It seems Britannia no longer rules the waves. You remember all those jokes about the Canadian Navy? Well, now the Canadians tell the same jokes about the British Navy.
The Cleggeron Coagulation have the same attitude to the military as the Brown Gorgon and the Tiny Blur. Off you go to war lads. Nothing to worry about, you can't hurt yourselves because we haven't given you any weapons. Now you just go and give Johnny Foreigner a damn stern ticking-off. Just be careful not to raise your voice or call them any naughty names.
Cameron's forehead is evidently a facade, there's nothing behind it at all. He tells us we can't afford to properly equip our military but we can afford to give money to other countries (which they use to equip theirs).
Many, many years ago, the Welsh would paddle across to Ireland in coracles, little round open boats. They'd have a bit of a scrap with the Irish and then row home until the next weekend. That was the Welsh Navy - guys paddling little boats. Don't laugh, the UK might have to fall back on that soon. An aircraft carrier will be a coracle filled with paper planes. Nuclear ones will be those where the sailor has a watch with a luminous dial.
I'm sure Dopey Dave feels really, really good about handing over billions in aid to countries that are richer than us. He must feel great about being the most generous idiot in the world, more generous than all those countries who are far less skint that we are because their leaders are not total morons who just give it all away.
The world is not looking at you in awe while you pass out the money, Cameron.
They're just trying to keep a straight face until you put down the cash and leave the room.
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
Monday, 13 June 2011
The University of Fantasia.
I think that's where most science comes from now, and it's performed by a big mouse who talks to a broom.
It's the only explanation for stories like this -
A booze company sponsors midwives to advise pregnant women not to get shitfaced every day and the British Medical Association aren't happy about it.
I think the whole initiative is a load of guff anyway and I'd just be happy that it was paid for by a company that can afford it, rather than wasting even more of those taxes the government steal from us all. Women know that when pregnant, excessive amounts of anything labelled 'bad for you' are not a great idea. They already know. It's built into the firmware.
Women who sink three bottles of vodka a day and continue to do so when pregnant are not going to produce any genetic heritage worth keeping. Harsh, but there it is. If you want the population to get smarter you don't need fancy eugenics ideas. The terminally useless are perfectly capable of taking themselves out of the gene pool and the only thing the rest of us need do is leave them alone.
How widespread is this problem of drunken pregnant women, reeling about the place like a barge that's broken its moorings? I cannot recall seeing 'mum-to-be' outings in the pubs, I don't remember ever seeing a pregnant woman face down in the gutter, rocking gently like a horizontal Weeble. I don't recall seeing any pregnant woman drunk and I've been to an awful lot of places where people get drunk.
That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course. But it does imply that it's not common. The figures in the article imply the exact opposite.
Figures from the 2005 Infant Feeding Survey showed that more than a third of mothers gave up drinking entirely during pregnancy.
But 4 per cent said they did not change their drinking habits, while 61 per cent drank less but did not cut out alcohol entirely.
Those figure only work as a shock-horror-probe if one hundred percent of women routinely drink themselves into a stupour. This is patent nonsense, I can think of three ladies in Dunfermline for a start. Let's play 'rip the numbers'.
...more than a third of mothers gave up drinking entirely during pregnancy
So they weren't alcoholics then. What were they drinking before pregnancy, a case of WKD a day or a sherry once a fortnight? We aren't told.
61 per cent drank less but did not cut out alcohol entirely
What did they cut down to, half a case of WKD a day or a sherry every other fortnight? We aren't told. And now the master stroke -
But 4 per cent said they did not change their drinking habits
The implication being that this four percent are merrily pickling their foetus in gin, so it'll be born with a red nose and a face like W.C. Fields. On the other hand, if you take a large group of women, what are the odds that four percent don't touch alcohol at all, and therefore 'no change' means they still didn't drink it when pregnant? Again we are not told what 'no change' really means.
The BMA and Don the Puritan are incensed that this idea of telling women what they already know is being paid for by a private company. They should be getting the money to do it. From us. Then they can enforce their 'no safe limit' mantra and threaten any woman who dares to sniff the gripe water with withdrawal of the State services they've paid for.
Don Shenker, of Alcohol Concern, said: ‘It is deeply worrying that alcohol education is being paid for by the drinks industry, as it is then unaccountable and not necessarily based on evidence or public-health guidance.’
Evidence, Don? Look up the meaning of words before you use them. Also look up 'unaccountable' and ask yourself where you are held to account? Diageo are giving the money to a charity. they aren't running the program themselves. Admit it, Don, what's eating you is that it's not your charity that's getting the cash. And why would they give it to you? You hate them, and us, and all forms of pleasure. You, Don, are the most 'deeply worrying' aspect here.
In other news, apparently some politicians have noticed that formaldehyde is dangerous. I am impressed, they have come to this realisation in under a century since the rest of us knew about it. Pretty good going for the few brain cells they possess. It's only dangerous when there's a lot of it but then their straining little brains have seized on 'no safe limit' and they can't hold longer sentences in their heads. Pity they haven't yet applied 'no safe limit' to politicians.
Funnily enough, even though it's in the list of trace chemicals on the side of scary tobacco packets, they aren't blaming formaldehyde on smoking this time. No, this time smoking gets the blame for... styrene.
The greatest exposure to styrene in the general population is through cigarette smoking, the report said.
Styrene? Tobacco is made of leaves, the filters are cellulose and the wrapping is paper. All plant material, all easily biodegradable despite the insane ramblings of the antismoker drones. Where's the plastic? And how can smoking be the biggest cause of exposure to anything in the general population? It's banned everywhere!
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry group, lashed out at the report, saying it was concerned that politics may have hijacked the scientific process.
Ya think? Where the hell have you people been for the last twenty years? Climate change, obesity, drinking, smoking, salt, fat, there is no science any more. It's ALL politics. Conclusions are written before the project even begins. The practice I'm getting in fiction writing will stand me in good stead if I should ever return to government-sponsored 'research' which consists of a boozy lunch with Daily Mail staff and a hungover write-up of whatever the sponsor wants to hear. Science 'might have been' hijacked by politics? Oh, do wake up.
I would say 'wake up and smell the coffee' but that's probably illegal by now.
The scaremongers are working really, really hard now. That's a good sign. They're getting panicky because fewer and fewer people are listening. Hardly surprising when they have passed deep into the realms of the absurd and are fast approaching the laugh horizon.
The cracks are getting bigger and the whole lunatic edifice is crumbling. Unfortunately, it looks like they are going to take scientific credibility, all of it, down with them.
