socially convenient fabrication from whole cloth.  See the Central Park Jogger case, where the teens convicted and imprisoned had no contact at all with the victim — who was hit over the head and raped by an entirely different person, who was a serial rapist and died in prison.   In instances of political hoaxes like Brawley, likewise the events never transpired, and in the Duke Lacrosse case one of the accused was demonstrably not on the premises.  Amanda Marcotte has repeatedly thrown down the gauntlet (see comments, she’s said this before) for someone to identify an instance of false conviction arising from an actual sexual encounter between the accuser and the convicted defendant.  Nobody seems to have one.
This law protects against that scenario, fanciful as it might be.  If you act reasonably under to circumstances to see if you have a yes, you’re okay.
The Power And The Danger Of “Reasonable Steps”
That phrase, “reasonable steps, in the circumstances known … at the time” is, not incidentally, the weakness of this bill.  Law doesn’t interpret or execute itself, and this will  be interpreted by conduct counsels and deans in colleges, and “reasonable” will be what they think it means.  I’m not worried that someone who says  “hey, are you still into this” and gets “yeah” will be held to have acted unreasonably.  Sure, the perpetual whinge machine of MRA outrage will declare that “reasonable” will mean mind reading or seeing the future or having a notarized contract or some such nonsense.  But that’s like Christian extremists who complain that they are being discriminated against because they can’t bully gay kids in school — they have a persecution complex which has no relationship to objective reality.  Given colleges’ infamous disinclination to hold rapists accountable or adjudicate them liable, there is no reason to suspect that the interpretation of “reasonable” with be anything other than a mainstream-friendly view of “reasonable.”
I am worried that some asshole’s approach to consent will be, “hey, she was into fucking me, and then I took the condom off and stuck it in her ass before she knew what I was doing, and I didn’t know she wasn’t okay with that,” and that will be held to be reasonable, because people who should know better make excuses for people they like.  See generally Julian Assange and his defenders.  “Reasonable” inherently imports norms that may not work for people in their own lives.  If someone is trans or genderqueer and says, for example, “don’t touch my front hole,” I think that’s totally reasonable.  But someone who has a cis and heteronormative and penetrocentric framework for sex may decide that “reasonable” is the same as what they think “normal” is.  These are macro problems with how law operates; I offer no easy solution.
But it’s not just people whose gender or sexuality fall outside the mainstream who could find that the concept of “reasonable” fails them.  If a school were to decide that, “I asked if she wanted to come back to my room and she said yes” is reasonable inquiry and constituted a basis to assume consent to anything that happened thereafter, that would be a very bad standard.  Someone who wanted to exonerate every rapist who fit a certain socially comfortable paradigm probably could, just by applying the term “reasonable steps” to some action the rapist took or claimed to have taken.
That’s also the weakness of the ridiculous app that turned up in the news recently.  It makes no provision for withdrawal of consent (how could it?) and it makes little or no provision that I can see for sex to be something other than, “we do it in the way it looks in the movies.” So it’s useless for its intended purpose, and whatever its creator’s intent,  its actual function – I’ll go farther than Marcotte here –  is to create a defense that rapists can use later, after their targets realized that what was going to be done to them wasn’t what they were good with.
Subsection (a)(3)
Subsection (a)(3) imposes a “preponderance” standard, which is already the standard for civil liability in almost all areas, and the standard colleges have to use under the current Department of Education guidance federally, so that doesn’t change anything.
Subsection (a)(4)
Subsection (a)(4) says that there are three circumstances where, if you know this thing is true, you know the other person can’t consent: (a) unconscious; (b) too drunk or high to understand the “fact, nature or extent” of sexual activity; and (c) unable to communicate.  (a) and (c) don’t merit any discussion.  Unconscious people can’t consent, and if people are unable to communicate, you don’t know if they consent.  (b) is only slightly more elastic.  It imposes a standard for how drunk is too drunk to fuck.  Too drunk to know the fact of sexual activity is obviously too drunk to consent.  Too drunk to know the nature or extent of sexual activity requires some actual interpretation, as “nature” and “extent” don’t define themselves, but if someone is so messed up that they don’t know for example which hole a cock is in, they shouldn’t be having sex, and I think that’s the most obvious interpretation of what that means.
This Is Not A Revolution In Practice (But I Can See It From Here)
So that’s what it says.  It’s not a revolution in practice.  There are no heads in tumbrels and nobody is being carted to a reeducation camp.  From the howling, you might have surmised that this bill requires all Californians to get the late Andrea Dworkin’s permission to have sex, gently, while lying side by side, and only half way in.  That’s bullshit.  Under this standard, California’s college students are free to get their sex on any way they see fit, and communicate about consent any way that works for them.  It just clarifies that they can’t assume it, they have a responsibility to find a way to communicate about it.  That’s radical in theory, but pretty pedestrian in practice.
This is an evolution in concept.  It’s a very non-radical bill, imposing in a very careful and mainstream-friendly way what is a gradual and evolutionary paradigm shift.  But the evolution in paradigm is more important than the operation of the policies under this bill (in at most a few hundred conduct counsel proceedings) ever will be.  Just the cultural conversation about the bill has made Yes Means Yes, the idea of affirmative consent and sex as process, part of the mainstream national conversation.  The best defense of the old, Commodity Model, women as gatekeepers, paradigm was not to discuss it at all — but just to assume it.  It doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny.  It’s being dragged into the sunlight now, and in sunlight it withers because, quoting Brandeis, “sunlight is … the best of disinfectants.”
That’s why I don’t mind the people arguing against this bill.  By arguing, they are keeping the conversation going, and by doing that, they are losing.  If they were smart, which they are not, they’d ignore it and let the media die down, and push quietly for interpretations of the standard that don’t change anything.  But they’re not.  Like Todd Akin, they want to spew their extremism, their poorly informed and ideologically driven beliefs, their persecution complex and feverswamp paranoia.  So they’ll keep arguing, and if they keep arguing, the keep losing.
 Looking West into the future from here with the right kind of eyes I can see the arc bend.

