Saturday, 26 July 2014

Many English people support a yes vote.

The polls show that a majority of English people in Scotland will vote no to independence, but as always the devil is in the detail. The detail here is that the bulk of English population is made up of middle class types who have an economic interest if keeping hold of the Union. That's not the case for all of us, however.

I was in my local Asda earlier today and since the place was quiet I got to chat with the checkout girl. From her accent she was obviously a Londoner, and she told me that she had moved up here a year ago, which is the same amount of time that I have been in Scotland. She explained that along with her boyfriend they had just bought a two-bedroom flat with a garden and parking space for £72,000, "and in London you can't get a garage for that," she said.

The girl went on to explain that she gets annoyed at the TV because all the reports about London only talk about the rich, and everyone forgets the native London working class who are being forced out of their city. When her boyfriend suggested that they cut their losses and move to his home town she agreed with alacrity.

I told her that I was voting yes in September and she nodded her head and said that so was she.

This story can be repeated across Edinburgh when it comes to English working class people who have had a bellyful of a country that has become the Land of Dopey Tories, especially in the South. To make matters worse, although Ed Miliband clearly has his heart in the right place, he still has to think about all those aspirational  scrotes in Southern England, the types who wanked over Thatcher and then drooled for Blair. They cannot be ignored in England, but in Scotland they do not exist, so I can well understand the people who move north to be in a country that reminds them of what England once was before it all went pear-shaped.

Let's hope that a miracle occurs and we can wake up on the 19th September and know that we now live in that part of North Britain that is free of Tory rabble and the  arsewipes who support them.

Friday, 25 July 2014

Sunday Sport Spurt Guide



Standards are slipping at the Sunday Sport which led to editor Nick Appleyard objecting strongly to a headline which read: "MAN LOSES B*LLOCKS BUT DOCS SAVE HIS BELL-END!" To quote from the all-departments e-mail that went out: "Bollocks is NOT censored, even in headlines, and who the hell puts a hyphen in bellend?"

Just to make sure that the Spurt never lets the organ's standards slip again, the following style guide was helpfully enclosed:

SHIT: Full out in copy and in headlines
FUCK: F**k in copy and in headlines
CUNT: C**t in copy and headlines
WANK: Full out in copy, w**k in headlines
TWAT: Full out in copy, tw*t in headlines
COCK: Full out in copy and in headlines
BOLLOCKS: Full out in copy and in headlines
BELLEND: One word, full out in copy and headlines

Cheers: Popbitch

Tuesday, 22 July 2014

The day a pussy got her revenge


You have to laugh at the things women get up to, especially when they go all hysterical, as Dave Foster (35) can testify. Karen Gibson (33) is his now ex-girlfriend who discovered that our Dave had slipped a length to her best friend, so she through a girly wobbler and created a banner which accused the poor bloke of fingering cats. She then went to the trouble of stringing it out on a bridge over the A500, near where it joins the M6 at Crewe.

For six hours last Wednesday the banner hung over the road where it was seen by thousands of drivers. It even featured on Twitter with people trying to figure out who Dave Foster was and why he fingered cats.

Dave takes up the story: “I started to get calls on my mobile from mates who had seen the sign and were wondering why I’d taken to fingering cats. As soon as I heard about it, I knew that Karen had found out I’d shagged her mate. When I called her, she put the phone down on me. I think she was a bit upset."



Typical, isn't it? He goes to all the trouble to call the girl up and because she's feeling a bit upset she doesn't want to talk to the poor fellow. It's always about them as far as today's women are concerned.

We'll let Karen have the last word: “That bastard shagged my best friend. In my book, that’s even worse than fingering a cat. I hope the bastard gets beaten to death by cat activists, or something. The bastard.”

Sunday, 20 July 2014

Yet another social worker writes - or does he?

Last week this blog was pretty much inundated with social work types, all screaming abuse at your truly for refusing to take seriously their pathetic demands that I stop treating them as parasitic, lower middle class scum. Sorry boys and girls, but that is never going to happen.

Needless to say, being complete and utter fucktards who have nothing better to do with their working lives than spend long hours reading this blog, many of them left comments on very old postings. I am not sure why they did that, but whenever anyone is dealing with a social worker it is always best to keep in mind just how utterly useless they are at everything they do, so leaving one idiotic rant on one post and then making a follow up comment on another is pretty much par for the course from a social worker.

