24 October 2008.
Sex education for five year olds? What a bloody great idea. Let’s try and explain to children about Action Man putting his pee-pee into Barbie’s wibble-wobble. Do our retched policy makers still not realise instructing inept teachers to advise on the birds and the bees only make things worse?
This idea seems to be backed by as much common sense as the Leeds City Council traffic marking subcontractors who decided to paint double yellow lines around a parked car into the middle of the road instead of waiting for the car to move before completing the job (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7687600.stm).
The system is diabolical enough as it is. Don’t go around giving out condoms and illustrating how to put them on; that’s equivalent to arriving at a year 9’s first slumber party, handing out hypodermic needles and demonstrating how to inject oneself. This has the opposite effect to that desired so when we find out teenage pregnancy and STD rates are soaring it’s about as surprising as hearing investment in your area has been cut because council budgets have been run dry paying benefits to sixteen year old girls pregnant with their umpteenth child.
There is no reason why sex education currently given to teenagers shouldn’t suffice. We just need to spice it up a bit that’s all. Tell the boys that if they ever even try and put their finger on a girl’s arm they’ll catch HIV and never be able to walk again. Explain to the girls that if they try and kiss a guy their tongue will fall off and they’ll be resigned to a life of non-stop menstruation.
Ok maybe some teenagers in the less deprived areas of the UK might not believe this but if we’re going to introduce sex education for children fresh out of nurseries then surely this approach needs to be taken for them. Why can’t we just lie to the little nippers like we do elsewhere?
We tell children Santa Claus is real instead of explaining the man sat in the shopping centre dressed in a red suit each Christmas is actually a local paedophile who comes off benefits for one month a year so he can rub his boner up against them for his own sexual gratification when they sit on his “knee”.
He’ll unload his sack for them and have a package for them alright, and they certainly won’t forget it, but if we actually told our kids the best present they can get off him is to avoid being the one he waits for at the school gates one day, we wouldn’t need to break the bank each year just to fund the overpriced purchase of a worthless toy from the manufacturer with the largest marketing budget.
Go tell them actually this year there’s going to be no chimney action not just because there’s no little Saint Nick to come down it but because you can’t afford to heat your home because you injudiciously took out eighteen credit cards when the banks weren’t being scrutinised and busted their limit because you’re too dim to realise that some day you’ll actually have to pay them off. See where that gets you.
Think about all the children that have been sadistically convinced to avidly brush their teeth solely by instilling fear of the dentist’s wrath for non-compliance into the child’s impressionable minds. We need to tell our primary school pupils that even touching a person of the other sex will result in a lifetime of incessant bedwetting or that pregnancy should be avoided at all costs unless they never want to consume sweets again.
Failing that, a bit of discipline has to be the answer. While I’m by no means promoting extreme violence, the drug dealer appearing in court today for shooting a man in the leg and cutting part of a woman’s ear off because of non-payment of £380 and £10 debts respectively (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7687555.stm) has the semblances of a sensible approach.
The fact that this same woman was a few years ago the first to be imprisoned for her daughter’s truancy exemplifies the fact that words and light punishments don’t have the desired effect. Recurrent clouting of people with a frying pan in their formative years every time they show any interest in a member of the opposing sex will undoubtedly serve to delay their sexual curiosity, however.
For teachers, meanwhile, this simply means bring back the cane. Or, to show a more contemporary approach, insert some form of tranquilising device by the bicycle sheds which, when two pupils become affectionately involved there and are spotted on school CCTV, is activated at the press of the CCTV operative’s button.
It’s simple really.
Thursday, 30 October 2008
Banged up abroad
17 October 2008.
So the two Brits caught copulating on a Dubai beach have been banged up. Whatever the Sharia law sentence applied, having seen pictures of the pair the most criminal element in all this seems to be that the couple were allowed to engage in coitus at all. The human race will eventually evolve into a repulsive species if people the world over who look like that are bumping uglies.