The odd thing is, science doesn't seem to mind.
It's the only explanation for stories like this -
A booze company sponsors midwives to advise pregnant women not to get shitfaced every day and the British Medical Association aren't happy about it.
I think the whole initiative is a load of guff anyway and I'd just be happy that it was paid for by a company that can afford it, rather than wasting even more of those taxes the government steal from us all. Women know that when pregnant, excessive amounts of anything labelled 'bad for you' are not a great idea. They already know. It's built into the firmware.
Women who sink three bottles of vodka a day and continue to do so when pregnant are not going to produce any genetic heritage worth keeping. Harsh, but there it is. If you want the population to get smarter you don't need fancy eugenics ideas. The terminally useless are perfectly capable of taking themselves out of the gene pool and the only thing the rest of us need do is leave them alone.
How widespread is this problem of drunken pregnant women, reeling about the place like a barge that's broken its moorings? I cannot recall seeing 'mum-to-be' outings in the pubs, I don't remember ever seeing a pregnant woman face down in the gutter, rocking gently like a horizontal Weeble. I don't recall seeing any pregnant woman drunk and I've been to an awful lot of places where people get drunk.
That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course. But it does imply that it's not common. The figures in the article imply the exact opposite.
Figures from the 2005 Infant Feeding Survey showed that more than a third of mothers gave up drinking entirely during pregnancy.
But 4 per cent said they did not change their drinking habits, while 61 per cent drank less but did not cut out alcohol entirely.
Those figure only work as a shock-horror-probe if one hundred percent of women routinely drink themselves into a stupour. This is patent nonsense, I can think of three ladies in Dunfermline for a start. Let's play 'rip the numbers'.
...more than a third of mothers gave up drinking entirely during pregnancy
So they weren't alcoholics then. What were they drinking before pregnancy, a case of WKD a day or a sherry once a fortnight? We aren't told.
61 per cent drank less but did not cut out alcohol entirely
What did they cut down to, half a case of WKD a day or a sherry every other fortnight? We aren't told. And now the master stroke -
But 4 per cent said they did not change their drinking habits
The implication being that this four percent are merrily pickling their foetus in gin, so it'll be born with a red nose and a face like W.C. Fields. On the other hand, if you take a large group of women, what are the odds that four percent don't touch alcohol at all, and therefore 'no change' means they still didn't drink it when pregnant? Again we are not told what 'no change' really means.
The BMA and Don the Puritan are incensed that this idea of telling women what they already know is being paid for by a private company. They should be getting the money to do it. From us. Then they can enforce their 'no safe limit' mantra and threaten any woman who dares to sniff the gripe water with withdrawal of the State services they've paid for.
Don Shenker, of Alcohol Concern, said: ‘It is deeply worrying that alcohol education is being paid for by the drinks industry, as it is then unaccountable and not necessarily based on evidence or public-health guidance.’
Evidence, Don? Look up the meaning of words before you use them. Also look up 'unaccountable' and ask yourself where you are held to account? Diageo are giving the money to a charity. they aren't running the program themselves. Admit it, Don, what's eating you is that it's not your charity that's getting the cash. And why would they give it to you? You hate them, and us, and all forms of pleasure. You, Don, are the most 'deeply worrying' aspect here.
In other news, apparently some politicians have noticed that formaldehyde is dangerous. I am impressed, they have come to this realisation in under a century since the rest of us knew about it. Pretty good going for the few brain cells they possess. It's only dangerous when there's a lot of it but then their straining little brains have seized on 'no safe limit' and they can't hold longer sentences in their heads. Pity they haven't yet applied 'no safe limit' to politicians.
Funnily enough, even though it's in the list of trace chemicals on the side of scary tobacco packets, they aren't blaming formaldehyde on smoking this time. No, this time smoking gets the blame for... styrene.
The greatest exposure to styrene in the general population is through cigarette smoking, the report said.
Styrene? Tobacco is made of leaves, the filters are cellulose and the wrapping is paper. All plant material, all easily biodegradable despite the insane ramblings of the antismoker drones. Where's the plastic? And how can smoking be the biggest cause of exposure to anything in the general population? It's banned everywhere!
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry group, lashed out at the report, saying it was concerned that politics may have hijacked the scientific process.
Ya think? Where the hell have you people been for the last twenty years? Climate change, obesity, drinking, smoking, salt, fat, there is no science any more. It's ALL politics. Conclusions are written before the project even begins. The practice I'm getting in fiction writing will stand me in good stead if I should ever return to government-sponsored 'research' which consists of a boozy lunch with Daily Mail staff and a hungover write-up of whatever the sponsor wants to hear. Science 'might have been' hijacked by politics? Oh, do wake up.
I would say 'wake up and smell the coffee' but that's probably illegal by now.
The scaremongers are working really, really hard now. That's a good sign. They're getting panicky because fewer and fewer people are listening. Hardly surprising when they have passed deep into the realms of the absurd and are fast approaching the laugh horizon.
The cracks are getting bigger and the whole lunatic edifice is crumbling. Unfortunately, it looks like they are going to take scientific credibility, all of it, down with them.
The odd thing is, science doesn't seem to mind.
Sunday, 12 June 2011
Land of Hopeless Tories.
Damian Green says he'll keep immigration under control.
Aww, bless, he actually thinks he has some say in this. Damey, I'm afraid you'd be better off trying stop a 700-ton runaway train with the wrong kind of leaves. The UKBA are only interested in stealing booze and fags and the EU dictate immigration policy. Hint: There isn't one. Your job is to act as receptionist for whoever the EU sends our way. Didn't you know? Ask your boss, he knows.
'Outside-EU immigration?' Ha! When those Libyans landed in Italy, what happened? the Italians gave them passports. As EU citizens, they were then legally entitled to move to France, where they wanted to be. Anyone appearing in any EU country will get citizenship because they'll say they want to move to another EU country, and the EU doesn't let any country send them back. Wait until Croatia and Turkey get into the game. The only people you'll be able to keep out of the UK will be the English.
Damey, you can have absolutely no control over immigration until a) we are out of the EU and b) the UKBA stops spending all its time mugging shoppers. Until then, you are pissing into the wind, dear boy.
So we are going to be more selective who we let in, eh, Damey?
So how's that working out for you then, eh?
Face it, Damey. You are in a non-job. You are as much use as a five-a-day coordinator, a smoking cessation officer or a diversity outreach consultant. You have been given a job which simply cannot be done and as your boss will tell you if he ever works up the courage, a job which the EU will never allow to be done.
You are useless. Accept that, shut up and claim your expenses.
