Doing my bit to expose these bastards:

Please Read this PDF...

...And then watch this video.

If you have a blog, I implore you to link to these files - They've already gagged the BBC, but the more bloggers write about it, the less chance they have of gagging us all.

Vigilante Justice.

Oh, the Mail are at it again.

As usual, I'm not linking to the article in question; But today everyone's favourite little haterag is running a story with the following headline:
Millionaire who fought off a knife-wielding burglar is jailed (while the intruder is let off)

Now, obviously, you've just read that and thought "Well, that's awful. Broken Britain, etc etc.", and if you're one of the Mail's usual kneejerk jackasses no doubt you've scrolled straight to the comments page and spewed some ill-informed brainwank all over it about how our country's a joke, then returned to stomping around the garden shouting "Worst country in Europe!" - More on that in a minute. It's written in the Mail's usual shamelessly sensationalist style - Basically what it's saying is "This perfectly decent fella, right? Well, all he did was try to protect his family from this horrible attacker with a knife and got sent to jail - And the burglar, right, he only got let off, didn't he? Bloody broken Britain eh? Bet he got given a free car 'n' all."

But those of us a little more au fait with the Mail's casual attitude to the truth might not be surprised to read the following a few paragraphs in:
Reading Crown Court heard how Mr Hussain and his brother then beat Salem while he lay on the ground, using a cricket bat, a pole and a hockey stick - leaving him with a fractured skull and brain damage following the 'sustained' attack.

Now, Mr Hussain and his Brother aren't the robbers as you might think - no, they're the 'victims' of the British legal system in this case. Mr Salem was in fact the burglar, and while I'm not for one minute condoning burglary, I'm fairly certain he didn't deserve to be bludgeoned with a cricket bat until he received brain damage - To me, that's using a hammer to crack a nut. Or a chunk of wood to crack a skull, more precisely.

Oh, did I mention that the attack didn't even occur on Mr Hussain's property? That's right, they chased him down the frigging road before shattering a cricket bat over his head.

Now I'm sorry, but does this not seem a touch excessive to anyone?

Well apparently it does to a few readers of the Mail:
I wish people would think sometimes. No one is saying that you shouldn't defend yourself, but these people took it too far. They battered the criminal when he was running away. I know I would have given him a good thump if I had caught up with him, but they went one step too far.

I know people will disagree with me but who cares, I don't.

Typical rabid comments by the DM brigade, the guy wasn't in any danger when he caught the burglar he wasn't even in his own property but still caved his skull in with a cricket bat.

The verdict is just.

There'a prize to anyone who can guess whether they're the best or worst rated.

No, I'm joking; Everybody already knows the answer. That's right, they've been red marked into oblivion.

That first comment? in the 52 minutes since this article went up, it's managed to muster itself a score of -954. That's right, a person who suggested that damn near killing a man might have overstepped the mark has been discounted by nearly a thousand people. The best rated comment?
What a joke our justice system is.

I'd have killed the intruders with no hestitation if they threatened to kill any memeber of my family!

Those lowlife criminals are lucky to be alive!

Riiiiight. These people, who are so opposed to Sharia Law and the "Islamification" of this country, want to punish this man with death. Now, true enough, he was responsible for tying up and threatening a family, but in what world should that punishable by vigilante murder with a blunt object?

On the subject of Sharia law, that was also bought up in the comments (As you can probably guess, the people involved in the story are Muslims) - Not that any of the commenters bothered to find out whether the people involved believe in Hadd Offenses or not, just the fact that they're Muslims is obviously enough to decide that hands should be removed and stones should be flung by a bunch of sheltered, bigotted rightwing numpties that basically just want the right to shoot brown people if they come anywhere near their houses.

These same people also wrote letters that were read out in court, defending Mr Hussain. That's right; Daily Mail readers wrote letters defending a man who had recently chased another through the street and nearly ended his life.

You couldn't make it up.



I'm a few days late on this one, but give me a chance; I don't often read psychotically self obsessed BBC hating blogs that complain about things like a retired old colonel, simultaneously wetting himself and flinging ash from his pipe across the room as he barks at the telly - I'm usually too busy reading my own. Naked. As I stare at myself in the mirror.