This incident highlights the problem with the rise of the chav. Although the Brits holidaying in Dubai were staying in five star accommodation, back home council estate inhabitants are replicating their behaviour: Here the estate’s allotment is the beach, and a bottle of White Lightning represents the Dubai couple’s champagne.
The key difference is that over here the equivalent people seem to be either too impoverished or too stupid to strap it up before they slap it up. The fact these same amorous antics are being undertaken by people half the Dubai holidaymakers’ age means at least two generations of chavs are being churned out in the time the rest of the UK’s baby-delaying population create one.
It does not take a genius to realise that at this Dawn of the Dead-esque zombie-breeding rate, chavs will form the majority of this country’s population before too long. Are these the people you want attending the same nursery as your children, voting on issues that affect you, working for you and sitting next to you on public transport?
Or, if you’re struggling to comprehend that question, substitute “Are these the people” for “Is Josef Fritzl the person” and ask yourself again. Clearly the answer is about as much as Dot Cotton giving a lap dance hence if you answered in the affirmative, abandon this bi-annual internet café visit, go back to your council estate and for once in your life invest our taxes aka your benefits in something useful like shampoo, spot cream, a lifetime supply of contraceptives or a barricade so you cannot ever get out of your front door again – not another B-wise shell-suit.
Apart from someone touring the country’s council estates with a van full of equipment to undertake mass vasectomies and hysterectomies, or holding them all at gunpoint until they’ve all severed off their own genitals with the blades they like displaying on CCTV, it seems there is little that can be done to stop these acne-laden misfits taking over.
Short of sending the winner of the inaugural winner of Mr Gay UK round to cook up a feast, perhaps the only option is to lock all the facially-loathsome and intellectually-deprived up like our United Arab Emirates friends have done, although that will never happen in a country like the UK where a proposal for legislation restricting the ability to smack children is being debated, when actually the reverse – i.e. universal use of the cane – should be enforced.
The reprobates probably can’t afford an abortion for one. Then there’s the issue that they’re most likely too stupid to realise that they’re even pregnant, given that most chavs seem to spend as much time in school as Ledley King spends on a football field.
Not in education, the basis for their aggregate intelligence stems from things like Radio 1, where an entire show’s team were unable between them this week to explain how the moon affects tides, and, previously, why the Government should not purely print more money to overcome the current financial crisis.
This, mind you, is against a backdrop of a fellow show’s idea this week for a segment being to entice its entire audience to text message in any song that he would play three of after counting down the submission time limit. Another song could have been squeezed in the time it took to explain the segment, and Seve Ballesteros could have come up with that idea anaesthetised during his brain tumour ops.
Indeed, the message cost charged in doing so is more criminal than the phone competitions scam, although those idiotic enough to actually submit a song are clearly about as smart as a bowl of pig swill. Whether that’s more shocking than the BBC using the licence fee to record its abysmal jingles at the £10,000 an hour Abbey Road studios is up for you to fathom.
Worse still, the overall theme of the show this week is to simply tour a few of the nation’s university student digs, inspecting the undergraduate’s consumption habits and facilities. Wow. That’s about as entertaining as stuffing a hedgehog inside your rectum, and as imaginative as eating turkey at Christmas. I’d rather stare at a map of the world’s best public toilets.
If the Beeb is that stuck for ideas to fill its presenters’ six-figure-salaried shows, why not just play music and employ no presenter? Or are the brainless chavs now diffusing into other sectors of society and slowly taking over such that the rest of us are already condemned to their inferior acumen?
So the two Brits caught copulating on a Dubai beach have been banged up. Whatever the Sharia law sentence applied, having seen pictures of the pair the most criminal element in all this seems to be that the couple were allowed to engage in coitus at all. The human race will eventually evolve into a repulsive species if people the world over who look like that are bumping uglies.
This incident highlights the problem with the rise of the chav. Although the Brits holidaying in Dubai were staying in five star accommodation, back home council estate inhabitants are replicating their behaviour: Here the estate’s allotment is the beach, and a bottle of White Lightning represents the Dubai couple’s champagne.