Oh, and if you like playing with numbers, Constantly Furious has a very interesting statistic for you to look at.
So how many more are you paying to come here, Damey? And when is the Tory party going to admit it's actually just another subsidiary of Blair Inc.?
Most of all, when is our cretinous population going to see you all for what you really are?
Aww, bless, he actually thinks he has some say in this. Damey, I'm afraid you'd be better off trying stop a 700-ton runaway train with the wrong kind of leaves. The UKBA are only interested in stealing booze and fags and the EU dictate immigration policy. Hint: There isn't one. Your job is to act as receptionist for whoever the EU sends our way. Didn't you know? Ask your boss, he knows.
'Outside-EU immigration?' Ha! When those Libyans landed in Italy, what happened? the Italians gave them passports. As EU citizens, they were then legally entitled to move to France, where they wanted to be. Anyone appearing in any EU country will get citizenship because they'll say they want to move to another EU country, and the EU doesn't let any country send them back. Wait until Croatia and Turkey get into the game. The only people you'll be able to keep out of the UK will be the English.
Damey, you can have absolutely no control over immigration until a) we are out of the EU and b) the UKBA stops spending all its time mugging shoppers. Until then, you are pissing into the wind, dear boy.
So we are going to be more selective who we let in, eh, Damey?
So how's that working out for you then, eh?
Face it, Damey. You are in a non-job. You are as much use as a five-a-day coordinator, a smoking cessation officer or a diversity outreach consultant. You have been given a job which simply cannot be done and as your boss will tell you if he ever works up the courage, a job which the EU will never allow to be done.
You are useless. Accept that, shut up and claim your expenses.
Oh, and if you like playing with numbers, Constantly Furious has a very interesting statistic for you to look at.
So how many more are you paying to come here, Damey? And when is the Tory party going to admit it's actually just another subsidiary of Blair Inc.?
Most of all, when is our cretinous population going to see you all for what you really are?
The caring profession.
Even if you're a criminal, the NHS will not move you down the transplant waiting list. They will work to keep you alive. As long as you're not a smoking criminal, anyway.
If you complain when they screw up and you're not a criminal, well, they'll come after you.
So, what is it this profession is caring about, I wonder? I know it's not me.
Is it you?
If you complain when they screw up and you're not a criminal, well, they'll come after you.
So, what is it this profession is caring about, I wonder? I know it's not me.
Is it you?
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Spoon the Underdog.
Please, ladies. Okay, I know, you have hair to wash and other priorities.
But seriously. I was looking for this in response to a comment when I came across this:
Seems there is a sort of meme building. It has nothing to do with me. I am inconsequential.
But if I can be a pawn in the game, I will.
But seriously. I was looking for this in response to a comment when I came across this:
Seems there is a sort of meme building. It has nothing to do with me. I am inconsequential.
But if I can be a pawn in the game, I will.
Reading time.
I have three books to review and there's a film on the way. I don't get paid but I do get to keep the books and the DVD. So this weekend is read and review weekend.
One of the reviews will appear here, although I see Dick Puddlecote has already beaten me to the punch with his own review. Best get caught up.
This will mean little blogging activity over the weekend (I've said that before then descended into rage anyway). I will overlook the Leftie rage at Cameron telling the truth for once, and Ed 'Sweaty' Balls talking, well, balls as usual. I'll have to pass on the day-to-day life of a country Cameron wants to give even more money to, and skip the speculation on whether it's because he admires that sort of thing and wishes it was happening here. As for this, oh dear, the red mist is forming...
No, I have to read and review these books before that film shows up and the to-do pile gets even bigger.
Never mind, there'll be plenty more lunacy in the papers when I'm finished. The world has an inexhaustible supply. If we could harness the power of stupid, we wouldn't need any other energy source ever again.
Forgot to add: I also have to find suitable transit packaging for a few of these little babies. My little garden won't accomodate them all. The stems are still easily breakable but I'm sure there must be a way.
My, haven't they grown?Friday, 10 June 2011
Sweets for my sweet, sugar for the taxman.
I thought it would take longer to get to a tax on sugar, but things are accelerating very nicely.
Hans-Peter Kubis, of the university's School of Sport, Health & Exercise Sciences, has called for sugar to be taxed to stop an impending health 'disaster', and for fruit juice to be taken out of the 'five-a-day' health message.
School of Sport, Health & Exercise Sciences? Oh, my aching sides. This is beyond Saint Kafka's wildest prophecies. The Great Prophets themselves, Monty and the Python, did not see this far ahead. A University course in eating and breathing and lifting the heavy thing. What now for parapsychology? That's just ordinary coursework these days. Homeopathy? Pfft. A subcourse in chemistry. Teleportation? First year physics. Telepathy... [concentrate]
A tax on sugar. The teaspoon absurdity in the last post suddenly looks a little less absurd, doesn't it? Teaspoons will soon be under as much suspicion as coke spoons and bongs. Granny will be in court on charges of possession of sugar with intent to slip into tea. She had the evil teaspoon in her kitchen drawer so there can be no defence.
That camel is an extraordinary beast. Its load of straw must by now exceed the mass of the Moon.
One more straw. Then another, and another. Listen, can you hear the vertebrae cracking?
Keep piling it on, Righteous. When it falls, it all lands on you.
Hans-Peter Kubis, of the university's School of Sport, Health & Exercise Sciences, has called for sugar to be taxed to stop an impending health 'disaster', and for fruit juice to be taken out of the 'five-a-day' health message.
School of Sport, Health & Exercise Sciences? Oh, my aching sides. This is beyond Saint Kafka's wildest prophecies. The Great Prophets themselves, Monty and the Python, did not see this far ahead. A University course in eating and breathing and lifting the heavy thing. What now for parapsychology? That's just ordinary coursework these days. Homeopathy? Pfft. A subcourse in chemistry. Teleportation? First year physics. Telepathy... [concentrate]
A tax on sugar. The teaspoon absurdity in the last post suddenly looks a little less absurd, doesn't it? Teaspoons will soon be under as much suspicion as coke spoons and bongs. Granny will be in court on charges of possession of sugar with intent to slip into tea. She had the evil teaspoon in her kitchen drawer so there can be no defence.
That camel is an extraordinary beast. Its load of straw must by now exceed the mass of the Moon.
One more straw. Then another, and another. Listen, can you hear the vertebrae cracking?
Keep piling it on, Righteous. When it falls, it all lands on you.
Thursday, 9 June 2011
What's new pussycat?
"Well, this arrow in my face, that's new. I'm pretty sure I only asked for an earring."
