Do I still get the Wellies?.......

Our tea break chat was the usual "the job's shit, the company's shit" banter and after a brief pause I said "yeah, but you know what, Tom? I bet we'll still be here in 10 yrs doing the same shit & moaning about it".

"Not you, Rich. You'll be dead from stress by then".

I had to concede he was probably right..... 

"I don't know why you do it to yourself? why do people get so stressed? All we do is make sponge puddings....... badly".

"Well you're a fine one to talk" I countered: "You're not exactly Mr Calm are you?"

"I won't die of stress, I'll die in a high speed (motor)bike accident. Probably smack into some old dear and go flying off into a ditch at 100mph screaming....

"Tell Rich he can have my wellllllllies!!"

"Anyway" I said, "neither of us are going to die young because when you see young people who've died, on the news, they were always nice people. We're not nice. We're cunts. So we'll still be here".......

And so, several years later, on the day that Tom is laid to rest, I'm reminded that however shit things may be, there are people who would give everything just to be here............ 

And also:

1) My theory of 'only nice people die young' maybe flawed....

2) I maybe due a pair a Wellies....

3) Tom's, Quiche Vat '10year Service Award' suicide pact is still a possibility for me....

John Cleese creates Black Hole?......

Today we may have reached an Event Horizon.

The world of free speech and more importantly, humour, may be about to disappear into a Black Hole to form a singularity of the 'professionally offended'.

After the arrest of Oscar Pistorius, John Cleese posted on Twitter that, Pistorius will claim "being legless as his defence". A pretty harmless, albeit obvious, joke. Some people, as is now the norm, took great offence (for various reasons) to his joke & sent message after message telling him so. A day later, Cleese posted an apology for his "naughty" tweet. More messages from the offended and another day later, Cleese posts the following:

" Explanation required: Someone made the comment. I said yeah we should tweet that – sarcastically. Misunderstood "

I've always admired Cleese and the rest of the Pythons because they pushed the boundaries of Comedy. They continually fought against the 'establishment' to get their material out without being censored or dumbed down incase 'people were upset or offended'.

The scene below from The Life of Brian is one of my favourites. The whole subject of the scene is so relevant today and Cleese is brilliant as the increasingly frustrated voice of reason.......



I hoped that Cleese would show some of the balls that the Python's had back in the 60s & 70s and told these offended twats to fuck the fuck off...... But, he's been beaten into an apology (of sorts).

Is this the 'Star' collapsing and therefore the start of the Black Hole.........

Now then, now then......

So an EDM in the Houses of Parliament, numerous apologetic statements from the BBC and Police.... Jimmy Savile is guilty then, yeah?
Well actually, no.
When did it become acceptable for the mass hysteria surrounding this story to be reported as FACT?. When did it become acceptable for everyone to assume someone's guiltily from 'allegations' alone?

It didn't.

But then this is different isn't it?..... because he's dead?...... No.

Because, there are a great many people who KNOW he is guilty. People who were enablers and were directly involved. A lid has been kept on this because to 'out' Jimmy years ago would've been catastrophic for those involved. Jimmy would've opened one fuck off big can of worms.
Now he's gone, it's easier for all those involved to pin it all on him.
Don't expect the investigations and inquiries to conclude anything else....

The truth is that (IMHO), Jimmy Savile was part of an elite Paedophile network.

"It was a different time a different era"
"He was a predator"
"We were naive"
"Things have changed since then"

And of course the classic......

"Lessons have been learned"

Bullshit.

Olym-pics

Imagine if these 2 got married......

Race Retards

First tweet looked like a joke (albeit desperate) to get a RT, turns out the Bloke was serious. Bet all the 'Black' people who suffer 'true racism' are so proud..…

How the Jubilee Concert could've been so much better.....

Opening:
Crowd chants "Slayer Slayer Slayer Slayer....."
There are loud rumbling noises with echoes of gunfire and loud explosions.... Then Tom Araya screams "Chemical Warfare!!!"
Moshpit mentalness ensues.....

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vhYvpBb8wh0

Ending:
Dr Dre, Snoop Dogg & a hologram of Princess Diana sing "Can a Nigga get a table dance"......

Bieber

Happy Easter

Testing

Testing testing......

Absent Fathers are no better than drink-drivers - Really?!

Dear Mr Cameron,

How would you 'define' an absent father?

Perhaps you should think about and indeed answer this question before calling on society to treat so-called 'absent fathers' as little more than scum.

Ask my ex-wife and many of her friends/associates about me and no doubt they would call me an absent father. I walked of the family home years ago, but not because I didn't want to be a father.

Yesterday (father's day), I was supposed to spend the day with my child, but according to the mother she wasn't feeling well. Maybe that was geniunely the case, or maybe the fact that 2 days before I refused to pay off some of the mother's debts had something to do with it?...........

