If you turned on the TV towards the end of 2002 you could have been forgiven for thinking that Britain had gone absolutely horseshit mental. Every week, it seemed, another pretty young girl from a nice family, who was happy and popular and always did well at school, was being kidnapped or murdered by what the Sun newspaper cheerfully termed 'evil paedo scum'. Naming and shaming was as popular a feature in the Murdoch press as Page Three girls and discounted holidays to Butlin's. Of course you can't blame parents for wanting to keep their children safe; that's pretty much the job description of a parent. And, on the face of it, the tabloids were doing a public service in warning us about the paedophile menace lurking in our midst. The problem came when it turned out that a huge number of these concerned tabloid-reading parents were also absolute fucking morons. For every story of an actual sex offender being driven from their house by a baying mob there was one like that of Dr Yvette Cloete, a doctor at the Royal Gwent Hospital in Newport, South Wales, who returned home from work to find that a group of 'concerned parents' had daubed the word 'paedo' on her front door in bright red paint. Dr Cloete was a consultant paediatrician. Easy mistake. If you're an absolute fucking moron. And so it was that one hung-over morning, after reading yet another story about vigilantes who had threatened to stone Maxine Carr, the girlfriend of Soham killer Ian Huntley, to death during her high-profile trial for perverting the course of justice, I decided to set up a website parodying this collective national madness. The result of two or three hours of hung-over labour was thinkofthechildren.co.uk, a spoof campaign site which claimed to offer a handy online guide for crazy vigilantes of all stripes to co-ordinate their crazy vigilante efforts. Although there are a few parts of the site I'm still a bit proud of, the majority of it was, I freely admit, satire of the lowest order. Question: How was the thinkofthechildren.co.uk site received? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- It was viewed as a satire.
- It was viewed as offensive.
- It was a success.

Answer: not enough information

Question: It was a dream, then a place, then a memory. My father built it near the Suwannee River. I like to think it was in the heart of Florida, because it was, and is, in my heart. Its name was Dogland. Some people say you can know others if you know the central incidents that shaped their lives. But an incident is an island in time, and to know the effect of the island on those who land there, you must know something about the river they have traveled. And I must warn you before we begin, I don't know that river well. I visit that time and place like a ghost with poor vision and little memory. I look up the river and see fog rolling in. I look down the river, and the brightness of the approaching day blinds me. I see shapes moving behind me and beyond me, but who they are and what they do, I cannot say. I will tell what I know is true, and I will invent what I believe is true, and that, I think, is all you can ask any storyteller to do. I learned the Nix family history from the stories Pa told. Even at the age of four, I suspected that Pa's stories might not be perfectly true. When Pa said we Nixes came to North America as indentured servants working our way out of debtor's prison, Grandma Bette would make a face and say he couldn't know that. When he said we Nixes had Lakota and Ojibwe blood in our veins, Grandma Bette would say she wasn't prejudiced, but it simply wasn't so: she and Pa and his brothers and sisters were dark because her people were Black Dutch, from a part of Holland where everyone had black hair and black eyes. And then Grandma Bette wouldn't say a word for half an hour or more, a very long time for Grandma Bette to be quiet. Question: What is "it" that the author says was a dream, a place and a memory? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- Dogland
- Florida
- Holland
- not enough information
Answer: Dogland

Question: Lancome Juicy Tubes changed my life. Ok, well that's a slight exaggeration but it was the first high-end make-up item that I ever bought and it made me feel like I was really getting somewhere. I'd got a good job, was in the process of buying my own house and I could afford to buy premium beauty products. I chose a transparent lemon yellow gloss with tiny flecks of iridescent glitter in, and over the following months I treated myself to several other Juicy Tube variants including a shimmery nude gloss called Pamplemousse which I wore on nights out for years (incidentally Pamplemousse is still going!). Fast forward several (ahem) years and Juicy Tubes are still going strong, but there's a new member of the Juicy family vying for attention the Juicy Shaker.*. Another lip product, this one is a nourishing tinted lip oil which acts a bit like a gloss, and I was sent two of the new shades to try out Piece of Cake and Show Me The Honey. Juicy Shakers are a bi-phase nourishing lip oil, when the product is allowed to settle the pigment falls to the bottom and the oil rises to the top, giving a split effect. Then you need to shake the bottle to mix the two layers together, giving the product it's name. The ingredients include sweet almond oil, omega 3 and cranberry oil and really help care for your lips unlike most other glosses. Show Me The Honey is a nude coral shade, it looks rather orange and scary in the bottle but in reality it's much more of a gentle shade. Piece of Cake is a damson pink, and again looks much darker in the bottle. I found that Piece of Cake matches almost exactly with the natural colour of my lips so it's perfect for when I want my make-up to look really pared back with glossy supple natural looking lips. Question: How much time passed between the original purchase and the second lipgloss trial? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- sometime forward
- not enough information
- years
- several years
Answer:
several years