So, the other day, Marcus Brigstocke had a bit of a rant about Daily Mail Rent-a-Quote Public interest group The Taxpayer's Alliance on a Radio 4 show. Now, I don't know your opinion of the TPA, but it's fair to say that if you're reading my blog you probably think roughly the same way as me (And by extension, Mister Brigstocke):- As such, you probably think The Taxpayers Alliance are a bunch of cunts who exist purely to add a little bile to stories in the Daily Mail when something state-funded does anything other than kicking a Labour PM to the ground and stamping on his fingers with a giant jack-booted foot.

So now, you're probably thinking "Good work, Marcus. Give yourself a pat on the back." I know I am.

But of course, there are also people who don't think like you or I: Stuffy people who send their entire life incandescent with rage about how the government spend their money unless they're forcing it down the throats of the middle class so hard you'd think they're making Fois Gras; People who would rather set fire to their own genitals than burn currency. These people love the Tax Payer's Alliance, because every time one of them ejaculates their latest brainsquizz over the faces of eager journalists, it just serves to add to their view that Britain is stumbling drunkenly towards a pit full of knife crime, ASBOs and Sharia law - or, in the case of the blog being discussed today, have a bizarre delusion that because the BBC is state funded, it means they can wander through the halls of Broadcasting house wearing only a shirt and socks, hiring and firing anyone who displeases them - Which is quite often everyone.

I'm not in the way of linking to this tat, but if you want to read it, Google "Burning Our Money", and it's the first hit, the entry is dated Dec 6th.

In this post, Wat Tyler (Clever name, Wat) has heard that Brigstocke has said some nasty things about the TPA, and as a result is struggling to contain the steam pouring out of his ears because he's realised that he is personally paying for this outrage. The BBC, it would appear, specifically kept Tyler's TV licence money back in an envelope labeled "Brigstocke" see, and every time he says something they like, they chuck him a fiver like you'd throw a seal a fish, just to annoy Wat.

Seriously, what kind of selfish cretin says this:

...But please don't ask me to pay for it. I don't find Brigstocke remotely funny, and I wouldn't dream of paying to see him.

Unfortunately, the tax-funded BBC doesn't give me a choice. It forces me to pay the telly tax, and then uses a chunk of it to employ this dire big government "comedian". Not only that, but it also gives him a national platform to hector and insult the growing number of us who are sick of being ripped off to pay for things we just don't want. Like Brigstocke.

I was going to write a list of the people I don't like on the BBC here, but on reflection, it would take far too long. I hate everyone on Strictly Come Dancing, I hate Eastenders and I hate Graham Norton. But, at the same time, I know that millions of other people across the country enjoy watching these things, and as a result I don't go stomping my feet demanding they be taken off the air because I don't like them - I also enjoy shows that I know other people don't like as well. Unfortunately Mr Tyler, the world revolves around neither you, nor your demands that people you dislike be taken off the air, and as a result you can throw as many toys out of your pram as you like, because as you state yourself, there is a market for what Brigstocke said, and so long as the BBC are providing the public (Who are paying for it, don't forget) an opportunity to hear it, they're doing exactly what they should be - Giving the public what they want. I don't like Frankie Boyle, in fact I think he's one of the worst comedians in the country, but so long as enough people want to see him, the BBC are doing their job by putting him on telly. Oh, and I'm sorry to burst your bubble Wat, but the BBC do give you a choice whether you watch Brigstocke or not. They have four TV channels, countless radio stations and the most reliable news website I've ever used. Or, you could watch another channel, as the BBC is so full of evil lefties coming to chuck your licence fee into the sea then kick your car in.

True enough, Brigstocke was born into a life of money and privilege, I'm not going to disagree with facts; But what is plain to see is that he is not "decrying those who seek to create wealth for themselves", because he can see the Taxpayer's alliance for what they are, a bunch of bitter, miserable, people eager to offer backup to whatever lies are splurged across the right-wing press on any given day of the week, and as someone born into a life like he was, it's refreshing to see that money is not, in fact, the most important thing to him. In fact, knowing that Marcus was born into money but stands for socialism has suddenly made me respect a great deal more.

And finally - This is more of a personal gripe than anything else - please don't put the word comedian in quote marks just because you disagree with what he's saying - Brigstocke has been very successful at making people laugh on TV, radio and stage - And as a result, he is a fine example of a comedian. True enough, I'm not a huge fan of his, but while people like Jim Davidson and Roy Brown are called comedians, I think it's a little harsh to demean someone's profession just because YOU don't like it. I don't call you a "blogger" just because I think what you say is tripe.

