Mike Ashley, Derek Llambias And Alan Pardew

I used to be a life-long supporter of Newcastle United. I supported them through thin & thinner. Despite having put up with nearly being in the third division of English football, nearly winning the Premier League twice and being losing finalists in several cups, I kept supporting.

This is no longer the case.

Owner Mike Ashley and Chairman Derek Llambias have tried my patience previously: They hired Joe Kinnear. They installed Denis Wise as a "director of football". They contrived to get us relegated. They re-named the stadium. All of which irritated me and alienated yet more of the fan base. But I remained a supporter of NUFC until now.

When the decision was taken to sack Chris Hughton, I decided to switch my allegiances to Sunderland. This is not an easy decision for me, nor one I'd like to last any longer than is necessary, but I will not support NUFC while Mike Ashley and Derek Llambias remain in control of the club.

It seems that despite insisting in October that they'd be giving a new contract Chris Hughton (brought NUFC back out of the Championship after the relegation with the longest unbeaten run in NUFC history) they actually had no intention of doing so. Despite NUFC sitting in mid-table, winning away at Arsenal in the league and at Chelsea in the cup and hammering Sunderland 5-1, it seems they wanted someone "with more management experience".

So speculation was rife that NUFC would get Martin Jol, or Martin O'Neill. But it seemed unlikely, given that Jol had Hughton as Assistant Manager at Tottenham when he was Manager and isn't going to take a job at a club that had just sacked Hughton. And as O'Neill walked from Aston Villa when it became clear he wasn't going to be given complete control of the purchases and team selections, he surely wasn't going to a club where players have been bought and sold without the manager being informed.

And then today, the BBC report that Alan Pardew is going to be taking over at NUFC. If I supported NUFC, I would be really quite cross about that. Pardew has managed for more games than Hughton, but most of them weren't in the Premier League. He did bring West Ham up from the Championship, but when in the Prem, he decided to pick Marlon Harewood ahead of Carlos Tevez & Javier Mascherano. His most recent job - from which he was sacked in August, allegedly for having sex with a player's wife/girlfriend - was to manage Southampton, in Division One.

So why is he the man for the job? Well according to the BBC, he knows Ashley & Llambias because he frequents the same London casino as them. Which, as a *shudder* Sunderland fan, seems as good a reason as any to me. There's already a rumour that he'll be working for NUFC for free as he owes huge gambling debts to Ashley and/or Llambias, but I doubt that's true (for any lawyers reading). But it could be.

The worst part in the BBC's report is that Pardew was apparently in talks with NUFC about taking over the role of manager some ten days ago. Or 8 days BEFORE Hughton was sacked. If that is true, then even as a *cough* Mackem, I would be furious at Pardew and incandescent with rage at Ashley and Llambias.

If the League Manager's Association (LMA) has any clout whatsoever, it would be delightful to see Mike Ashley and/or Llambias being fined for the way they've acted over the sacking of Hughton. As is more likely, sod all will happen, except Carroll, Nolan, Jonas, Collocini & Krul will be sold in January, NUFC will get relegated at the end of the season, and Pardew will be sacked.

When Ashley leaves, I will return - regardless of what division NUFC are in.

Most Important Invention Of The 21st Century?

According to confused.com the most important invention of the 21st Century has been decided already. So suck on that inventors! The next 90 years will have NOTHING that will compare to, wait for it, dah-dah-daaaaaaah, the internet.

Yes, that internet. The internet that I've been using since mid 1994; which has been in existence in one form or another since ARPANET, but for the sake of argument I will say 1989 (when CERN opened its first external TCP/IP connections). 1989 - according to confused.com at least - now part of the 21st Century, rather than the 20th as we'd been previously led to believe.



Anyway, this irritated me - and I know I'm not alone on this - so I mailed them about it, suggesting that by their criteria, I could suggest penicillin was the most important invention of the 21st Century.

Much to my surprise, I got this reply (suspiciously similar to those on the above link)

Thanks for taking the time to email us regarding our new TV Advert.

Cara (the character in our ad) is saying that the internet is the most important invention of the 21st century, in terms of impact and not that it was actually invented in the 21st century.

We do believe this to be correct, but we also value your opinion on this, so I will definitely pass your comments regarding penicillin onto our Advertising Team. It's always good to have customer feedback.

