Melanie Phillips:
bq. “The bogus child support agency”:http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/001497.html
I think we can agree with Mel that only genuine children should be supported and that payments to these bogus ones should be cut off forthwith.
{ 8 comments }
ajay 11.24.05 at 4:59 am
-It’s a baby!
-For heaven’s sake, Penelope. How many times? It’s not a baby, it’s a balloon.
-Charles, how could you? It’s a baby!
-It’s a balloon, Penelope.
-It’s a baby!
– It’s. A. Balloon.
(pop)
-Pig!
Alex 11.24.05 at 5:14 am
Pass the crack pipe, Mel…
brendan 11.24.05 at 5:33 am
Isn’t ‘totally bogus’ a phrase from Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure? Maybe she is complaining that the CSA only helps, y’know, like, totally bogus kids, instead of like rad dudes, yeah?
sherlock von bladet, analytic detective 11.24.05 at 8:49 am
Hmmm, let’s see. A bogus child, so presumably a doll. A child support? Perhaps some kind of cradle or crib. So a bogus child support would be a doll’s crib, such as is found, at this time of year, in nativity scenes. So the bogus child support agency can only be…
_[pause for effect]_
The Church! Melanie Phillips wants to abolish the church!
(It’s amazing what you can do with a little elementary clarity and rigour, isn’t it?)
Ginger Yellow 11.24.05 at 9:04 am
Von Bladet, are you Ted Rogers returned from the grave?
dave heasman 11.24.05 at 3:14 pm
Tragically, one must assume that the usual Daily Mail sub-editor wrote the headline.
the Bill & Ted reference is real, mind – remember John Major calling something a “bogus sham”? He picked the term up from oner of his kids, I imagine.
P O'Neill 11.24.05 at 6:59 pm
Anyone know whether they got the capitalisation right in the print edition?
nick s 11.26.05 at 1:43 pm
Does that make the Daily Mail a bogus columnist support agency?
(Knowing a few of the smudgers at the Mail, who are cynical bastards, and usually not of the paper’s political persuasion, I hope the ambiguity was quite deliberate.)
Comments on this entry are closed.