The key difference is that over here the equivalent people seem to be either too impoverished or too stupid to strap it up before they slap it up. The fact these same amorous antics are being undertaken by people half the Dubai holidaymakers’ age means at least two generations of chavs are being churned out in the time the rest of the UK’s baby-delaying population create one.
It does not take a genius to realise that at this Dawn of the Dead-esque zombie-breeding rate, chavs will form the majority of this country’s population before too long. Are these the people you want attending the same nursery as your children, voting on issues that affect you, working for you and sitting next to you on public transport?
Or, if you’re struggling to comprehend that question, substitute “Are these the people” for “Is Josef Fritzl the person” and ask yourself again. Clearly the answer is about as much as Dot Cotton giving a lap dance hence if you answered in the affirmative, abandon this bi-annual internet café visit, go back to your council estate and for once in your life invest our taxes aka your benefits in something useful like shampoo, spot cream, a lifetime supply of contraceptives or a barricade so you cannot ever get out of your front door again – not another B-wise shell-suit.
Apart from someone touring the country’s council estates with a van full of equipment to undertake mass vasectomies and hysterectomies, or holding them all at gunpoint until they’ve all severed off their own genitals with the blades they like displaying on CCTV, it seems there is little that can be done to stop these acne-laden misfits taking over.
Short of sending the winner of the inaugural winner of Mr Gay UK round to cook up a feast, perhaps the only option is to lock all the facially-loathsome and intellectually-deprived up like our United Arab Emirates friends have done, although that will never happen in a country like the UK where a proposal for legislation restricting the ability to smack children is being debated, when actually the reverse – i.e. universal use of the cane – should be enforced.
The reprobates probably can’t afford an abortion for one. Then there’s the issue that they’re most likely too stupid to realise that they’re even pregnant, given that most chavs seem to spend as much time in school as Ledley King spends on a football field.
Not in education, the basis for their aggregate intelligence stems from things like Radio 1, where an entire show’s team were unable between them this week to explain how the moon affects tides, and, previously, why the Government should not purely print more money to overcome the current financial crisis.
This, mind you, is against a backdrop of a fellow show’s idea this week for a segment being to entice its entire audience to text message in any song that he would play three of after counting down the submission time limit. Another song could have been squeezed in the time it took to explain the segment, and Seve Ballesteros could have come up with that idea anaesthetised during his brain tumour ops.
Indeed, the message cost charged in doing so is more criminal than the phone competitions scam, although those idiotic enough to actually submit a song are clearly about as smart as a bowl of pig swill. Whether that’s more shocking than the BBC using the licence fee to record its abysmal jingles at the £10,000 an hour Abbey Road studios is up for you to fathom.
Worse still, the overall theme of the show this week is to simply tour a few of the nation’s university student digs, inspecting the undergraduate’s consumption habits and facilities. Wow. That’s about as entertaining as stuffing a hedgehog inside your rectum, and as imaginative as eating turkey at Christmas. I’d rather stare at a map of the world’s best public toilets.
If the Beeb is that stuck for ideas to fill its presenters’ six-figure-salaried shows, why not just play music and employ no presenter? Or are the brainless chavs now diffusing into other sectors of society and slowly taking over such that the rest of us are already condemned to their inferior acumen?
Saturday, 4 October 2008
Off the rails
3 October 2008.
In David Cameron’s big speech this week he confirmed that the Tories would scrap proposals for a third runway at Heathrow in favour of a high-speed rail link between London and Manchester. This is quite possibly the most underwhelming announcement since, well two weeks ago when Joe Kinnear was appointed Newcastle United manager.
Perhaps idiotic ideas are a Tory theme at the moment, however: Boris Johnson’s view on the matter was to build a new airport somewhere in the Thames estuary or, in other words, stuff the environmental impact (a new runway would have to be built there) and stuff the cost factor (millions would have to be ploughed into a new airport terminal). The worst approach on both counts but anything except increasing Heathrow’s capacity is obviously acceptable in these circles.