I'll stop doing something other than defending comedians soon, promise.


Defending Paddy McGuinness.

Paddy Mcguinness is "under fire". The cheeky Northern comedian is under attack, apparently.

Why is he under attack? Why, because of disgraceful things he said to the queen, of course.

Who has he come under attack from? Why, everyone, of course. Everyone in the world, according to some reports. Phillip wanted to throw a little darkie child at him halfway through his set, from what I gather - Although even I thought the bit where he wrote "Osama bomb here" on the side of Buckingham Palace in his own shit live via satellite was a bit much. And then that bit where he stamped on a swan until it was just a boot-smashed stain on the boards of the stage was well over the line.

Oh, wait, that's not what happened?

What? It's only the Mail picking on him, because they're humourless fuckers who're fine with claiming that freedom of speech is a human right when you're provably making up lies about black people, but will demand death for anyone caught speaking to the Queen without saluting, bowing, curtsying, singing the national anthem and thrashing yourself with wet reeds?

Suddenly, it all makes sense.

In an article that I'm not going to link to for fear of actually giving that pissy hate rag the clicks, Simon Cable has decided that jokes that have been around for years and years (And as such are capable of offending nobody) are the absolute height of hideousness, and that ITV must act quickly to Ban This Filth Now.

So, what did McGuinness say? How many times did he suggest that the queen takes it up the arse, or cack in a bowl onstage, then rub it in his hair?

None. None at all.

What he actually did, according to the Mail article, was make reference to a pointer he was using with the line "I know what you're thinking, I've got a small pointer."

Now, I'll give you chance to pick yourselves up off your chairs, and I understand if some of you might want to Dettol your eyes after reading that, but I'm afraid it gets worse.

He then went on to say 'You may be the Queen of our country, but we've got our own queen here in the north. Paul O'Grady.'

I'm afraid you're going to hell now, just for reading that line.

It would appear that the Mail has forgotten, but some of you with memories longer than thirty seconds and with some understanding of irony will remember that Paul O'Grady made his name as Lily Savage, an act where he dressed as a woman. Otherwise known as being a DRAG QUEEN. That's QUEEN. QUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN.

Essentially, what McGuiness said there isn't even a joke (Much like most of his material - fnar, fnar), it's a statement of fact. Paul O'Grady is a man from the north of England who became famous as a drag queen, and many people know and respect him for his work as an entertainer.

Now, I'm not going to say McGuinness is funny for one minute; I think he's a less interesting, less charming version of Peter Kay (And you might already know what I think about him), but that isn't the point of the story. At the end of the day, the Queen is eighty six years old, she's seen more of the world than just about any of us ever will and produced children herself, so does anybody actually believe that some tired sexual innuendo is actually going to offend her?

Well, it would seem that the Mail think it will, although all they can drum up in the way of support for their story is this lukewarm statement from one audience member:

'He really pushed it with some of those jokes, especially in front of the Queen.'

'Some of it was just toilet humour, not what you'd expect at a show like the Royal Variety Show. It was slightly disrespectful.'

Not exactly a flowing torrent of anger, is it? The rest of the article focuses on the Mail failing to find somebody else to say that the act was offensive, but managing to discover that the show would be cut down to fit it's on-air slot (Like just about everything else, ever), and that McGuinness' act might be cut to fit pre-watershed guidelines.

So now the goalposts have moved, haven't they? To begin with, what McGuinness said was "crude" and "lurid", but within a few hundred words it has become "possibly not suitable for pre-watershed viewing although we're not really sure yet", and all a spokesperson for Mediawatch managed to say was 'I'd like to think ITV will take all the necessary steps to make sure that the Royal Variety Show is suitable for a pre-watershed audience' - Which yet again, doesn't indicate that anything McGuinness said might have made the queen cry; Later on in the show, one of Diversity could have violently castrated himself with an axe for all I know, and I'd like to think that they'd cut that before putting it on telly, just the same as if Alexandra Burke had held up a side reading "Kidnap Children" during her dance routine.