When parents separate, the 'state' and 'law' is overwhelmingly in favor of mothers.
Mothers invaribly do not work and so receieve full legal aid. The best that fathers who work can hope for is legal help, which is based on thier disposable income. If you're earning the 'national average wage', you could receive up to £800 in legal help. With a solicitor and/or legal advisor charging £50 - £175 per hour, £10 for letters and £15 for a 20min phone call, £800 doesn't last long. This is a fact that is used and abused by mothers, who can drag out the legal processes to the extent that the fathers run out of of money long before anything can be arranged with regards to the children. With no money to be able to fund a competent solicitor, father's rights and options are near enough non-existent. There are mediation options which can be provided free and/or at a greatly reduced rate, but mothers are not compelled by law to attend - and so usually do not.
 Even if fathers have the money to take things through the courts, mothers can drag things out so that the fathers are virtually bankrupted. Then, even if an agreement is reached, the mother can just ignore it and make up all sorts of excuses as to why. The onus is then on the father to take the mother back to court - this can be upto 4 or 5 times until the courts will actually impose any threats of arrest etc on the mother (not forgetting that each time you go to court the father will have to pay, in full, for legal representation whilst the mother would get full legal aid).
 Once father's have lost thier legal options they can be systemactically removed from thier children's lives by the mother. The mother can move to the other side of the country and this can be completely funded by the state. Mothers can even move to another country - all without the father's permission. Father's can't even take their children abroad for a holiday without the mother's permission! Fathers can be banned from any involvment with thier child's education and health at the mother's behest, all supported by the local education/health authorities.

Here are some interesting facts for you:
Occurring to a man:
Be divorced 53%
Be divorced by wife using fabricated grounds 24%
Lose custody of his children 24%
Lose his home 39%
Lose a significant proportion of life savings 49%
Not receive legal aid 64%
Have false allegations made against him 58%
Be the victim of malpractice's in his legal case 87%
Suffer obstruction to contact with his children 61%
Suffer stress 83%
Will not remarry (surprise, surprise!!) 77%

Assets : man to woman - (average)
Transferred at marriage - £9913
Transferred at divorce - £18804 (that's right, women get 100% more for getting divorced!)

Then of course we have the CSA. They can take at least 15% of the father's 'take home pay' and hand it straight to the mother, even if the father has been totally cut out of thier child's life. Fair? - What would you say if I told you that you had to pay 15% of your take home pay to me to pay for my Ferrari, but you're not allowed to even see it, let alone drive it?
 Also, some men have money taken from them even though they are not the fathers. But because some woman says they're the Dad they have to pay. But what about a DNA test? I hear you cry. You need the mother's permission to have it done or (you guessed it) you have to go to court to get it done. Even then, men can still have money taken off them until the DNA results are confirmed and if it's proven that he isn't the father, there is no guarantee that he'll get his money back.

Some more interesting facts for you:
CSA father employment rate 55% (normal rate 87%)
Number of fathers unemployed because of CSA < or = 32%
Number of CSA related suicides 39 (1993-1996)
Average accuracy rate of calculated payments 34% accurate

So, Mr Cameron..... all of your 'ideas' (so far) seem to revolve around fathers being in relationships with the mother: Tax breaks for couples, relationship support to prevent breakdowns and health visitors to support families (because of course the nanny-state knows best).
So, what about when relationships - no matter what - do breakdown?
Any chance of some support for the fathers then?...........

Wise words.......

My two favourite things..........

In these days of austerity......

Cost of keeping a Prison inmate - £40,000.
Cost of a Prison inmate getting his throat slashed - £100,000.
Cost of buying big Barry on D-Wing a decent set of Kitchen Devils - Priceless

(or £20 in Argos).

Unbelievable....... oh, actually (in today's Wonderfully Great Britain) it's not.

Riddle me this.......

I am not allowed by Law to protect myself.
If I am found to be carrying a Gun or Knife by the Police, I would be arrested.
I've been advised in the past that I should keep a ball next to the Baseball bat that I have, as on it's own the Bat can be regarded by the Police as an offensive weapon!
If I put broken glass on my garden wall to stop people stealing my patio furniture, I could be arrested!
I once knew someone who was charged with GBH for punching a man (who attacked his mate & girlfriend) just once in the face. The reason the Police tried to charge him with GBH? He was a black belt in Karate and an accomplished Kick Boxer, so in the Police's view his hands were offensive weapons - I shit you not!! (he eventually got  charged with common assault).

Anyway the point is; we are not allowed to defend ourselves, so that means it's upto the Police to do it for us. So if they fail, we can sue thier arses off, yeah?.......

NO.

So to be clear; if someone comes up to me and slashes my throat I cannot sue the Police for not protecting me......

Can anyone please explain then, why a fucking mudering cunt of a paedophile is being allowed to sue the Prison service for not protecting him?!!

Erm, WHAT THE FUCK?!!

Met Commissioner: "I cannot guarantee photography guidelines will be rightly interpreted"


The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson has reaffirmed street photography rights at a Metropolitan Police Authority Committee meeting last week, but was unable to guarantee that all police officers would interpret the law in the right way.

Okay, then Mr Stephenson. I'm afraid that I cannot guarantee that I will correctly interpret the law and therefore cannot be held accountable for my actions - just like your dickhead Officers...... 

Source