Thank you once again,

So, if you get easily bored, remember there is a "Contact Us" tab on confused.com's website and you can mail them your suggestion for the best invention of the 21st Century. I reckon if enough people do it, we can get them to admit that fire was the most important suggestion of the 21st Century.

Idiots.

The Future Of The UK, Uneducated & Chav Populated

There's a Facebook group of this name, who say;

The key is two government policies which are totally messed up, namely the cut in child benefit and the cut in unviersity places and funding.

That would be "is that there are two government policies"

If you are not familiar with these cuts, they propose that families who earn over £44,000 per year will no longer receive Child Benefit where as lower income families will continue to receive it. University funding will also be cut forcing a reduction in the amount of available places for students wishing to go to university.

I was fairly certain the policy was if there was ONE person earning over £44k there'd be no Child Benefit, rather than families earning over £44k.

It seems that the fact some families can earn nearly £88k and still get Child Benefit when others - where say the mother stays at home and the father earns £45k - won't get Child Benefit is where the actual arguments have started.

So if you put this into reality this will create a society where people who are higher earners will think twice about having a child, as the cost of the upbringing will have to be covered solely be them, where as a lower income family will not think twice about having another child as the cost of its upbringing will be met by the government in the form of child benefit and tax credit payments.

I think that the latter part of your suggested future is already happening.

If a single woman has more than one child, she is moved higher up the Council Housing ladder. You may also be interested in reading about these women who get quite substantial amounts of Child Benefit.

Also, if I were part of a family of higher income tax payers, just how much difference would my £20.30 (for first or only child, £13.40 thereafter) really make in my decision to have a child?

So what does this mean for the future of the UK, simple. The UK will end up being an uneducated, underachieving nation.

As opposed to now?

I ask you has the government never here the term "spend money to make money", if you increase university places, you get more educated people, who in term get better jobs, earn money money and pay more taxes, likewise if higher earners continue to propogate they will, in most cases, produce children who will also go on to be high earners and again pay more taxes.

Hell of a sentence there fella, you might want to start using full stops. Oh and "here the term" should be "heard the term" and then put a question mark after "money", okay?

If you increase University places, you do not necessarily get more educated people. If you apply a reasonable entrance requirement, you could easily end up with less people doing degrees. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that increasing University places will increase the number of people with degrees.

If you increase the supply of something, without increasing the demand, the price of that object will fall. This is basic economic theory. If you increase the number of University graduates without increasing the number of jobs specifically aimed at University graduates, then the graduates will not get a higher salary than someone without a degree.

What you may do is make a degree a requirement for the most menial of jobs, as employers can pick and choose, meaning that graduates actually get paid less as a result of increasing University places. People without degrees - as people whose skill level is worth less than the minimum wage currently - will not be employed. The higher the entry requirements to work, the more people will be unemployed, the higher the tax burden on those with jobs to pay for them.

But I think the UK will end up being a CHAV populated benefit run society.

Which is, I think, where we were headed under Labour.

And I speak as someone who is unemployed, old enough to remember the horror of living under some of Thatcher's regime, and lived in the North of England when everything was shut down. I'm what was called a traditional Labour voter. Then NuLabour came in and frankly destroyed the country. While I don't agree with some of the Coalition's policies - nor the actual way in which this one is being rolled out - I do not agree with anything you have written. And I'm not going to join your Facebook group either.

Renault, Have A Word With Yourselves

The current advert for the Renault Clio - featuring Chesney Hawkes's "The One & Only" - has irritated me for some time now.

In case you are fortunate enough to have been living in a hole for the past year, this is the advert I'm talking about.



Right. Couple of things.

Firstly, why is the main character of the advert - who already owns a Renault, so I'm guessing we're supposed to empathise with in order to want one ourselves - such a complete twunt? He's rude, he's, er, metrosexual, and then there's the hair.

Secondly, how does the person later identified as the father of idiot boy's love get back to his house so quickly? They're at the same traffic lights. Idiot boy is in the SPORT option of the Clio. Idiot boy is still singing the song as he pulls up at the house. Yet the father has beaten him home, had time to put the car away and get into the house before having to go back out to meet him!

I want the car he's driving, not the one idiot boy has. Dad's is obviously much faster.

Oh, and see if you can spot the mother. She's there. She's just very very well hidden.