Before you click the link, be warned. Despite my inhuman sense of humour, this isn't a joke article, the pictures are unpleasant whether you're a cat-person or not.
Some despicable little shit has shot a cat with a crossbow. There seem to be a lot of despicable little shits around these days and they are happy to wander about with weapons that could not be described as toys by any stretch of the imagination, but which are easier to get hold of than some toys.
When I started buying bows, I took the precaution of checking the law first. No licence required but no carrying the bow in public unless it's covered or dismantled. An assembled/exposed bow in a public place is most definitely an offensive weapon. Most of all, it is illegal in the UK to hunt with a bow.
That means anything. If you shoot a rat with an arrow, you break the law. No rabbit hunting, no pigeon control, nothing. Target shooting only. 'Hunting' covers more than 'hitting'. You'd have to be a hell of a shot to hit a wasp, but if you aim at it, you're hunting it and by a strict interpretation of the law, that's illegal even if you don't loose the arrow.
Yet when you buy the bow, nobody tells you any of this. If I want a shotgun, I have to get a certificate, I have to prove I'm not deranged, I have to have a secure location to keep it, I have to know the law regarding carrying and use of the weapon.
When I bought the crossbow, over the counter not over the internet, it was a case of 'here's the money' and 'here's your bow'. Good thing I took the trouble to research it because one slight misadjustment to your grip and it'll take the tips off the fingers and/or thumb of your left hand.
I don't want to see these bows banned. Handguns were banned because a few people were far too stupid and insane to be allowed to have them. Therefore six million people can't have them. Because of some idiots with knives, six million people can't carry a knife now. The paradox of health and safety insisting on workers using lock-knives while the law makes it illegal to carry a lock-knife has not, as far as I know, been resolved.
Those responsible for shooting the cat should be charged under animal cruelty laws, the hunting with bows law and whatever other dangerous-weapon-in-public laws are available. I would like to see safety and legal information given out with the weapons as a matter of course, and perhaps a demonstration of what it can actually do. Something involving a dummy behind a car door would be appropriate. The dummy in question could be the one who shot the cat. I'd be fine with that, I'd even perform the demonstration for the video no matter how many takes were needed.
I do not agree that six million people need to be denied access to something just because a few people are dicks.
As for the cat's owner, he had my sympathy up until he said this:
Sandra's husband, Mike Grogan, called for more restrictions on the sale of weapons such as crossbows.
"It's absolutely sickening and shocking that you can buy these things on the internet quite easily," he said.
You can buy far more sickening and shocking things on the Internet. The weapon itself is not sickening or shocking, it's what you do with it that counts. Handled responsibly, it's perfectly safe. Safer than, say, a car. A bow cannot suddenly and unexpectedly go out of control.
"It could very easily have missed Spike and... killed a child. That's the worse thing about it."
Oh come on. How many children hide behind cats these days? Or maybe they're really good at it and I can't see them. Crossbow bolts do not come with tracking devices. If it had missed Spike (yes, yes, I know, but I'm trying to be serious here) it would have buried itself in the ground or holed a fence. It would not have independently sought out another target.
Although I cannot say that this mad crossbow man would never have set his sights higher than cats. It wasn't just some kids larking about and going too far -
A 39-year-old man from the area is being held by police after his arrest in connection with the incident and a "bolt-firing mechanism" has been seized.
Thirty-nine. He is forty next year. Isn't it time he grew up? And how would 'restrictions' have prevented him getting hold of a crossbow? At his age he could just as easily get a shotgun licence, assuming he doesn't have prior form as a dickhead. He should be excluded from such eligibility now, of course, but before this, he might not have been.
Guns are banned. There are more shootings now than ever before. The criminals' guns were never legal, the ban made no difference to them. Knives are banned and yet just today there was a robbery by some running sore weilding a two-foot machete. What do bans achieve?
As far as criminals are concerned, they achieve nothing. Their weapons were illegal anyway so making them a bit more illegal is, and always will be, crassly stupid and utterly pointless. The gun ban has successfully criminalised widows with their husbands' rusting Boer war pistols in the house but has had absolutely zero effect on the criminals' guns. The knife ban has caught many with pocket knives they've carried all their lives but has had zero effect on criminals prepared to rob people with a machete (which would have been illegal to carry even before the ban).
What do bans achieve? The total absence of any registered weaponry and no effect at all on the illegal unregistered weapons. There are just as many weapons, but now nobody knows where any of them are. Politicians, take a bow, you have earned a place in the Guinness book of records under 'stupid'.
Crossbows and airguns are next. It's not the weapons that are at fault here, it's the infantilised morons created by successive nanny governments who have refused to let people take responsibility for their actions, and refused to hold them to account when they don't.
So we have people who actually think it's okay to shoot at a cat with a crossbow. The reaction? Crossbows must be restricted, then banned. The real question is this - Why do we have so many dickheads in this country?
If this dickhead could have bought a handgun, he would have shot the cat. So is the handgun ban right? He couldn't have a handgun so he couldn't shoot the cat, therefore the ban is right. Therefore if crossbows were banned, he could not have shot the cat with the bow. This is the simple logic of simple minds. Politician minds.
If crossbows were banned, he would have hit the cat with a baseball bat or a brick. The choice and availability of weapons is immaterial. Dickheads will be dickheads with whatever is to hand. The cure is not to punish six million people for the actions of a few, the cure is to punish the few for their actions.
Banning simpler and simpler weapons until we get to HB pencils and cocktail sticks will never change the mindset of the dickhead. They will file the edges of credit cards or re-learn the sling and the atlatl, which can be made out of things you can find lying around. They will hurl bricks and swing scaffold poles. They will get their weapons from Dodgy Vince in the alley behind the pub - and if they are buying an illegal weapon, why not go all the way and buy a gun? If the HB pencil is illegal, and the gun is illegal, might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, eh?
As for this 'what if he missed and hit a child', well, what if you were driving down the street, missed the road and ploughed into a schoolyard? What if the ropes lifting that piano broke and it fell diagonally onto that school bus? What if that 747 missed the runway and landed on an academy? What if the Apache helicopters missed Libya and bombed a primary school? This tendency to bring in 'what if... children' in every situation is just becoming tiresome. Next time, loonies, aim at the bloody child. They'll blame you for it anyway.
Look, the guy shot a cat. That makes him a git. Enough of a git that you don't need to imagine heat-seeking arrows that dodge cats and hunt children. He's already broken several laws and will probably get at least a severe ticking-off from some dog-loving judge somewhere. Jail? You don't get jail unless you break a law that annoys the State. Breaking laws that only affect we common people gets you an ASBO or if it's really serious, a suspended sentence.