David Cameron’s other big election promise this week was to not increase council tax for two years. Wow, that really makes me want to dance on the rooftops. In any case, he’ll probably up it at eighteen times the rate of inflation in the third year and take in more in tax revenues overall.
And his solution to the UK’s tax system that millions are calling unfair and is pushing more people to poverty as costs rise? Increase the inheritance tax threshold. Just what the working class families struggling to eat this winter need (well I suppose it could come in handy when whole families start dying of starvation as they could be the way things are going). As long as his cronies who spend their days asleep in the House of Lords do not have to surrender any of their vast inheritances upon death, all is well in the world of David Cameron.
For the UK to retain its economic power, it is absolutely essential Heathrow’s effectiveness as the world’s leading airport is made a priority. Heathrow is already at greater than full capacity. What this country does not need is another railway line linking the country’s infrastructure-rich cities in order to relieve Heathrow of at best one-sixth of the extra passengers it needs to service.
In addition, at £27 billion and not due for completion until 2027 – by which time the UK will have faded into the economic wilderness – the plan appears to be a bigger waste of time and money than Damien Hirst’s latest “art” collection, Betamax and the Sinclair C5 put together. I’d rather play hide and seek with a komodo dragon than see my taxes allocated in this way.
Forgive my ignorance but surely a runway only requires the laying of a strip of tarmac. At worst this should cost a few million pounds and take a couple of years to complete. Give me a cement mixer and steamroller and I’ll do it for them at half the cost. The other £26.9 billion allocated for the high speed railway line can be spent instead undoing the last preposterous railways decision – the destruction of lines and stations by Beeching in the 1960s.
Restoring desperately-needed rail links will provide a real service to the millions of citizens of this country who actually need it and not those anus-bashing, Eton-schooled, Oxbridge-educated, John Lewis list-abusing idiots charged with running this country who cannot be bothered to wait an extra 45 minutes to get to Manchester for another hot air-filled bondage session to discuss how they can con more money from the public to service their lavish lifestyles.
To those that claim that cuts to the railway network were needed because some lines were cost effective, go engage in coitus with a peacock. The NHS was set up to provide this country’s people with a service badly needed but it has never been cost-effective.
Indeed, the thousands of inefficient bus services retained in this country are not still in abundance because they are cost-effective but because there is an essential requirement for them. The same principle should be applied to trains – except trains should gain preference as they do not emit noxious gases and slow road users down.
Reopening these stations and lines does not even have to be expensive. Some of the lines are still around but simply not in use. Meanwhile, why not just invest in smaller stations where fewer passengers would pass through? There is no requirement for staff to work there or even for much of a building. Just insert one computerised ticket booth on the platform at each station and have perhaps one train passing through an hour.
There is no need for full stations in population-sparse areas like the Silverlink line currently exemplifies. For these occasional, unprofitable travellers they now have their necessary service but it is not costing an arm and a leg: Income low but now cost low - job done. In fact, some of the current stops on this nation’s rail links can barely be classified as stations as it is so little would change.
In any case, the sheer size of the money allocated by David Cameron to build yet another line between London and Manchester would mean there would probably still be some left over even after building the third runway, reopening useful railway links, paying the BBC to shunt the incessant US election coverage, funding the deportation of Kerry Katona and employing DC’s personal rectum-scratcher to shut up the minority of Greenpeace activists with payments for carbon offsets or investment in other green projects.
In the meantime the Government will drag its heels and distribute taxpayers’ money into its Heathrow “inquiry” quicker than drug dealers their poorly-bred canines. The inquiry will doubtless be more drawn out than a Stephen Hawking rendition of Bohemian Rhapsody so as to delay any finding until after the next general election. The conclusion, furthermore, will probably simply state that more analysis is needed and any action delayed until that is undertaken. All the while Amsterdam’s Schipol airport will probably be adding to its five runways.
For the miniscule proportion of the population opposed to a third runway at Heathrow, i.e. the local inhabitants, their defence seems to be predicated on the fact that its creation will increase noise pollution and disruption to the area. Do these halfwits not think any chance of peace and quiet slightly went out the window when the first runway was built?