For a paper obsessed with being "Anti-PC" and constantly wailing that freedom of speech is being curtailed in this country, the Mail does a fine line in picking on comedians when they dare to push the boundaries (Or in this case, make some tired old jokes about willies), don't they? I mean, when you consider that as far as they're concerned, Rod Liddle is allowed to lie about crime figures because it his job to "provoke", surely getting all pissy about a couple of unfunny jokes is a slightly unjustified reaction, really?

Luckily, at time of writing, there are no comments on this article; I can already imagine all the hugely promoted "Send him to the tower, Gor blimey" comments that are likely to crop up throughout the day as the Mail's readers feel the need to vomit their own middle class frustrations all over the internet in the form of barely disguised racism and humourless fucknuttery.



"State-owned Royal Bank Scotland reportedly wants to pay a total of £1.5bn in bonuses to investment banking staff, and the board has threatened to quit if the government blocks the move."

Forget immigrants, Muslims, knife crime, the NHS, feral youths, the EDL, benefit fraud, Jordan and Peter, the BNP, mosques, Christian Extremism, 'Elf 'n' Safety, PC-Gawn-Mad and crooked coppers, THIS is what is wrong with this country today.

I find it extremely childish that these people, arguably directly responsible for the recession that we're still battling through, and only employed because of a £117bn payout by the taxpayer, are threatening to leave their jobs if they're not allowed to give each other bonuses quite likely bigger than my year's salary in their usual annual mutual cash-wank.

Actually, no; I find it sickening. Physically vomit-making. Whatever my opinion of the BNP, at least they could argue that what they stand for is for the good of the country (I'd like to point out that I don't agree with them, before my blog ends up being touted as Right Wing Extremist propaganda dressed up as hand-wringing leftiness), whereas these turds are simply doing things for their own means, and to hell with the consequences for literally everyone else in the country.

And as such, I hope people take it in turns to wee through their letterboxes and do poos down their chimneys, I really do. I know it's not exactly a newsflash (EXTRA: Top bankers are greedy, soulless, immoral cunts!), but surely even they must see that what they want to do is akin to borrowing a tenner off your mum, then waggling your dick in her dinner when she asks for it back - It's unfair, it's selfish, and it's not exactly the best way to curry favour with a British public who are already very, very annoyed with you. Let's be honest, you're going to wake up one of the richest people in the country and go to bed one of the richest people in the country as well; spare a thought for those on 12-13k or less who didn't get a Christmas bonus last year because of the giant dog's dinner you made of things. Did those people quit, or threaten to bugger off to another country? No, and that's because they were damned glad of their jobs, and unfortunately they didn't have the luxury of snarling up an entire country's economy and then fucking off to another country when they're asked to take some responsibility for doing so. I don't get a bonus unless I hit 130% of my targets, and even then, if I achieve this all year, I get an extra £3k before tax - Not a bad bonus by any stretch of the imagination, but I work damned hard in order to get that, and I'd imagine that if I had a hand in destroying the company, my boss would be less than keen to give me anything other than a kick in the nose.

It's reasonably well known that Britain's economy is based on Financial services; that's why we're the only G20 country still in a recession - But isn't it time that these horrible bastards owned up to what they did and started taking some responsibility for it, rather than leaving it to us? They've already proved that they can do what they can do what they like - There aren't many organisations who can just go against the government so brazenly, and to be fair not many would have the balls - It's time to stand up, get your nose out of the coke, and start owning the fuck up.

People in this country are so busy attacking each other; left wing, right wing, whatever, they spend so much time sniping at each other on internet forums (And yes, I'm well aware of what I'm doing here), when what we need right now is as one voice to tell the bankers to grow up, or fuck off. They've threatened to quit? Let them quit, I say: I'm sure there's another cash grabbing scumbag in a three-piece suit who'll do it without a bonus, plus considering their past history, shouldn't these idiots have been fired, imprisoned and then shot out of a cannon by now anyway?


I've just seen this:

'Scrooge' RBS hits homeowners with Christmas crackdown on borrowing

Admittedly, I can only find mention of it on the Daily Mail site so it's likely to be largely bollocks, but just in case, I'm going to sit in the corner with a bucket on my head and cry, if you don't mind.


Peter pissing Kay.

Peter Kay is often described (Admittedly, mainly by his own blurbs) as 'one of Britain's most prolific stand up comedians'.