And there is the problem. Not the guns. Not the bows. Not the knives. Not even the thermonuclear knitting needles. The problem is that there is a whole generation who have not experienced real consequences for serious actions.
We have burglars let out because their kids miss daddy. We have foreign criminals who can't be deported because getting some dozy tart up the duff counts as a human right to a family life. Excuses galore in the courts, and all of them excuses that would have been laughed at just ten years ago. All taken seriously now and all allowed as mitigating circumstances.
"I was drunk" is not a mitigating circumstance. Drunk or sober, straight or doped, if you did the deed you pay the penalty. "Someone else did it to me in the past" is not a mitigating circumstance. If you knew how it felt and you did it to someone else anyway, that makes the crime worse in my book.
The problem is not, and never was in the weapons. The problem is the dickheads. Yet every time a dickhead acts up, the weapon gets the blame and the dickhead gets excused. That's why it keeps happening.
That's why it will continue to happen even after HB pencils and cocktail sticks are banned. It'll be no good saying 'but what if he'd missed with that pencil and written on a child?'. If he didn't have the pencil he'd have used a handy lump of rock.
So what's new? We'll get something else banned so six million people can't access it while the root problem is ignored once more. Okay, six million people don't all want crossbows. Me, I don't want a gun. I've never had one and don't want one, so just like those who are about to say 'Crossbows must be banned', I should be saying 'Guns must stay banned', right?
Wrong.
I don't want a gun. I want the choice of whether to own one or not. I will choose 'not', but the point is not the gun. The point is the choice.
This is what the Banmeisters cannot comprehend. They don't like smoking so they delight in the ban. They don't want guns so they are happy with the ban. They are happy with the knife ban, right up to the day when they are taking a carving knife across town to loan to a friend. They are happy with bans on things they don't like.
One day there will be a ban on dogs. That's building momentum slowly. One day there will be a ban on all pets, including cats. Greens have this as a stated objective already. Cars are excluded from more and more town centres and restricted to 20mph in more and more places, and taxed harder every year. Their days are numbered. Why do I imagine I can see these things coming?
Because I remember when there was just that one non-smoking carriage on the train. It was a small concession and a reasonable one. Then we had one smoking carriage, and we had to go to the back of the bus to smoke. Then we had to smoke at the stop/station before we got on. Now we can't smoke at the stop or the station. It all starts with one little thing, one little 'Ooo, I don't like that, it should be banned' and our entire political class is dimmer than an EU-approved lightbulb so they fall for it all, every time. What we need is a minimum IQ requirement for MPs, but they'll never vote for that because so few of them can spell it.
I see a lot of stories about crossbows, airguns and dogs in recent months. All of them negative. All accompanied by 'Why is this allowed? Why don't THEY do something about it? What if the thing attacked a child? Think of the cheeeldren.'
Crossbows, airguns and dogs are the last proper defensive weapons you can get. Sure, you could buy a takedown recurve bow or a longbow or a fixed bow or one of those new-fangled bows with pulleys all over them that are, frankly, cheating, but those take practice. A lot of practice if you want to kill that advancing barn door in one shot at fifty yards. Crossbows, airguns and dogs are quick and easy. You don't need to make your dog vicious. You just need to make it loyal. It can do vicious on its own when required, if you have its loyalty. That way it won't eat your child when your back is turned.
Crossbow tip - they are no use against intruders. If the flexing prod hits a doorframe, the stock will put your shoulder out. Don't bother with the pistol ones either, I've tried two and the accuracy is shit. Unless you are attacked at close quarters by the Hulk, you'll probably miss. If you don't miss you'll just annoy him. And then he'll sue after he pounds your face into hamburger, which will be justifiable retaliation for shooting him with something that's as deadly as a brass dart.
Airguns have annoyance value but if there are any real men left, they'll pick the pellet out and flick it back at you, like children used to do. We never sued, we shot back. Nowadays, expect to get sued for interfering with a criminal in the course of his duties.
If you have a huge hairy beast eyeing the burglar through the window, and if it can be trained to grin, tuck a napkin into its collar and set a place at the table while the burglar watches, chances are the burglar will go next door.
This cat story is horrible for the cat but look from another angle. The story is not about the dick who fired the crossbow. It's all about the crossbow. The dick doesn't get blamed, the weapon does.
By that token, Hitler wasn't at all responsible for WWII because he never fired a shot. The guns and tanks did. Hitler didn't even drive the tanks or fire the guns. In the current British legal system, Hitler would have got off with a warning.
Stop blaming the weapons while excusing the hands that use them and maybe we can get some kind of order back in the world.
Or should we wait until teaspoons are classed as offensive weapons and Granny's coffee shop is closed down by armed police?
Teaspoon? You could have someone's eye out with that thing.
Before you click the link, be warned. Despite my inhuman sense of humour, this isn't a joke article, the pictures are unpleasant whether you're a cat-person or not.
Some despicable little shit has shot a cat with a crossbow. There seem to be a lot of despicable little shits around these days and they are happy to wander about with weapons that could not be described as toys by any stretch of the imagination, but which are easier to get hold of than some toys.
When I started buying bows, I took the precaution of checking the law first. No licence required but no carrying the bow in public unless it's covered or dismantled. An assembled/exposed bow in a public place is most definitely an offensive weapon. Most of all, it is illegal in the UK to hunt with a bow.
That means anything. If you shoot a rat with an arrow, you break the law. No rabbit hunting, no pigeon control, nothing. Target shooting only. 'Hunting' covers more than 'hitting'. You'd have to be a hell of a shot to hit a wasp, but if you aim at it, you're hunting it and by a strict interpretation of the law, that's illegal even if you don't loose the arrow.
Yet when you buy the bow, nobody tells you any of this. If I want a shotgun, I have to get a certificate, I have to prove I'm not deranged, I have to have a secure location to keep it, I have to know the law regarding carrying and use of the weapon.
When I bought the crossbow, over the counter not over the internet, it was a case of 'here's the money' and 'here's your bow'. Good thing I took the trouble to research it because one slight misadjustment to your grip and it'll take the tips off the fingers and/or thumb of your left hand.
I don't want to see these bows banned. Handguns were banned because a few people were far too stupid and insane to be allowed to have them. Therefore six million people can't have them. Because of some idiots with knives, six million people can't carry a knife now. The paradox of health and safety insisting on workers using lock-knives while the law makes it illegal to carry a lock-knife has not, as far as I know, been resolved.
