Tuesday, 28 July 2015

Introducing the Camerdick!


Introducing the Camerdick photo.

Every now and again you come across a photo that is perfect in every way. One that tells not just a story but myriad stories, thus to be used time and time again for cheap laughs at the expense of a man who is basically a dick with dentures.

Could that be Liz Kendall's hand that is stroking the Camerdick so firmly?

Monday, 27 July 2015

Outrage in Nuneaton as benefit cuts sink in


People in Nuneaton are reported to be outraged as they discover that the Tory plans to reduce benefits by £12 billion pounds will hit them, and not the scroungers, Scots and immigrants that they fondly imagined would be the targets. Across the town, hard working family taxpayers are taking a deep breath, followed by an even deeper gulp, as they realise just how much the Tories have it in for them.

How did the Tories manage to dupe these innocents into voting for them in the first place? My anonymous source in Tory HQ takes up the story:

"It was very easy, she said, licking her lips with the sheer delight of it all. "We just copied the wheeze that worked so well in 1993 with the Child Support Agency and they fell for it hook, line and sinker, just as Dave said they would."

Readers will recall when the Tories made a big fuss about forcing "deadbeat dads" to pay for the whelps that they had spawned on the council estates - at least that was how it was presented as a plank in the 1992 Tory election manifesto. Of course, once the legislation came into force the newly minted agency didn't bother chasing the deadbeats because they didn't have any money. Instead it went after hard working taxpayers who did. 

The Tories were not worried that people would see through this transparent rerun of an old wheeze because as my source explained with a giggle, "They are too stupid for that."

Monday, 20 July 2015

The night Labour betrayed the people who voted for it.

Here's a hollow laugh for you: 184 Labour MPs abstained tonight on the budget vote, which left the Tories to romp home to victory by 184 votes. That's right, had all the Labour MPs, and not just a defiant 48, behaved as an opposition should then it is quite possible that the scummy Tories would have suffered a defeat and been forced to rethink their plans to do over the poor.

The Three Stooges pictured here who all want to become Labour's next leader abstained as well, leaving only the fourth candidate, Jeremy Corbyn, to carry the flag for basic Labour values.

Looking ahead, it is now pretty much odds-on that Corbyn will get a massive boost to his popularity in the leadership stakes and the thought of him actually winning the contest cannot be ruled out. If that happens then he might be able to repair the damage that tonight's grotesque performance did to Labour's reputation. However, that is still a big if...

What Labour did tonight was to tell the millions of people who voted for the party in May this year that they can go and take a running jump. Their political hopes do not count for anything because all Labour is interested in is getting a few more nasty votes from a few more nasty voters in nasty places like Nuneaton.

Next year the people of Scotland and Wales have their own elections and that will be the moment for revenge to be taken against Labour for this ultimate act of betrayal. Labour in Scotland has already pretty much given up any hope of winning the constituency seats, and is pinning its hopes on a good showing for the list contest. On the basis of tonight it is important that those hopes be dashed.

It really is the only language that Labour understands.

Sunday, 19 July 2015

Guest Post: Liberals Don’t Do Tolerance


 Tim Collard was one of our men in Peking for many years before becoming HM Consul-General in Hamburg until his retirement. He is fluent in both German and Mandarin and now forms a part of the Oxford Union in exile which meets up every Wednesday evening in an Edinburgh swill shop to discuss matters of great weight and drink beer. He has resolved to enjoy a long retirement at the expense of the hard working family taxpayers of Nuneaton.

Tim Farron, the newly-elected Liberal Democrat leader, has been targeted with an obvious and predictable cheap-shot. Mr Farron is a declared Christian, with his roots in the evangelical tradition. It is well known that that tradition upholds a fairly conservative line on sexual morality, one into which homosexuality does not – to put it at its mildest – fit comfortably. To sum up, orthodox evangelicals believe that sex outside heterosexual marriage is a sin, though – like other sins – one which is readily forgiven by a merciful God. Knowing this, certain cheap-shot merchants thought it would be funny and/or ‘challenging’ to ask Mr Farron the blunt and crass question “Do you believe that gay sex is a sin?” in the hope that this would make him wriggle amusingly. 