Renault, please sort out the narrative of this advert. It offends me.

Did I Miss Anything?

*blinks twice*

Wow. It's been about 18 months since I last blogged. That is quite incredible. There are many reasons why I've not blogged - some of which I may go into at a later date - although I think it can be summed up with "Meh".

I've spent most of my life wondering what the hell is going on with everybody and why no-one else is doing anything about the sheer stupidity of Government/business/cyclists and I'm sure you're delighted to learn I've spent the past 18 months doing pretty much the same thing with Government/business/NHS/cyclists/taxis etc.

Here's something. If you live in London and have the misfortune to be a car driver you will already be aware of the utter idiocy that is Cycle Superhighways. There's one on a road I travel down twice a day. Since its introduction, the lane width for cars, buses and trucks has gone down. Doesn't stop cyclists from still being in the middle of the road, you understand, but does increase the chance of people in vehicles having to swerve to avoid crashing into other vehicles. So I am now MORE likely to drive into a cyclist. Yay!

I say more likely, given the number of them who seem to think red lights don't apply to them, go straight through the junction then look daggers at me when they nearly drive into me (and I'm the one going through on green rememeber), then my chances of killing them hasn't gone up too much.

And they don't like it when you open your door when they're going past, do they? Some of them have even stopped talking on their phones or changing their iPod track to gesticulate at me. Probably. Not that I've even bothered looking.

So yeah, cyclists. Bastards. Taxi drivers however, utter utter bastards. My contempt for them has gone up now I see so many of them driving round with sat navs. What's the point of doing the knowledge if you're just going to use a fucking sat nav? Grr. Bus drivers, I will kill one of you very very soon. And you know the reason why.

But my main gripe is the complete morons who ring me up at all hours of the day and night to tell me there is now legislation in place that means I can get money back on all my debts. Or that my PC is apparently sending them messages telling them how slowly it's running. Or that they're not based in India (despite the accent and dialling code). I will definitely be killing each and every single one of those motherfuckers.

Still angry, still Silas. And now blogging again.

Peace, I'm out.

To My Darling Valentine



Perhaps not the exact sentiments that you'd like to display on your mantelpiece.

Although I suspect that's why he's marrying you.

From FAILblog - putting semen into amusement.

Arrested For Having A Pale Document

Quite simply stunned by this story on the BBC where a man attempting to renew his car tax was arrested. Staff at the DVLA in Newcastle thought his two-week-old MOT certificate was a forgery because it was a lighter shade than his previous one, and the police were called.

Mr Cook, a 49-year-old roofer, was arrested, questioned and held for three hours before being released. He said:

"They read me my rights, then I was put in another room, fingerprinted, photographed and had a DNA swab taken."

Good luck with getting that removed from the DNA database, fella.

To add insult to injury, he then had to return to the DVLA where he had to go to the back of the queue.

An Open Letter To Roskilde Festival

I'm sorry I have to write this, but I need to tell you how unhappy I am with your line-up this year.

Firstly, let me explain my background. I was introduced to Roskilde by The Devil, she rated it as the best festival in the world, and raved about the time she had at the 2006 event (headliners Bob Dylan, Guns & Roses, The Strokes, Franz Ferdinand, sub-headliners Primal Scream, Kaizer Chiefs, Deftones, Placebo, Scissor Sisters among others)

I went and was soaked in 2007, but amazed by the acts provided. Pretty much everyone on the main stage and the Arena stage were people I'd heard of and were interested in seeing. Okay, so there were a lot of American and British bands, but they were, for the most part, rock acts. While I stood in the horizontal rain patiently waiting for my wristband, I heard the Killers. From the leaking tent you provided, I heard The Who, Red Hot Chili Peppers and Queens of the Stone Age. I dragged myself through mud to watch My Chemical Romance and Machinehead in the tent. I stood all day in front of the main stage watching Muse, Arctic Monkeys, Flaming Lips and Basement Jaxx.

Despite the soaking, despite the mud, despite the leaky tents, we came back for 2008. We bought our tickets before the headliners were announced. We were delighted with your free Get-A-Tent tickets to make up for the debacle of the previous year's tents. We waited with bated breath to see what delights were in store for us.