Those responsible for shooting the cat should be charged under animal cruelty laws, the hunting with bows law and whatever other dangerous-weapon-in-public laws are available. I would like to see safety and legal information given out with the weapons as a matter of course, and perhaps a demonstration of what it can actually do. Something involving a dummy behind a car door would be appropriate. The dummy in question could be the one who shot the cat. I'd be fine with that, I'd even perform the demonstration for the video no matter how many takes were needed.
I do not agree that six million people need to be denied access to something just because a few people are dicks.
As for the cat's owner, he had my sympathy up until he said this:
Sandra's husband, Mike Grogan, called for more restrictions on the sale of weapons such as crossbows.
"It's absolutely sickening and shocking that you can buy these things on the internet quite easily," he said.
You can buy far more sickening and shocking things on the Internet. The weapon itself is not sickening or shocking, it's what you do with it that counts. Handled responsibly, it's perfectly safe. Safer than, say, a car. A bow cannot suddenly and unexpectedly go out of control.
"It could very easily have missed Spike and... killed a child. That's the worse thing about it."
Oh come on. How many children hide behind cats these days? Or maybe they're really good at it and I can't see them. Crossbow bolts do not come with tracking devices. If it had missed Spike (yes, yes, I know, but I'm trying to be serious here) it would have buried itself in the ground or holed a fence. It would not have independently sought out another target.
Although I cannot say that this mad crossbow man would never have set his sights higher than cats. It wasn't just some kids larking about and going too far -
A 39-year-old man from the area is being held by police after his arrest in connection with the incident and a "bolt-firing mechanism" has been seized.
Thirty-nine. He is forty next year. Isn't it time he grew up? And how would 'restrictions' have prevented him getting hold of a crossbow? At his age he could just as easily get a shotgun licence, assuming he doesn't have prior form as a dickhead. He should be excluded from such eligibility now, of course, but before this, he might not have been.
Guns are banned. There are more shootings now than ever before. The criminals' guns were never legal, the ban made no difference to them. Knives are banned and yet just today there was a robbery by some running sore weilding a two-foot machete. What do bans achieve?
As far as criminals are concerned, they achieve nothing. Their weapons were illegal anyway so making them a bit more illegal is, and always will be, crassly stupid and utterly pointless. The gun ban has successfully criminalised widows with their husbands' rusting Boer war pistols in the house but has had absolutely zero effect on the criminals' guns. The knife ban has caught many with pocket knives they've carried all their lives but has had zero effect on criminals prepared to rob people with a machete (which would have been illegal to carry even before the ban).
What do bans achieve? The total absence of any registered weaponry and no effect at all on the illegal unregistered weapons. There are just as many weapons, but now nobody knows where any of them are. Politicians, take a bow, you have earned a place in the Guinness book of records under 'stupid'.
Crossbows and airguns are next. It's not the weapons that are at fault here, it's the infantilised morons created by successive nanny governments who have refused to let people take responsibility for their actions, and refused to hold them to account when they don't.
So we have people who actually think it's okay to shoot at a cat with a crossbow. The reaction? Crossbows must be restricted, then banned. The real question is this - Why do we have so many dickheads in this country?
If this dickhead could have bought a handgun, he would have shot the cat. So is the handgun ban right? He couldn't have a handgun so he couldn't shoot the cat, therefore the ban is right. Therefore if crossbows were banned, he could not have shot the cat with the bow. This is the simple logic of simple minds. Politician minds.
If crossbows were banned, he would have hit the cat with a baseball bat or a brick. The choice and availability of weapons is immaterial. Dickheads will be dickheads with whatever is to hand. The cure is not to punish six million people for the actions of a few, the cure is to punish the few for their actions.
Banning simpler and simpler weapons until we get to HB pencils and cocktail sticks will never change the mindset of the dickhead. They will file the edges of credit cards or re-learn the sling and the atlatl, which can be made out of things you can find lying around. They will hurl bricks and swing scaffold poles. They will get their weapons from Dodgy Vince in the alley behind the pub - and if they are buying an illegal weapon, why not go all the way and buy a gun? If the HB pencil is illegal, and the gun is illegal, might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, eh?
As for this 'what if he missed and hit a child', well, what if you were driving down the street, missed the road and ploughed into a schoolyard? What if the ropes lifting that piano broke and it fell diagonally onto that school bus? What if that 747 missed the runway and landed on an academy? What if the Apache helicopters missed Libya and bombed a primary school? This tendency to bring in 'what if... children' in every situation is just becoming tiresome. Next time, loonies, aim at the bloody child. They'll blame you for it anyway.
Look, the guy shot a cat. That makes him a git. Enough of a git that you don't need to imagine heat-seeking arrows that dodge cats and hunt children. He's already broken several laws and will probably get at least a severe ticking-off from some dog-loving judge somewhere. Jail? You don't get jail unless you break a law that annoys the State. Breaking laws that only affect we common people gets you an ASBO or if it's really serious, a suspended sentence.
And there is the problem. Not the guns. Not the bows. Not the knives. Not even the thermonuclear knitting needles. The problem is that there is a whole generation who have not experienced real consequences for serious actions.
We have burglars let out because their kids miss daddy. We have foreign criminals who can't be deported because getting some dozy tart up the duff counts as a human right to a family life. Excuses galore in the courts, and all of them excuses that would have been laughed at just ten years ago. All taken seriously now and all allowed as mitigating circumstances.
"I was drunk" is not a mitigating circumstance. Drunk or sober, straight or doped, if you did the deed you pay the penalty. "Someone else did it to me in the past" is not a mitigating circumstance. If you knew how it felt and you did it to someone else anyway, that makes the crime worse in my book.
The problem is not, and never was in the weapons. The problem is the dickheads. Yet every time a dickhead acts up, the weapon gets the blame and the dickhead gets excused. That's why it keeps happening.
That's why it will continue to happen even after HB pencils and cocktail sticks are banned. It'll be no good saying 'but what if he'd missed with that pencil and written on a child?'. If he didn't have the pencil he'd have used a handy lump of rock.
So what's new? We'll get something else banned so six million people can't access it while the root problem is ignored once more. Okay, six million people don't all want crossbows. Me, I don't want a gun. I've never had one and don't want one, so just like those who are about to say 'Crossbows must be banned', I should be saying 'Guns must stay banned', right?
Wrong.
I don't want a gun. I want the choice of whether to own one or not. I will choose 'not', but the point is not the gun. The point is the choice.
This is what the Banmeisters cannot comprehend. They don't like smoking so they delight in the ban. They don't want guns so they are happy with the ban. They are happy with the knife ban, right up to the day when they are taking a carving knife across town to loan to a friend. They are happy with bans on things they don't like.