Now, I have to take issue with this statement. Peter Kay has not performed a stand-up show in something like five or six years. That is not prolific. I have only been gigging since August, and I have done more stand up than he has. He is, however, a master of selling recycled tat to the British public - Whether it's DVDs with the same jokes as the last DVD on it, or a compilation of adverts and interviews which will still cost you nearly FIFTEEN FUCKING POUNDS, or a book detailing the last few months of his life (Which I can only imagine reads "Sat on arse. Watched money collect around me"), the man is very very good at making huge amounts of cash out of the idiots that comprise a large amount of the British populace.

Now, let me explain something quickly: I love 'Phoenix Nights'. I also thought 'That Peter Kay Thing' was great, and the first time I saw 'Live From the Bolton Albert Halls', I had never laughed so hard at a stand-up set.

Of course, the trouble is, the world moves on... And Kay didn't seem to. Instead, since then all we seem to have been offered is spin-offs and copies of other people's iedas. Max and Paddy was an eye scrapingly dull extension of the Phoenix Nights universe that didn't need to exist, Britain's got the Pop Factor was a throwaway special that was bearable if a little formulaic (Is it cynical of me to think that it's odd that it took a year to be released to DVD, just in time for Christmas? I bet if he didn't already have a DVD coming out last year, it would have found it's way on the shelves in plenty of time...)

And then, when you dig a little deeper, it seems that actually, Kay might not have been all that 'prolific' at any point in his career. His old co-writers don't speak to him because they thing he's a dick now he's a celebrity. Speak to a few Manchester based comedians who were doing the club circuit at the same time as he was and you'll quickly hear stories about how nobody would speak to him before a set, for fear he'd nick their jokes - And then there's the story of the comedian who saw so much of his material used on TV, he sent Kay an invoice (which went unpaid). His material, such as it is, is not exactly complex, either: It basically boils down to reminding people of things that happen to them (Or at least to people from the North of the UK anyway - I strongly suspect that those from the south just enjoy hearing about poor people), a bit like Michael McIntyre, although at least McIntyre can be praised for his energetic shows and more fantastical personal experiences as well.

But, here we are; it's 2009, and Peter Kay has just announced that he will do four twenty seventeen million shows next year, entitled The Tour that Doesn't Tour Tour, now on Tour; Which is almost as bad as 'Pop Factor's full title, which I'm not going to go about repeating in it's entirety for two reasons:

a)It's insultingly stupid, and;
b)I'm a lazy, lazy man.

Now, this new tour interests me, or more specifically, the reasoning behind it does. Kay says that while writing his newest 'Memoirs' (Collect the whole set, gullible cashbags!), he remembered how much he enjoyed doing stand up, and decided he was going to use some of the jokes he's been writing since the last tour, and spread his hilarity across the UK once again; Which is a marked difference from him saying that he wasn't going to tour any more because he hadn't got any new jokes - And that was earlier on this year.

I know you can't fault somebody for making as much money as they can out of their profession, but surely there's a line? Surely there's a point where you look at yourself and think 'Jesus, what am I doing?' - And I get the impression that this tour marks a realisation. Of course, his claim that he's using the side stage so that people don't feel like they're just watching him on a screen is a little shaky as he's still selling upper-tier tickets, but at least he's doing new material - hopefully.

I genuinely hope Kay proves me wrong with this new tour, I do. I don't want to spend the rest of my life hearing people shout "garlic bread?"

As a footer, hello to Vicky, my first proper follower.


Bloody Jordan.

In a piece of timing that can only be called 'fortuitous', two papers today have both managed to cover the same story... but somehow managed to write two completely and utterly different ones.

Why is this fortuitous, you say? Well, over at Enemies of Reason, the Author has managed to get in trouble with a couple of stick-up-the-arse NUJ members who came bursting into a recent comments thread of his, flashing their press cards and then practically throwing mud in the eyes of anyone who dare try and report news without one - Next time my Nana asks me how my girlfriend's job is going, I must remember to get 'Anne' round to tell her, lest I say anything legally dubious:- Because we all know that the newspapers never print anything as fact when it isn't, don't we?

KATIE: I Will Marry Alex (The Star)

Katie Price turns down Alex Reid after cagefighter begs her to take him back (The Mail)

Gosh darn it, wrong again.

See, according to "TV Insiders" and "Sources" (Which I'm fairly certain means "My mate John read the Radio Times, and he reckons..."), Jordan and her fella Alex Reid are getting married. Or they're not, depending on which one of these anonymous bullshit merchants you talk to.