And you announced Grinderman, Slayer, My Bloody Valentine and Neil Young. We didn't complain as we felt sure there would be other acts added to make the journey worthwhile. You added Slayer, Gnarls Barkly and Radiohead. We noted with delight that we could avoid Radiohead fans by going to see the final Hellacopters performance. We hoped Bullet For My Valentine would be as good in the tent as MCR had been the previous year. And then you announced Jay-Z....

I mean, really. What were you thinking? And he was closing the festival? What. The. Fuck. A rapper/hip hop bloke closing the Roskilde Festival? Had you taken leave of your senses?

The Festival itself had much better weather than the previous year. Which was a relief, as we spent most of it as far away from the main stages as possible. Seasick Steve was in too small a venue and we saw nothing. MGMT were too far from anywhere to get to easily. And Slayer were only funny because of infants dancing to them whilst wearing headphones. The "highlight" for me was the fact that it started to piss down with rain just as Jay-Z was about to come on stage and everybody legged it. We managed to squeeze into the tent for Hot Chip and dried off by bouncing up and down with the crowd there - until they ruined it by finishing their set with a cover of "Time After Time". Way to go to ruin a vibe.

And so to this year. It started off with some promise: Slipknot, Madness, Nine Inch Nails. And some dross, Coldplay, Lily Allen and the fifteen years past their "prime" Oasis. It will pick up, we said, and even though the disastrous fall of the GBP against the DKK meant the tickets were nearly twice as expensive as last year, we bought early. We also dutifully filled in the Artist Request forms so you could see what we wanted.

And then you announced Lil' Wayne and Kanye West. And, just for good measure, the fucking Pet Shop Boys. Oh how we fumed. But we believed that you would, Roskilde Festival, pull out some big names when you announced the main line up for this year's event. And in some ways, you did. Not the ones we were expecting though, sadly.

Grace Jones?!? Who the hell asked for Grace Jones? Why do you bother asking for band requests and then book Grace Jones? Where's Faith No More? Where's Limp Bizkit? Where's the upcoming metal bands? Didn't this used to be a rock festival? Why the obsession with hip-hop?

Consider this a warning. Please get some better acts or we won't be back.

Linux User Too Suspicious To Be Ignored

Rather a weird tale from Boston, where a Computer Science student has had all of his computer kit seized (and pretty much everything else he owns) and has been suspended from his job for the heinous crime of understanding Linux. The University are alleging slightly more than *just* that, but they do seem suspicious of someone who can navigate their way round a non-Windows OS.

The EFF - who is representing him - has a copy of the warrant and says

"In his application, the investigating officer asked that he be permitted to seize the student's computers and other personal effects because they might yield evidence of the crimes of "Obtaining computer services by Fraud or Misrepresentation" and "Unauthorized access to a computer system."

Aside from the remarkable overreach by campus and state police in trying to paint a student as suspicious in part because he can navigate a non-Windows computer environment, nothing cited in the warrant application could possibly constitute the cited criminal offenses.

There are no assertions that a commercial (i.e. for pay) commercial service was defrauded, a necessary element of any "Obtaining computer services by Fraud or Misrepresentation" allegation. Similarly, the investigating officer doesn't explain how sending an e-mail to a campus mailing list might constitute "unauthorized access to a computer system."

The Slashdot post that brought this to my attention was tagged with "Idiocracy", which sums it all up rather nicely.

Drinking, The New Smoking.

I read in the Metro this morning that 80% of doctors and nurses polled by the Royal Colleges of Nursing and Physicians believed that putting the price of alcohol up would curb people's drinking habits. The Metro article is quite short (and I'll cover why in a second) but the BBC have a much longer version of the same thing here that also mentions that the Prime Mentalist isn't too keen on the idea.

It seems Gordon is worried that moderate drinkers would be hit by such a plan. You think? I think Gordon is probably more worried that people who drink would hate him to the point of murder if he was seen to set minimum prices on alcohol, as Liam Donaldson wants.

But that's not my main point. The Metro, on the same page as the snippet linked to above, also had this spectacularly stupid idea.

Busy town centre pubs may be forced to introduce orderly post office-style queues when they run cheap drink promotions. Pubs and clubs may also have to limit customers to buying two drinks at a time, ban drinking in the queue and hire extra door staff to prevent trouble breaking out. Landlords would be made to give authorities a week's notice of promotions and pay for extra police officers to patrol, Oldham council in Greater Manchester has said.