That said, this comment which I reproduce in full below is somewhat different. It's as stupid as anything else that any of these parasites have ever written, but I have my doubts about is veracity. I will explain why in a moment, but for now the comment appeared on a very popular post from 2013 which explained that Femen is not actually a genuine feminist movement, instead it is a stooge organisation that was set up by a man who wanted his very own harem.

Hello Mr Bell. Thank you for posting my comment and thank you for your reply. Ignoring the predictably Americanised nature of your chosen terms of abuse, let me explain to you why I object to some of your postings. You seem to think it is acceptable to comment on women's physical appearance in terms of their attractiveness to you, which is classic male arrogance and sexism. Reducing a feminist political protest to an opportunity to leer lecherously at a photograph of topless women is itself crass. Having the sheer temerity to add comments about the slight variation (from an idealised, male-dictated 'norm') in the body shape of one of the protesters is rude, adolescent and unnecessary. It attempts to reassert the thousands of years of male control of women's bodies which feminism has been challenging for decades. The general tone of your postings on women is a curious combination of 'Carry On' style adolescent leering and misogynistic hatred, neither of which are appropriate in this day and age. Finally, a word about the terms you choose as insults which are, in my view, deeply revealing of the precise natuire (sic) of your mysogny (sic). The term 'pussy-whipped' conflates together the vagina and violence. Does this perhaps indicate a deep-seated fear of women in general and their vaginas in particular on your part? The suiggestion (sic) that I am 'dickless' is equal;ly (sic) interesting as dicklessnes (sic) in itself is usually an indication of femaleness. The fact that you actually believe a state of dicklessness is inferior to a state of dickedness indicates that it is noeither (sic) certain women nor certain attiutudes (sic) that offfend (sic) you but women themselves. You are clearly afraid of women and this fear translates into hatred. This is classic mysogny (sic). It may not be your fault that you are a mysogynist (sic) (as a social worker I understand that people are largely the products of their environment) but it is unbecoming to flaunt this ugly trait in public.

Yeah, I know, on the surface it is inane isn't it? Not only that, but it looks as if the dickhead who wrote it didn't even read my post properly. Remember that it was about the fact that Femen is a stooge outfit, so only an idiot could then go on to claim that the group's antics are part of serious politics. Now you might say that feminism as a whole is nothing more than a bourgeois pose that is adopted by ugly women who hate men more than they hate other women, but that is not the point, is it?  

Then we have the spelling mistakes,especially the fact that the writer cannot even spell "misogyny" correctly. Again, we take that as being normal from a social worker because we just assume that as a breed they  are semi-educated buffoons with a desire for status who use big words to make themselves feel important.

Yet, there is something wrong with this comment which leads me to believe that it is not genuine social work wank, but instead a rather engaging bit of trolling. In other words, this writer is not as stupid as he tries to pretend, being someone who sat down, presumably with a cigarette in his mouth and cup of tea steaming at his elbow, to give us some stereotypical social work spurt to amuse himself.

Why do I think that? Mainly because it is too perfect an example of how these clowns write. It is as if someone went over to a social work site and grabbed a few ideas from the genuine dickheads. Then he sat down and covered everything in one paragraph. It's a Daily Mail idea of social work, in other words, and very funny for all that.

Now, we had better just hope that this theory is correct. If it isn't, and if this is a genuine social worker, then the need to organise ourselves to pressure the political parties to stop providing employment for these sub-normals is rather more pressing that I ever imagined.

Thursday, 17 July 2014

A social worker writes...

There are many things that are amusing about the social work industry, but the one aspect of them which has me chuckling with great glee is their puerile desire for respect that comes coupled with a pathetic demand for status. That status is never going to be awarded to them, something which I suspect they know, deep down in their reptilian minds, but it doesn't stop them pleading. 