An extra runway is hardly going to make a seismic difference to these people’s apparently pointless lives. Yes, there is a need to reduce the UK’s carbon footprint but one runway is hardly going to change the face of the planet. Most traffic there would only be existing flights transferred from the current overcrowded runways.
This is where the UK’s political system falls apart – the development of the majority is constrained by a minute number of inbreeding reprobates with about as much concept of altruism as a paedophile’s toenail. If a referendum on the matter had been called when a need for a third runway was recognised, it would already have been built. The minorities which seem to cause inertia in every facet of UK life would be defeated more emphatically than a Brazilian trying to board an underground train with a rucksack.
Swiss citizens are said to be among the happiest in the world. Surely it is no coincidence that it its citizens are also involved in more referendums each year than Russell Brand gets through bottles of Herbal Essences.
After all, what proportion of Brits support the bailing out of all of its banks? While the Government bends over for the banks more often than an armless dwarf experiencing their first taste of prison, I would wager thousands on a successful referendum which asks whether the UK supports the mass execution of bankers – or just ordering repayment of their earnings to the poorest UK citizens – who made millions out of the boom years in exchange for now plummeting the masses into financial difficulty.
Or one which allows the bail-out on the condition that the banks actually pass on the Government’s generosity to the taxpayers that are bailing them out in the form of cheap, minimal-deposit mortgages and abolition of bank charges and overdraft interest.
Let’s be honest if you or me went to the Government and said “Please Mr Brown, I’m going to go bankrupt unless you bail me out” how likely is it that he’ll drop his pants, get on his knees and stump up the cash to someone like us who has actually been sensible with their money?
In David Cameron’s big speech this week he confirmed that the Tories would scrap proposals for a third runway at Heathrow in favour of a high-speed rail link between London and Manchester. This is quite possibly the most underwhelming announcement since, well two weeks ago when Joe Kinnear was appointed Newcastle United manager.
Perhaps idiotic ideas are a Tory theme at the moment, however: Boris Johnson’s view on the matter was to build a new airport somewhere in the Thames estuary or, in other words, stuff the environmental impact (a new runway would have to be built there) and stuff the cost factor (millions would have to be ploughed into a new airport terminal). The worst approach on both counts but anything except increasing Heathrow’s capacity is obviously acceptable in these circles.
David Cameron’s other big election promise this week was to not increase council tax for two years. Wow, that really makes me want to dance on the rooftops. In any case, he’ll probably up it at eighteen times the rate of inflation in the third year and take in more in tax revenues overall.
And his solution to the UK’s tax system that millions are calling unfair and is pushing more people to poverty as costs rise? Increase the inheritance tax threshold. Just what the working class families struggling to eat this winter need (well I suppose it could come in handy when whole families start dying of starvation as they could be the way things are going). As long as his cronies who spend their days asleep in the House of Lords do not have to surrender any of their vast inheritances upon death, all is well in the world of David Cameron.
For the UK to retain its economic power, it is absolutely essential Heathrow’s effectiveness as the world’s leading airport is made a priority. Heathrow is already at greater than full capacity. What this country does not need is another railway line linking the country’s infrastructure-rich cities in order to relieve Heathrow of at best one-sixth of the extra passengers it needs to service.
In addition, at £27 billion and not due for completion until 2027 – by which time the UK will have faded into the economic wilderness – the plan appears to be a bigger waste of time and money than Damien Hirst’s latest “art” collection, Betamax and the Sinclair C5 put together. I’d rather play hide and seek with a komodo dragon than see my taxes allocated in this way.
Forgive my ignorance but surely a runway only requires the laying of a strip of tarmac. At worst this should cost a few million pounds and take a couple of years to complete. Give me a cement mixer and steamroller and I’ll do it for them at half the cost. The other £26.9 billion allocated for the high speed railway line can be spent instead undoing the last preposterous railways decision – the destruction of lines and stations by Beeching in the 1960s.