Filed under: Uncategorized

this week is fucking fired

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 02:35 pm
synecdochic: torso of a man wearing jeans, hands bound with belt (Default)
[personal profile] synecdochic
Today I:

* had to stay awake for 24 hours or so to be awake for the plumber;

* discovered, when sitting down on the guest room bed to chat with the plumber while he worked, that somebody (Gabe) had peed on the bed;

* stripped the bed linens and chucked them in the wash to soak, sprayed the mattress down with Nature's Miracle (it had a waterproof pad on it but that doesn't do much about the smell) and propped it up to dry;

* finally got to bed after the plumber was finished;

* heard, just as I was dozing off, the Leakfrog sounding its HELP HELP I AM IN WATER alert;

* went downstairs to discover the laundry drain sink had ONCE AGAIN backed up and flooded because SOMEBODY forgot to check the drain for lint, naming no names ALL RIGHT IT WAS ME, and had to spend an hour cleaning up the flood.

This week is fucking fired.

(no subject)

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 02:31 pm
synecdochic: torso of a man wearing jeans, hands bound with belt (Default)
[personal profile] synecdochic
This stinkbug is egregious. Read more... )
[syndicated profile] liberal_bureaucracy_feed

Posted by Mark Valladares

So, the road to the FA Cup proper is a little clearer now, after yesterday's draw at Wembley. And, it's a game with a bit of spice.

Last season, after the miracle that was the last game of the regular league season, when not only did Thurrock have to lose against Tilbury but Needham Market had to overturn a sizeable goal difference disadvantage against Chatham Town and both happened (the Marketmen won 7-1!), the play-off semi-final saw Needham Market travel to Witham Town.
Witham won 1-0 with an 88th minute winner, helped in part by the presence on the pitch of a loanee from Needham Market. It had been understood that there was in place a gentlemen's agreement that he wouldn't play, but Witham Town's management appear not to have understood the meaning of the word.
Manager Mark Morsley rather presciently noted in his review of last season;
I would say that I am glad that Witham Town achieved promotion; that means I will not have face them next season. Mind you the FA competitions have a habit of throwing up interesting games. 
It's certainly not an easy game, but it is a winnable one potentially, and given that there wasn't a harder fourth qualifying round draw possible than the Conference leaders last year, supporters can perhaps dream of a big day in early November.
Sadly, I won't be there, as I'll be in Lisbon, but I'll be following events on Twitter with interest and optimism...

Review: The Caretaker

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 12:51 pm
ed_rex: (Default)
[personal profile] ed_rex posting in [community profile] doctorwho

Little care from The Caretaker

Image: The Doctor with sign reading 'GO AWAY HUMANS'. Screenshot from 'The Caretaker'.

The short version?

I really enjoyed "The Caretaker" when I watched it late Saturday night and into Sunday morning.

I'd been awake almost 20 hours when I hit Play, had worked 11 of those hours at the day-job and spent nearly two more riding to and from there on my bicycle.

I was tired, and I admit cracked a beer or three as I live-tweeted my first reactions.

To my regret, those tweets were an enthusiastic tailings pond spill I wish I could take back. But they do represent as "real" a reaction as my subsequent re-evaluation. And since I don't believe in censoring reality, they will stay on my Twitter timeline and live on also as a sidebar — pre-commentary, if you like — to my review.

The short version is that I thought the episode pretty awful when I watched it by sunlight. To paraphrase the blogger Patches365, it was a mean-spirited "tragedy of blunders" built on — not one — nor two, or even three — but four idiot plots. And it was an episode that tossed aside its best performer in favour of the cheapest of cheap laffs.