Mr Farron, to his credit, refused to take this rather stodgy bait. He was not prepared to answer. Of course this is a game the shit-wit media can’t lose: if he’d answered, they’d be able to twit him with his answer till Kingdom Come: if not, they could bray “POLITICIAN REFUSES TO ANSWER QUESTION!” until they got bored. (Personally, I’d have asked them precisely how a trend-crazed liberal atheist defines the word “sin”, and persisted until I got a coherent answer: but I, thank God, don’t have to try to get people to vote for me.) Of course Mr Farron made it clear that he did not see it as any part of his faith to force his views on others, and had no intention of changing his party’s impeccably liberal policies: but that wasn’t enough. He was portrayed as sounding homophobic, censorious and, worst of all in Zeitgeistworld, ‘outdated’. (May I solicit the help of all right-thinking persons in expelling that word, and anyone who uses it seriously, from the public discourse? It’s not as if the world of the 21st century is anything to write home about.)

A few years ago, the generally sensible Matthew Parris got his knickers into a fearful twist over precisely this issue. The Italians, who tend on the whole to be not entirely free from Catholic influence, had nominated as a European Commissioner a man with the delightfully appropriate name of Buttiglione. Signor Buttiglione, more candid than Mr Farron felt able to be, said quite simply that he personally endorsed what he saw as the orthodox Catholic belief that homosexual activity was a sin. Not unreasonably, he was then asked whether or not he supported any kind of legal sanctions against homosexuality. Equally clearly and candidly, he stated that he did not, and made a clear distinction between a sin and a crime. This was not enough for Mr Parris, who started to eject the playthings from the perambulator. “I won’t tolerate anyone in authority who won’t tolerate me!” he bawled, completely ignoring the fact that Signor Buttiglione had explicitly committed himself to toleration. What Mr Parris actually meant was that he wasn’t prepared to tolerate anyone disapproving of any aspect of his activities and lifestyle. 

Well, one might say, surely it is understandable to resent people disapproving of one’s private beliefs and actions, particularly in such an intimate sphere? How would I like having my sex life disapproved of by people in positions of authority? Well, I wouldn’t. But then, to be honest, I don’t want anybody, in or out of positions of authority, approving of my sex life either. It is none of their business, or anybody else’s either, apart from mine and that of those with whom I choose to share it. There may be accounts to be settled on the Day of Judgment. All I require in the interim is to be left alone and not subjected to any externally imposed sanctions. 

Let’s get this straight: tolerance involves not interfering with others when they behave in a way of which you disapprove. If you don’t disapprove of anything, you can’t claim to be tolerant. (You’re just one of those people whose minds are so open their brains fall out.) ‘Liberals’ – by which I mean slaves of the Zeitgeist rather than members of Tim Farron’s party – don’t understand tolerance. They think that if you just “tolerate” something that is not enough. You have to approve of it as well. And so, your pukka Zeitgeister liberal approves of everything – except, of course, things that cannot be approved of. And if you disapprove of something, such as smoking tobacco, mentioning the name of God in the public sphere, or using words that someone somewhere has declared taboo, then you jolly well don’t tolerate it either.

Saturday, 18 July 2015

Another Magaluf sex video boosts press circulation


Yet another Magaluf shag video has emerged to put the British press into a lather as they consider the boost that stories like this  have on their circulations.

Unfortunately for most of their readers, none of the dailies who are salivating over this latest tale of everyday Shagaluf life thought fit to include unpixilated stills from the video or even include a link to the actual video itself.