Restoring desperately-needed rail links will provide a real service to the millions of citizens of this country who actually need it and not those anus-bashing, Eton-schooled, Oxbridge-educated, John Lewis list-abusing idiots charged with running this country who cannot be bothered to wait an extra 45 minutes to get to Manchester for another hot air-filled bondage session to discuss how they can con more money from the public to service their lavish lifestyles.
To those that claim that cuts to the railway network were needed because some lines were cost effective, go engage in coitus with a peacock. The NHS was set up to provide this country’s people with a service badly needed but it has never been cost-effective.
Indeed, the thousands of inefficient bus services retained in this country are not still in abundance because they are cost-effective but because there is an essential requirement for them. The same principle should be applied to trains – except trains should gain preference as they do not emit noxious gases and slow road users down.
Reopening these stations and lines does not even have to be expensive. Some of the lines are still around but simply not in use. Meanwhile, why not just invest in smaller stations where fewer passengers would pass through? There is no requirement for staff to work there or even for much of a building. Just insert one computerised ticket booth on the platform at each station and have perhaps one train passing through an hour.
There is no need for full stations in population-sparse areas like the Silverlink line currently exemplifies. For these occasional, unprofitable travellers they now have their necessary service but it is not costing an arm and a leg: Income low but now cost low - job done. In fact, some of the current stops on this nation’s rail links can barely be classified as stations as it is so little would change.
In any case, the sheer size of the money allocated by David Cameron to build yet another line between London and Manchester would mean there would probably still be some left over even after building the third runway, reopening useful railway links, paying the BBC to shunt the incessant US election coverage, funding the deportation of Kerry Katona and employing DC’s personal rectum-scratcher to shut up the minority of Greenpeace activists with payments for carbon offsets or investment in other green projects.
In the meantime the Government will drag its heels and distribute taxpayers’ money into its Heathrow “inquiry” quicker than drug dealers their poorly-bred canines. The inquiry will doubtless be more drawn out than a Stephen Hawking rendition of Bohemian Rhapsody so as to delay any finding until after the next general election. The conclusion, furthermore, will probably simply state that more analysis is needed and any action delayed until that is undertaken. All the while Amsterdam’s Schipol airport will probably be adding to its five runways.
For the miniscule proportion of the population opposed to a third runway at Heathrow, i.e. the local inhabitants, their defence seems to be predicated on the fact that its creation will increase noise pollution and disruption to the area. Do these halfwits not think any chance of peace and quiet slightly went out the window when the first runway was built?
An extra runway is hardly going to make a seismic difference to these people’s apparently pointless lives. Yes, there is a need to reduce the UK’s carbon footprint but one runway is hardly going to change the face of the planet. Most traffic there would only be existing flights transferred from the current overcrowded runways.
This is where the UK’s political system falls apart – the development of the majority is constrained by a minute number of inbreeding reprobates with about as much concept of altruism as a paedophile’s toenail. If a referendum on the matter had been called when a need for a third runway was recognised, it would already have been built. The minorities which seem to cause inertia in every facet of UK life would be defeated more emphatically than a Brazilian trying to board an underground train with a rucksack.
Swiss citizens are said to be among the happiest in the world. Surely it is no coincidence that it its citizens are also involved in more referendums each year than Russell Brand gets through bottles of Herbal Essences.
After all, what proportion of Brits support the bailing out of all of its banks? While the Government bends over for the banks more often than an armless dwarf experiencing their first taste of prison, I would wager thousands on a successful referendum which asks whether the UK supports the mass execution of bankers – or just ordering repayment of their earnings to the poorest UK citizens – who made millions out of the boom years in exchange for now plummeting the masses into financial difficulty.
Or one which allows the bail-out on the condition that the banks actually pass on the Government’s generosity to the taxpayers that are bailing them out in the form of cheap, minimal-deposit mortgages and abolition of bank charges and overdraft interest.
Let’s be honest if you or me went to the Government and said “Please Mr Brown, I’m going to go bankrupt unless you bail me out” how likely is it that he’ll drop his pants, get on his knees and stump up the cash to someone like us who has actually been sensible with their money?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)