One day there will be a ban on dogs. That's building momentum slowly. One day there will be a ban on all pets, including cats. Greens have this as a stated objective already. Cars are excluded from more and more town centres and restricted to 20mph in more and more places, and taxed harder every year. Their days are numbered. Why do I imagine I can see these things coming?
Because I remember when there was just that one non-smoking carriage on the train. It was a small concession and a reasonable one. Then we had one smoking carriage, and we had to go to the back of the bus to smoke. Then we had to smoke at the stop/station before we got on. Now we can't smoke at the stop or the station. It all starts with one little thing, one little 'Ooo, I don't like that, it should be banned' and our entire political class is dimmer than an EU-approved lightbulb so they fall for it all, every time. What we need is a minimum IQ requirement for MPs, but they'll never vote for that because so few of them can spell it.
I see a lot of stories about crossbows, airguns and dogs in recent months. All of them negative. All accompanied by 'Why is this allowed? Why don't THEY do something about it? What if the thing attacked a child? Think of the cheeeldren.'
Crossbows, airguns and dogs are the last proper defensive weapons you can get. Sure, you could buy a takedown recurve bow or a longbow or a fixed bow or one of those new-fangled bows with pulleys all over them that are, frankly, cheating, but those take practice. A lot of practice if you want to kill that advancing barn door in one shot at fifty yards. Crossbows, airguns and dogs are quick and easy. You don't need to make your dog vicious. You just need to make it loyal. It can do vicious on its own when required, if you have its loyalty. That way it won't eat your child when your back is turned.
Crossbow tip - they are no use against intruders. If the flexing prod hits a doorframe, the stock will put your shoulder out. Don't bother with the pistol ones either, I've tried two and the accuracy is shit. Unless you are attacked at close quarters by the Hulk, you'll probably miss. If you don't miss you'll just annoy him. And then he'll sue after he pounds your face into hamburger, which will be justifiable retaliation for shooting him with something that's as deadly as a brass dart.
Airguns have annoyance value but if there are any real men left, they'll pick the pellet out and flick it back at you, like children used to do. We never sued, we shot back. Nowadays, expect to get sued for interfering with a criminal in the course of his duties.
If you have a huge hairy beast eyeing the burglar through the window, and if it can be trained to grin, tuck a napkin into its collar and set a place at the table while the burglar watches, chances are the burglar will go next door.
This cat story is horrible for the cat but look from another angle. The story is not about the dick who fired the crossbow. It's all about the crossbow. The dick doesn't get blamed, the weapon does.
By that token, Hitler wasn't at all responsible for WWII because he never fired a shot. The guns and tanks did. Hitler didn't even drive the tanks or fire the guns. In the current British legal system, Hitler would have got off with a warning.
Stop blaming the weapons while excusing the hands that use them and maybe we can get some kind of order back in the world.
Or should we wait until teaspoons are classed as offensive weapons and Granny's coffee shop is closed down by armed police?
Teaspoon? You could have someone's eye out with that thing.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
Things that are of no concern.
Apparently Facebook can now recognise my face and tell other people where it is. Clue: it's stuck to the non-hairy side of my head and positioned just under my hat. In what is claimed to be an invasion of privacy, Facebook can find photos of me on its site and say 'Look, here he is!'
No it can't. My face isn't on Facebook although oddly enough, my books are. So I am using the other half of it. I'm on there, twice now, but neither of them are me and neither of them have any photos of my face. Just as well, it would crack your screens.
So if you don't want facebook to tag your face, don't put it on there. They aren't going to come round and photograph you so unless you voluntarily hand over your photo, they'll never be able to tag it. Nothing to worry about.
If you have your face on there, surely that means you want the world to see it, or at least don't mind? So it's not a privacy issue any more than is sending photos of your danglies to all and sundry on Twitter. You can't show the whole world something and then claim an invasion of privacy when they look.
Facebook's face recognition software is of no consequence. I don't even care about face recognition software in airports. I have to show so much ID to get on a plane that they already know when I'm there anyway, so the face recognition cameras are futile.
On the street... no, I don't care. They can track my inconsequential shopping habits until they are old and grey. Let them waste their time. If I ever get up to something nefarious, they won't see me. I've been homeless, I can adopt that look again (actually I have never completely escaped that look), and the homeless are invisible. Facial recognition software - a total waste of everyone's time and money.
Even more absurd is the latest idea from Nottingham's alleged academics. A camera that records what you put in your bin and relays the photos to a Facebook page where your neighbours can see what you're throwing away. I remember a day when 'academic' meant something other than 'total fucking moron with less brain than a retarded sea-squirt' but times change, I suppose. There was a time when 'expert' meant 'actually having some idea what they were talking about' too. Ah, the old days.
What kind of sad, pathetic individual has so little in their lives that they can find entertainment in watching someone else's bin fill up? Don't they have some drying paint to supervise?
I really hope this catches on. If it does, I will get hold of an old shop-window mannequin, some acrylic paints and a load of ketchup. Watch my bin fill, people! I'll save the head for last, after I've drilled out the eyes. I'm sure the local abbatoir can spare me some pig intestines too. It won't be hard to spot the sad losers among my neighbours, those who actually tune in to the Bin Channel.
It won't work. It will catch the conscientious recyclers who one day accidentally drop a plastic bottle in the bin. The rest of us will simply buy another bin and only put approved or amusing things in the camera bin, then black-bag the lot for the wheelie bin. So it is of no concern at all.
Here's what these academics have in mind. It's the same thing they all have in mind -
Academics at Newcastle University who have pioneered bin-TV say it could be used to 'change the behaviour' of people who refuse to recycle or throw away too much food and packaging.
As usual, it's all about 'changing our behaviour' as if we were their very own pet lab-rats. Hey, you know what? It really works. My behaviour has changed immeasurably since all these ridiculous measures started.
I used to be really easy-going, uninterested in politics, and had no vengeful or malicious traits at all. All of that has now changed as a direct result of the plethora of idiots all forcing their own narrow, weak and pathetic world-views on me.
Well done, academics. Hey, don't worry, the occasional rage-fuelled citizen is of no concern, right?
Next pointless project, please?
Actually I don't even mind paying for these people from my taxes. They are funnier than anything on TV.
No it can't. My face isn't on Facebook although oddly enough, my books are. So I am using the other half of it. I'm on there, twice now, but neither of them are me and neither of them have any photos of my face. Just as well, it would crack your screens.