That is not the case with Uncle Ken who knows exactly what his punters want, so here's the video in all its glory:

Friday, 17 July 2015

Yet another Labour attack on the party's own voters

 
Jeremy Corbyn seems to have emerged as a surprise front runner in the Labour leadership election, so it's hardly surprising that the right are queuing up to stick the boot in. Just last night he was attacked on Newsnight for wanting to give "more generous social security payments for people who can work but refuse to work."

That's a good Tory line and one that is sure to appeal to the average Daily Mailoid, but it's a pity that it was given out by Chuka Umunna, who is supposed to be a Labour man.


I could go on but what's the point? You may think that attacking Labour's core voters makes perfect sense as a party strategy, but I can't get my head that far up my arsehole to make sense of it.

Thursday, 16 July 2015

Uniqlo sex video takes China by storm

The web is rocking with laughter over the Uniqlo sex video which emerged just a few hours ago in the West, having taken China by storm. The mocking laughter is not down to the video, albeit it is pretty crap, but to the reaction of the Chinese authorities who are throwing a fit over it. Seems like a tight one as well, although not quite as pleasurable as the one that this little Chinese cracker experienced.

The story as far as we know it involves the Peking branch of Uniqlo, and two couples who decided to join the porn trade by grabbing a video in one of the changing rooms. The video that is going the rounds now only shows one couple fully, with brief snatches of the other. By all accounts the full video runs for eight minutes, but all we have at the moment is the one minute version.

This fairly mild clip has caused the Chinese government to go into full Mrs Grundy mode with one senior censor claiming  "The vulgar video had spread like a virus online and clashed with socialist core values."

How he managed to say that with a straight face in a land that prides itself on the number of rich bastards that it has is anyone's guess, but the rest of the country seems to be sitting back and laughing its collective head off. One cartoonist has already produced a parody of the couple with the heads of the Chinese president and his missus replacing the faces of the real couple.

I suppose after all that you will want to see the video. I also suppose that you are too bone-idle  to go and download it from the torrent sites. 

Go on then, here you go:

video

Tuesday, 14 July 2015

Forget the benefit cuts: fox hunting is what today's left cares about


A week ago we had a budget that aimed to do over as many of the low paid as possible. So pleased were the Tories with this wheeze that Iain Duncan Smith looked as if he was about to shoot his wad right there in the Commons.

Needless to say, instead of joining with the SNP and opposing this budget root and branch, the Labour leadership decided that actually they quite liked doing over the poor as well. Perhaps they would have introduced an amendment to ensure that plenty of lube would be applied to the dildos that were going to split proletarian ring pieces, but on the principle of shafting the poor Labour was on-message.

Labour promptly began an internal argument over just how much of a shafting the working class could be realistically expected to take, but the fight seemed to be very pro forma, at least as far as I could see. It was as if our representatives in England felt the need to go through the motions of opposing what to their constituents was probably the vilest budget in a generation, but their hearts really were not in it.

What Labour needed was something that they could rally around, and the ever obliging Cameron promptly gave it to them in the form of a bill to amend the fox hunting legislation in England and Wales. At once what passes for the left in England began a campaign to pressure the SNP to abandon its long held policy of abstaining on non-Scottish matters and join with Labour to inflict a defeat on the Tories. Foolishly the SNP took the bait, with the result that the measure has now been withdrawn for the time being.

The point is that the Tories are split on this issue and by sitting on the sidelines - and encouraging Labour to do the same - the combined opposition could have enjoyed the sight of an internecine Tory fight that might just have poisoned relations within that odious party for the rest of the parliament.

Instead, the Tories are now more united than ever because Cameron can blame it all on the wicked Scots and their equally anti-English Labour stooges. He will press on with the English votes for English laws legislation, and presumably Labour will either support it, or make only token noises in opposition.

Meanwhile, the population of Britain who are now being quietly forgotten thanks to this fox hunting non-issue are advised to go and stock up on plenty of super-sized tubes of best quality lube.
Views Themes -->