Because pubs have plenty of spare cash at the minute, don't they? They could easily afford to pay the (presumably now hiked up massively) rate for doorstaff and/or police out of their huge profits*. The upside presumably would be that you wouldn't be able to go to the bar and get a round in for more than you and one person.

It gets better though.

Bars which refused to sign up to the new measures would be stripped of their licences.

Nice touch there: volunteer to do this, or we'll put you out of business. I wonder what kind of cocksucking ass hat would even think about being linked with an idea as monumentally insane as that?

MP Phil Woolas has described Oldham town centre as like the 'Wild West' at weekends.

Ah, there's a shock. Phil "we'll stop immigrants, oh wait, we can't, we're in the EU" Woolas. Or Phil "rent-a-quote" Woolas, as I like to think of him.

Amusingly - for me, at least, your mileage may vary - Alcohol Concern (a made-up charity, funded pretty much entirely by the Government, yet wheeled out as a legitimate voice of the public in matters such as this) said the plans "might have little effect" and added: "A pub is a very different environment to a post office."

Used to be very different from a Post Office, would be more appropriate. There are now a couple of worrying similarities. Firstly, there used to be lots of Post Offices, but quite a few of them have closed down and you have to blame that on the government. Secondly, you can't smoke in a Post Office.

I would also like to point out at this point, that while doctors, nurses and various government types are attempting to reduce alcohol intake by the majority of the population (and buttering us up for a minimum alcohol pricing structure by mentioning it at every fucking opportunity) the bars of Westminster in which the MPs drink are subsidised. By you, the taxpayer.

Fuck the Government. Fuck the minimum price of alcohol idea. Fuck the Nanny State. And fuck the arsewipes who cannot manage to drink without getting themselves injured.

This is my body, I will decide what does and does not go into it. I will not come crying to you if I damage myself and you will leave me the fuck alone and stop telling me how to live my life.

Now get back to your taxpayer funded porn and stop bothering me.

* - Sarcasm, for those that missed it.

The English Abroad

Would appear to be completely clueless.

Police Lose Memory

Not in a collective way, sadly, but in a specific "where the fuck's the USB stick gone" kind of way.

Obviously impressed by the way Government departments and various public sector companies have lost data and then had FUCK ALL happen to them, the Lothian and Borders Police have decided to join in.

The memory stick, which was last used by staff working in the road policing division in the the force's headquarters in the Fettes area of the city, was lost between December 2008 and January this year.

The USB memory stick contains 750 entries on vehicles "of interest" to police, along with other intelligence. Yet the force said its loss did not compromise anyone involved in any ongoing or previous police investigations, which is reassuring, eh?

Although, worryingly, it is understood the information on the stick was not encrypted.

Go team.

Phil Woolas - Idiot Or Comedian?

The BBC are reporting that Phil Woolas has got into a bit of a tizzy regarding the ONS's decision to publish figures showing migration and British Citizens born abroad.

No real surprise there, but you have to worry when the Minister IN CHARGE of Immigration policy says;

"This is not a black and white area"

Dear Phil, you are a fucktard. Now fuck off.

Name Bono As The Father

News today - which sadly should have been from the Daily Mash, but was actually real - that women who receive IVF treatment will be able to name ANYONE as the father of their child. Sorry for the Daily Mail link, but it's their kind of story.

Can't see that going horribly wrong, can you? No malicious scrotes naming someone who they want to get back at? No? Or completely innocent people being pursued through the courts for maintenance payments they don't owe?

I have a solution. Name Bono as the father. He's rich enough.

Interestingly, this is in direct contradiction to a law enabled late last year that forces single mothers (presumably not receiving IVF) to give the father's name so that they can be pursued for child maintenance money. This link is from the Telegraph so your eyes won't be quite as sore as earlier.

Nice to see some joined up Government there lads. You incompetent cunts.

Scottish Drinkers, It Appears You're Next.

As the Scots are used to being fucked first - it was they who had to endure the Poll Tax first - they should have been expecting the upcoming change to alcohol sales that has been revealed by Scotland on Sunday.

MINISTERS are to press ahead with a crackdown on sales of cheap alcohol in a move that could be fast-tracked through Parliament in as little as six months, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.

In the biggest shake-up of alcohol laws for years, the Government is expected to confirm tomorrow that cut-price drink offers will be banned, minimum prices on alcohol imposed and a higher age limit set on off-sales.

A minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol, as advocated by health campaigners, would result in rocketing prices. A two-litre bottle of cider, currently priced at around £3, would cost £7.50. Wine would also increase in price, with a £3 bottle of wine possibly rising to a minimum of £5.

The controversial plan to increase the age limit for off-sales to 21 is to remain in the proposals, despite opposition from students.

Scotland on Sunday understands that ministers may seek to place some of the measures – such as the ban on "Buy One Get One Free" deals – in the existing 2005 Licensing Act, which is due to come into force in September.

The Act enshrines "protecting and improving public health" as a key objective of all licensing decisions, so the Government may argue that it gives the power to ban cheap drink offers. The same logic could also be applied to plans to impose minimum pricing.

What the Scotsman fails to add is that this should guarantee a boom for retailers just South of the border. Imagine the queues of 18 year old Scots hanging around Tesco in Carlisle until they open at 8am on a Monday. It's not as if they've got much else to do, is it? But bootlegging is at least a career. Or it is until the Government down in England make similar changes to the law.

Drinkers, you're fucked next. Please adopt the position and lube yourself thoroughly, this may hurt.

New Blog

I've just added a new blog to my repertoire, basically aiming to annoy as many Christians as possible.

The Devil sends me a huge amount of Mormon and regular Christian blog sites, and some of them are worthy of a slightly wider audience for their sheer comedy value alone.

If anyone else finds any religious blog sites worthy of derision, do send them to me via the comments section of the new blog.

I thank you.

This Made Me Laugh

Yes, I know, I'm a sick man.

Palmeiras coach Vanderlei Luxemburgo has suffered a broken arm after being attacked by his club's own fans. "It was the attitude of vandals," he told reporters.

Not funny so far, I grant you. Comedy bit follows.

"If we had known Palmeiras were going to lose 5-2 against Flamengo two days later, we'd have broken one of his legs as well," declared a fan's spokesman.

Now *that* is supporting your team.

H/T The Fiver

25 Years? Are You Quite Sure About That?

I was watching - as usual - the BBC early morning news, then the ITV early morning news before I left the house this morning. I forget which channel it was, but there was a report about the TV show "The Bill" having celebrated its 25th Anniversary.

"Wow" I thought, "it doesn't seem that long since it started."

And while technically it was over 25 years ago that the pilot episode was broadcast (on August 16th 1983) the series itself only started on 16th October 1984. Or just over 24 years ago.

Not today, you understand, but October 16th.

So I'm somewhat surprised to have seen a relatively long piece on whichever news programme it was, telling me The Bill had been going for 25 years. When it would have been more appropriate to tell me that on August 16th, or to wait until October 16th next year.

Plus, it's not as if there's nothing else going on in the world, is it? Cunts.

Anti-Drinking Campaigns


The above image comes courtesy of the Drink Aware Trust and is on display across London (and probably the rest of the UK) at the moment.

It suggests that just by looking at your recycling bin your friends & neighbours can condemn you for being drinking too much alcohol. Given the amount of interest the Council also have in your recycling and trash habits, you can also infer that the Council will be coming to the same conclusion: you drink too much.

The text accompanying the advert on the website says:

Recycling. You feel good when you do it, don't you? You're doing your bit to save the planet after all. But do you ever look at the wine and beer bottles you're putting out and wonder 'just how did we manage to get through all that since last week...?'.

But hang on just a tick, shall we?

First up, we only have recycling collections every fortnight. Over the course of two weeks there's a very good chance that even following the Government's own recommended alcohol intake (which they made up, by the way) a family of four (as children are allowed to drink alcohol from the age of 5) could get easily get through the amount of bottles shown in the advert.

Secondly, what the fuck has my alcohol consumption got to do with the Government? I pay tax on what I buy, the manufacturers pay tax on what they produce, and the Council Tax gets paid towards the cost of collecting the empties. So what's the problem?

If I cause myself or anyone else an injury or become a nuisance, then I should expect to be punished accordingly. There's no "second hand drinking" argument like there was with smoking (even though that has yet to be proved to exist either) so I fail to see why the Government or the Council should be interested in the slightest.

More to the point, it would be beneficial for young children to see alcohol being consumed (in moderation, naturally, and at appropriate times) around the house as they are growing up. They're then less likely to drink to extremes once they are legally allowed to go into pubs and clubs (assuming there are any pubs still open once they get to 18).