So if you don't want facebook to tag your face, don't put it on there. They aren't going to come round and photograph you so unless you voluntarily hand over your photo, they'll never be able to tag it. Nothing to worry about.
If you have your face on there, surely that means you want the world to see it, or at least don't mind? So it's not a privacy issue any more than is sending photos of your danglies to all and sundry on Twitter. You can't show the whole world something and then claim an invasion of privacy when they look.
Facebook's face recognition software is of no consequence. I don't even care about face recognition software in airports. I have to show so much ID to get on a plane that they already know when I'm there anyway, so the face recognition cameras are futile.
On the street... no, I don't care. They can track my inconsequential shopping habits until they are old and grey. Let them waste their time. If I ever get up to something nefarious, they won't see me. I've been homeless, I can adopt that look again (actually I have never completely escaped that look), and the homeless are invisible. Facial recognition software - a total waste of everyone's time and money.
Even more absurd is the latest idea from Nottingham's alleged academics. A camera that records what you put in your bin and relays the photos to a Facebook page where your neighbours can see what you're throwing away. I remember a day when 'academic' meant something other than 'total fucking moron with less brain than a retarded sea-squirt' but times change, I suppose. There was a time when 'expert' meant 'actually having some idea what they were talking about' too. Ah, the old days.
What kind of sad, pathetic individual has so little in their lives that they can find entertainment in watching someone else's bin fill up? Don't they have some drying paint to supervise?
I really hope this catches on. If it does, I will get hold of an old shop-window mannequin, some acrylic paints and a load of ketchup. Watch my bin fill, people! I'll save the head for last, after I've drilled out the eyes. I'm sure the local abbatoir can spare me some pig intestines too. It won't be hard to spot the sad losers among my neighbours, those who actually tune in to the Bin Channel.
It won't work. It will catch the conscientious recyclers who one day accidentally drop a plastic bottle in the bin. The rest of us will simply buy another bin and only put approved or amusing things in the camera bin, then black-bag the lot for the wheelie bin. So it is of no concern at all.
Here's what these academics have in mind. It's the same thing they all have in mind -
Academics at Newcastle University who have pioneered bin-TV say it could be used to 'change the behaviour' of people who refuse to recycle or throw away too much food and packaging.
As usual, it's all about 'changing our behaviour' as if we were their very own pet lab-rats. Hey, you know what? It really works. My behaviour has changed immeasurably since all these ridiculous measures started.
I used to be really easy-going, uninterested in politics, and had no vengeful or malicious traits at all. All of that has now changed as a direct result of the plethora of idiots all forcing their own narrow, weak and pathetic world-views on me.
Well done, academics. Hey, don't worry, the occasional rage-fuelled citizen is of no concern, right?
Next pointless project, please?
Actually I don't even mind paying for these people from my taxes. They are funnier than anything on TV.
Fun with fools.
I confess. I've always done it. It wasn't malicious, although playing with the idiots was good practice for the now-definitely-malicious attacks I make on the antismokers.
I've convinced people that cows can climb trees, that the long fur on Highland cattle is reserved to be woven into curtains for Glasgow tenements, that sheep have burrows they can hide in when it rains, and that pigs cannot be allowed in graveyards because they'll dig up the corpses and eat them.
All in fun, well, I enjoyed myself anyway.
I have never thought to tell an idiot that the one-uddered cow would appreciate a particularly vigorous milking. Or this, ah, this is brilliant -
Three out of ten people questioned could not identify the red triangular road sign for frogs or toads crossing – with one in six believing it means ‘beware of frogs’.
Beware of frogs! Fantastic! I didn't do that, the idiots did it all by themselves. They also think milk comes from bulls. That means they think milk is... yeuk. Stick with the espresso, give the latte a miss.
It's not really fair, of course. When I was a kid I kept mice and lizards and tadpoles and frogs and sticklebacks and newts and never once went near a pet shop. None of that would be allowed now and even if it is, most people believe it isn't. Kids found in a stream with a little net would no doubt soon see black-clad armed men abseiling down from a helicopter. "Put the jam-jar down and back away".
We used to play on open grassland where cows roamed. Have you ever put a banger in a cowpat? The fastest runner was always the one to light it. Parents now would be absolutely horrified at the thought of kids a) near cows, b) tampering with cowshit, c) having unsupervised fireworks and d) having matches. Yet nobody died and nobody was damaged, aside from the parental damage inflicted when coming home splattered in crap.
So okay, these idiots didn't make themselves idiots. Political correctness did that. Treating children as porcelain dainties did it. Defending them from the dreaded Outside World did it.
Oh, and taking most of the useful stuff out of schools did it too. Why, I'll bet they leave school nowadays not even knowing how to make gunpowder.
They are still idiots though. And I will still torment them. Because it's funny.
The most vicious torments I reserve for the antismokers.
I've convinced people that cows can climb trees, that the long fur on Highland cattle is reserved to be woven into curtains for Glasgow tenements, that sheep have burrows they can hide in when it rains, and that pigs cannot be allowed in graveyards because they'll dig up the corpses and eat them.
All in fun, well, I enjoyed myself anyway.
I have never thought to tell an idiot that the one-uddered cow would appreciate a particularly vigorous milking. Or this, ah, this is brilliant -
Three out of ten people questioned could not identify the red triangular road sign for frogs or toads crossing – with one in six believing it means ‘beware of frogs’.
Beware of frogs! Fantastic! I didn't do that, the idiots did it all by themselves. They also think milk comes from bulls. That means they think milk is... yeuk. Stick with the espresso, give the latte a miss.
It's not really fair, of course. When I was a kid I kept mice and lizards and tadpoles and frogs and sticklebacks and newts and never once went near a pet shop. None of that would be allowed now and even if it is, most people believe it isn't. Kids found in a stream with a little net would no doubt soon see black-clad armed men abseiling down from a helicopter. "Put the jam-jar down and back away".
We used to play on open grassland where cows roamed. Have you ever put a banger in a cowpat? The fastest runner was always the one to light it. Parents now would be absolutely horrified at the thought of kids a) near cows, b) tampering with cowshit, c) having unsupervised fireworks and d) having matches. Yet nobody died and nobody was damaged, aside from the parental damage inflicted when coming home splattered in crap.
So okay, these idiots didn't make themselves idiots. Political correctness did that. Treating children as porcelain dainties did it. Defending them from the dreaded Outside World did it.
Oh, and taking most of the useful stuff out of schools did it too. Why, I'll bet they leave school nowadays not even knowing how to make gunpowder.
They are still idiots though. And I will still torment them. Because it's funny.
The most vicious torments I reserve for the antismokers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)