The long version? The long version lives on my site, of course, along with spite, spoilers and some thoughts on patterns as we reach the half-way point of what we can only hope will be Steven Moffat's farewell turn as Captain of the foundering ship Doctor Who.

Click here for Little Care — Take Two. Don't say I didn't warn you.

The rise (to 85,000 feet) and fall of Walter White

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 03:55 pm
[syndicated profile] improbable_research_feed

Posted by Marc Abrahams

Kayla Reed, writing for AV Club, gives some of the background to this video:

In the year since Breaking Bad bled off the airwaves, fans and stars alike have been reveling in its wake. One of the more creative homages comes courtesy of TV Tag, whose staff gathered a crew to send a Walter White bobblehead beyond the atmosphere and back again. The video below features a timelapse of the construction, launch, and travels of Mr. White and his vessel, whose six-hour journey took him 250 miles and reached a maximum altitude of 85,000 feet.

(Thanks to investigator Jane Hill for bringing this to our attention.)

BONUS: The chemistry of Breaking Bad, analyzed

(no subject)

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 04:49 pm
nostalgia: (chavvy whore!)
[personal profile] nostalgia
While we're sort of on the topic, I still don't get what fandom sees in Pigbin Josh. "Homeless mentally ill person is killed by aliens. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!" EXPLAIN?

(no subject)

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 04:37 pm
nostalgia: (two - what fuckery is this?)
[personal profile] nostalgia
You know how in Destiny of the Daleks the "tell me more about your planet" character is played by a D/deaf actor? Does anyone know if the character is meant to be D/deaf? Because nothing in the story is in any way related to his hearing issues,* which would mean he's like the only non-able-bodied person in Doctor Who that gets away with it.**

Otherwise is it still the blind woman in Battlefield who gets cured by a incestuous witch that wins this competition?

Sigh. The real reason Oswin Oswald couldn't be a companion is the lack of accessability in the TARDIS.

*I think we don't automatically call deafness a disability, but I can't remember what we do call it instead, sorz.
**"So who should invent these evil cyborgs?" "Oh, how about an embittered disabled genius? That wasn't offensive the first time, we should totally do it again."
[syndicated profile] peter_black_am_feed
I love party conferences. Everybody is so over-the-top that reality and real life gets forgotten for a few days. Well at least as far as the attendees are concerned.

This applies most to Ministers and full-time politicians as is evidenced by Theresa May's repeat gung-ho performance and her misrepresentation of the Liberal Democrats position on the communications data bill. The Guardian has the rebuttal:

The Lib Dems have accused Theresa May of peddling “misinformation” about their opposition to the communications data bill. This is from a party spokesman.

We utterly reject the allegation that the blocking of the communications data bill has put lives at risk.

Police already have the ability to obtain data in urgent cases where lives are in danger.

The real problem is the availability of IP address data, where we have always accepted there is a need for action, and indeed publicly committed to legislation last year.

Frankly, it is woeful inaction on the part of the Home Office that solutions have not been identified to deal with this issue.

If failure to act on the IP matching problem has put lives at risk, the home secretary must explain why her department has not acted.

Theresa May is peddling misinformation in a vain attempt to get the so-called ‘snooper’s charter’ back on the table.

Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose the Tories’ obsessive intrusion into people’s lives.

Of course it is not just Ministers who get carried away, as the Guardian makes clear:

Boris Johnson spoke at a ConservativeHome fringe meeting at the conference last night. In the past these events have sometimes been quasi leadership bid rallies, notable for Johnson giving a speech laced with coded challenges to Cameron and his supporters lapping it up ecstatically.

But last night’s speech was - well, not quite dull, because no Johnson speech ever can can, but scrupulously loyal, and a bit pedestrian. If Johnson said anything interesting about Conserative politics, or how the party should be fighting the election, I missed it.

Still, he did perform one very funny routine. My friends at the Daily Mail, who never miss a trick, have written it up as “an extraordinary attack on Tories who have defected to UKIP, claiming they were the sort of people who injure themselves having sex with vacuum cleaners.”

Each to their own I suppose.

About This Blog

picture of Jennie Rigg

Hello! I'm Jennie (known to many as SB, due to my handle, or The Yorksher Gob because of my old blog's name). This blog is my public face; click here for a list of all the other places you can find me on t'interwebs.

Flattr this

Ebuzzing - Top Blogs Ebuzzing - Top Blogs - Politics

Charities I support:

The Survivors' Trust - donate here
DogsTrust - donate here
CAB - donate here


Creative Commons License
Miss SB by Jennie Rigg is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org.

Please note that any and all opinions expressed in this blog are subject to random change at whim my own, and not necessarily representative of my party, or any of the constituent parts thereof (except myself, obviously).

Printed by Dreamwidth Studios, Maryland USA. Promoted by Jennie Rigg, of Brighouse, West Yorkshire.

September 2014

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 2728
29 30     

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Style Credit

Page generated Tuesday, September 30th, 2014 11:56 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios