Daily Mail punts Georgina Baillie filth The Daily Mail earlier today sought to squeeze extra value from the Manuelgate scandal by exposing some sordid secrets regarding Georgina Baillie's alleged life as "Mistress Voluptua - a dominatrix who charges clients £110 an hour for the dubious pleasures of being treated as her 'slave'". However, its original choice of snap …
Disinterested (as in disinterested party) refers to someone who has no interest (in the sense of *conflict of interest* or stake) in something - e.g. "Mandelson was not a disinterested party to the aluminium deal". Uninterested is when you are not interested i.e.bored. as in "I'm uninterested in comments by pedants who bang on about subtle differences in words that no-one cares about"
PS How about a "Pedant Alert" icon
PPS I'd give her the thumbs up! (gets dirty old mac)
with the Daily Mail.
How many people listened to the original programme - quite a few I believe.
How many of those listeners complained - apparently not many.
The entire furore was caused by the DM. Undoubtedly, Brand and Ross were unnaceptable. They deserve a strong warning or something. Did the offended parties complain? Only their complaints and those of the original listeners should counted.
The Daily Mail needs its editor and other dirtbags like its owner to be severely fined punished etc. The editor behind the fuss should loose their job and Murdoch should be disqualified from owning any media - papers TV or anything else.
So, because two over-paid idiots staged a stupid prank which came back to bite them, the Daily Mail seems to think this woman is now "fair game".
What she and her clients get up to as consenting adults is nobody's business but theirs. She didn't consent to Brand and Ross' s "joke".
The Daily Mail should learn to tell the difference.
There again, in their story of the "gutsy pensioner" who "foiled a raid on a jewellery shop" I'm more interested in how he "causally" caught a bus...!
..but at least she knows to floss regularly:
http://salvationgroup.com/satanic/sluts/087c.jpg
In other news, this whole mess at least gets rid of R. "never that funny" Brand. I hope GB makes a load of money from the publicity, too.
The main lesson from all of this (other than the Faily Mail is full of tossers, which we knew), is that the market "reforms" introduced in the beeb in the John Birt era are stupid. The situation is that R. Brand's "production company" made the show, the producer was his employee. If you're working for a partially-shaved simian with a single-digit mental age, and you need to tell him "stop that, you're being a dick now", you're faced with insta-sacking. The poor producer did try and stop it, but due to the weak tie between the BBC body corporate (settle down at the back) and "independants", he didn't really get backup from the nonsense middle managers at the beeb who "manage the relationship".
Essentially, trying to run public service like a business doesn't work. Public service is about getting the most done with the money available, business is about spending the least possible to squeak by, maximising profits. There's a subtle but important distinction there. What's more, when Birt brought in his "market reforms", he massively increased money wasted- as all the independents need to replicate a lot of admin and the like, which is then factored into the programming cost. Both in the BBC and the NHS, these "market reforms" have increased transaction cost on common operations from circa 5% to something in the order of 35% in a lot of cases. Reducing everything to the lowest kneejerk laissez-faire "wisdom of the markets" common denominator provides terrible value and destroys the cohesion of such organisations, filleting them and making it impossible for them to provide proper service. Of course, then, the market geniuses get all excited and yell "look! they're inefficient!" and use this as an excuse to outsource and privatise more. Sigh.
Sorry, wall of text crits you for 10k. You die. In other news, G.B. is rather cute if you like 'em gothic and feral (which I do).
Laughing, in the mechanism.
just because there is a recession on.
It is the Rockefeller syndrome sweeping the UK, these two iconic entertainment figures must be bought down to wallow in the muck with the rest of us.
I would be happier if we were calling for an end to the BBC, talk about not checking your facts, and I suspect Brand and Ross knew the real story. People just want to have something or someone to hate at the moment, because frankly that is probably all a lot have been feeling the last few weeks.
What is the house repossession rate at the moment, forecast at 45,000 by year end. And most who have mortgaged in the last 5 years or so plummeting into negative equity, a lot were on 100% mortgages as well. Job market looking unstable, yeah people just want to be indignant about something, never mind the facts, they want to hate anything apart from themselves right now. And the knock on is just begining, there is more to come.
The confusion of thumb and penis has a glorious legal history, notably in Mary Whitehouse's private prosecution of Michael Bogdanov, director of the play "The Romans in Britian" for having "procured an act of gross indecency by Peter Sproule with Greg Hicks on the stage of the Olivier Theatre".
To obtain evidence, the prosecution had to witness the "crime". Foolishly, the prosecuting solicitor, Ross-Cornes, saved a few bob by taking a cheap seat at the back. The defence's Hutchinson, in a famous cross examination, asked how Ross-Cornes was sure it was a penis at that distance. Ross-Cornes replied "what else could it be?" Upon which Hutchinson held his thumb to his crotch.
Ross-Cornes was the only witness offered by the prosecution. Kennedy, the prosecution's leading barrister, then withdrew, for reasons he has never revealed but often supposed to be that Whitehouse insisted that he continue but Kennedy (who because of the way the 1956 Sexual Offences Act was written, could have still won) did not wish to obtain a win lacking firm evidence by using clauses designed for the prosecution of rapists rather than theatrical directors.
The attorney-general -- Havers -- then nolle prosequi-ed proceedings. Something he should have done much earlier, such as once the private prosecution proceeded under the Sexual Offences Act rather than convincing the government to launch its own prosecution using the Theatres Act, which was the proper legislation controlling censorship of stage productions.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