This Nanny Government has decided that alcohol consumption is bad for the general public, so they're on their way to making it socially unacceptable. So children won't be exposed to it, won't know how to deal with it, and will, in all probability, get fucked off their face as soon as they possibly can. Which will let the Government go to the next level and introduce prohibition. And that was a raging success in the States, wasn't it?

Is It Possible?

I'm not a one for physics, but could someone please tell me if it's possible to use someone - say Hazel Blears - as a weapon to attack someone else - say Jacqui Smith - and that they would both end up dead?

I suspect that if I was to pick Blears (also known as "Bleats", and, my personal favourite, "Ginger Haze") up by her legs and swing her around my head (as one would in the Olympic Hammer event) and walk towards Smith to get their heads to connect at great speed, then I should achieve my aim. If anyone has any improvements to this plan that don't involve conventional weaponry or piano wire, use the comments section below. If anyone has any objections, please address them to \dev\null\ or just fuck off.

My ire, you see, has been raised by both these demented women in the space of just 24 hours. Smith for the reasons outlined in the post below (oh, and then claiming that people come up to her "all the time" asking her why they can't have an ID Card now - you want to watch out for those people Jacqui, they're obviously mental). Blears for the comments I read regarding bloggers that I shall outline here.

In a closed meeting, Blears gave a speech - ironically in a meeting about political disengagement - which said that corrosive cynicism, fueled by politically nihilistic blogs and a retreat from dispassionate reporting, is endangering British political discourse and fueling growing political disengagement in Britain.

And that "in recent years commentary has taken over from investigation or news reporting, to the point where commentators are viewed by some as every bit as important as elected politicians, with views as valid as cabinet ministers."

Yes, you did read that correctly. Blears is suggesting that the comments of the general populace of this country shouldn't be viewed as being as important as the delusional wittering of a cabinet minister. That would be the population who votes for the politicians who then go on to become said cabinet ministers, by the way, in case you had forgotten. Said by a woman who has never had a proper job her entire life.

It gets better. Or worse, depending on your cynicism levels.

"Unless and until political blogging adds value to our political culture, by allowing new and disparate voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair."

So it's the fault of bloggers that a large percentage of people in this country think politicians are greedy, lying, grasping cunts with no idea - or concern - how their decisions affect real people?

Oh really? I was under the impression that politicians being paid a fucking fortune to do fuck all besides rubber stamp "initiatives" from the EU while simultaneously stuffing their own pockets with "expenses" (despite working in a building with a subsidised bar - where you can still smoke - and restaurant) and looking forward to the best pension scheme in the fucking country, might have caused some of the cynicism love, but that's just me, I guess.

And just how, exactly, do you propose getting "more disparate voices" involved in political blogging, you short chipmunk-faced bint? Political bloggers aren't elected, the popular ones are popular because they report stuff people are interested in. They aren't necessarily sponsored or rich, they're just people who want to complain or praise politicians. The fact more people complain - and more people are interested in the ones who complain - surely suggests there's something going wrong at your end, rather than at ours.

It's not as if there's any way of stopping people setting up a blog and ranting. Oh wait, that's your fucking proposal, isn't it? Funnily enough, something the EU proposed earlier this year, a licence for bloggers.

So to get more "people" (and by that I'm taking that you mean "more people who agree with you") involved in political blogging, you're proposing to introduce lengthy bureaucratic paperwork requiring full disclosure of personal details, and then a fee. A fee which would therefore reduce the number of people blogging? Or a fee you would waive if the person applying agreed with your policies?

But how would you stop people from just blogging anyway? Oh, I see you're proposing to take control of Nominet. So anyone with a .uk domain name could be instantly taken offline (and presumably shot) by the government? Sounds remarkably like state censorship, that, or something North Korea would do.

You are a cunt, Blears, a cunt of the highest proportion. I shall batter Smith to death using you as a mace and I shall be happy, covered in the blood and bone of the pair of you, grinning like a fucking loon. Then I will go after the one eyed son of a manse, and force him to eat the shit that comes out of the corpses of both Smith and Blears. When he is sated - or I've decided he is - I'll cleave his fucking head with a hatchet.

I am the Revolution, keep the fucking country, I'm leaving.