Yesterday one Gavin Tucker, a social worker in his mid-thirties who works in Havering, decided to leave a comment on this blog which I reproduce here, since it basically proves pretty much everything that I have ever said about these pathetic individuals:

Dear Ken, thought  I would drop you a line as this vehicle for your ego contains so few comments. I am one of the 'filth' who dares to care. I have also read your poorly informed attacks on the Social Work profession. I think you should spend a bit of time with Social Workers and actually find out what they do. You might be surprised, as Social Workers help and protect people everyday. The reality of Social Work is different to the stereotypes you peddle. All your attacks serve to do is align you with those who harm others. You portray the Social Work profession as some kind of secret police, when in fact we are an unfairly maligned profession that is, if anything, disliked by the establishment. I might add also that Social Work contains many talented and bright people, many of whom have previously been supported by Social Work themselves. I might add, just to establish my credentials, that I have two masters degrees and have attended three Russel  Group universities (incl Edinburgh University!). I would be interested to know your credentials. Gavin Tucker 

Just look at this ejaculatory spurt for a moment. When you have finished laughing, consider how outraged Tucker must have been to take the trouble to write this drivel in the first place. Then consider that if I had criticised a genuine profession in the same way that I go after the social work industry the reaction would have been one of bemusement. The true professions are recognised as such by the broader society, thus their members do not have to stake hysterical claims like this because their membership of an elite body is taken as read.

In just two hundred words or so, Tucker felt the need to use the word "profession" three times. That is not making a  case, rather it is the abject pleading of a man who knows, deep down inside, that he is nothing more than the representative of a body that is about as much use as the rats which dwell in a city's sewers. 

You will note that he invites me to engage in a pissing contest with him by posting my academic curriculum vitae on-line. What the fool fails to understand is that this is a political debate about how we allocate resources in our country. My view is that providing employment for the bovine is a good thing, just so long as those mouth breathers leave the rest of us alone. Thus Tucker can social work his mates, write reports that are never implemented and advocate actions that are never taken, but what he should not be able to do is dictate to the rest of us how we live our lives and run our families.

He makes the point that social workers are not secret policemen, and I agree entirely with that view. I had a close encounter of the very unwanted kind with Rhodesian security men in 1977 and many of them had served on the front lines in the brutal war that was then being waged in that country. There is nothing brave about social workers, which is why they take an army of thuggish policemen along when they make their dawn raids on people's houses.

Viewing Tucker's wank overall, I sense a fear  underlying his words; a fear that we may one day wake up to just how much money we squander every year providing cushy numbers for types like him. Our country has many faults, but it is still a mature democracy and the system is flexible enough to accommodate varying demands that are placed upon it. If the people of Scotland can force a referendum on the country's future, and if the people of Britain can push the Tories into promising a referendum on our membership of the EU, it is perfectly possible to push for the destruction of the social work vampires.

As I have said many times before, it only takes political will and British society can be rid of these parasites once and for all. Change the laws and we can then live our lives in peace, and ex-social workers can get used to their new status as employees of McDonald's.

Update: The little retard left another comment as a follow-up to the first. Alas, he left it on an unrelated post, which means that anyone stumbling on it by accident will wonder what the hell he was babbling about. I guess this is all pretty much par for the course from one of these head the balls.

Sunday, 13 July 2014

Great War propaganda in Edinburgh



Pitt Street, in the Leith district of Edinburgh has this long forgotten and now badly damaged reminder of Great War propaganda on one of its buildings. Quite when the bas-relief was created in unclear, but it was most likely about 1915 when atrocity stories about the German army in Belgium were at their height.

Going from left to right, we can see a civilian about to be stabbed by a soldier, then a mother pleading for her baby who is being held by another wicked Hun. Just behind and now barely visible, is another soldier doing something terrible to a woman. As our eyes move to the right we can see what appears to be two civilians, one with a child in her arms and to their right is what appears to be a soldier, who seems to be about to club the two women.

Originally, it looks as if the work formed a triptych, but the other two panels have now been lost with only the spaces that they once occupied remaining on the building:


The German army did behave atrociously in Belgium, with summary executions of civilians deemed to be partisans a common occurrence as the army marched through the country. However, Britain went to war on the legalistic grounds of defending Belgium's neutrality and that was not enough to encourage the young men of the day to volunteer in sufficient numbers, which is probably why the press began a campaign to talk up the atrocities to turn the war into a moral crusade. Hence this rather curious and now sadly ignored work which still just about stands in Edinburgh today. 

Friday, 11 July 2014

Romanian Gypsy Artistry


I came across this Romanian gypsy in Princes Street, Edinburgh. He works with sand, a bottle of water to damp it, and a knife to create his artistry with. The dogs' eyes are glass, but the rest was created from a lump of went sand and a great deal of skill.