Now, I first saw this story on the front of the Star, which as we know, is probably the most truth-free zone in Britain, and therefore I was slightly loathe to believe it - But the paper carrying the counter-story is the Daily Mail, and I'd believe a flying pig telling me I'd won the lottery before I believed anything that hateful rag has to say.

Each paper has even managed to find itself a named source to report their version of the story - The Star picking Alex Reid's management, while The Mail have used Michelle Heaton (Albeit copied and pasted from another paper) as their font of knowledge.

So, it's a good thing that Journalists check their facts before they fling ink at the page isn't it? I mean, if they didn't bother to get something provable or first hand, God knows, we could end up with conflicting stories, couldn't we?

Events like this only serve to prove that the papers don't provide news anymore, just hearsay and Chinese whispers, gleaned from any number of weasly, made up, discreditable sources - The Star, for example, stated that Jordan was seen giggling while reading messages "thought" to be from Reid. Now, is there any way in the world that could mean anything other than "Jordan was looking at her phone, and after a quick ask round the office, we reckon she was laughing at texts sent from Alex?" No, I don't think there is.

Furthermore, The Star claims that the whole thing was "secretly filmed" for Jordan's new series, whereas the Mail state that Reid would have had to have given his consent, and would have been paid - So unless they were secretly slipping fivers into his bumbag while they were talking, someone's telling porkies again.

Interestingly, both stories mention the fact that Reid is a crossdresser - Now call me naive, but what the ruddy hell does that have to do with the story in hand? Nothing, I think it's fair to say - It's a completely unrelated fact that has no bearing on the story. To be fair, both papers have proved before that they aren't above slipping in an unneeded mention to race or sexual preference before now, so maybe clothes are their newest interest. Next week, there'll be stories on Gordon Brown reading "Brown - Who admitted he likes blue ties"... I'm telling you, it's going to happen.

I admit, this is not world changing news - Neither the story, nor the fact that two papers have contradicted each other - But it does make me laugh that shortly after reading somebody say that journalists do so much work to clarify and correctly source their facts and work to reporting restrictions, two of the country's biggest papers have managed to run stories that go directly against each other, written by journalists who so obviously couldn't give two wet fucks about whether their source was reliable, what was the truth and wasn't, just so long as they get the opportunity to fling a little bit more shit at the fan that is the British public, in the hope that it sticks.

Seriously Anton, I can see why you wouldn't want a press card - They only seem to be for cunts.

And as a last thought: When is the Mail just going to face facts and change it's logo to red and white?



This man is a bit of a twat.

I don't like to judge people that I don't know, but this article of his indicates quite strongly to me that he just actually might be, in fact, a bit of a numpty.

The story is this: Charlie Porter, Freelance Fashion Journalist, was heading to a meeting in Canary Wharf. He had with him a red bag, in which he was carrying an iPod, Kindle, and a few other bits and bobs. The bag itself is very similar to handbags which are popular at the moment, and (And herein lies the crux of my argument) USUALLY carried by women - Looking at pictures, it even appears to have rings to which you could attach a strap.

So, Mister Porter, on his journey through Canary Wharf, is stopped by a Security Guard, who would like him to prove that the bag is his, owing to a large number of handbag thefts that have happened recently.

I would like to point out at this juncture that I am in no way criticising mister Porter for carrying a bag (I am deliberately not using the phrase "Man bag" as I know he doesn't like it), and I don't think that carrying a bag is 'gay', 'girly', or anything else. However, the fact is, in today's society, a man carrying a bag of this design is a little unusual - And in an area where there have been a lot of handbag thefts recently, a man carrying such a bag could reasonably expect to be stopped, if the situation was looked at from an independent perspective.

"Have you got any ID?" I gave him my cashcard, from the front pocket of the bag.

"What are your middle initials?" he asked. I told him. It was only then that he believed it was mine.

Did he think it was a women's bag? "You can't be too careful."

Does this sound any more disconcerting than being asked for ID at the bank, or post office? This security guard likely sees a few hundred people a day, and if men carrying bags often turn out to have stolen them, they're going to check you out.

Charlie then complains that the guard had considered him 'effeminate' for carrying the bag.

It looks like the sort of bag that women carry far more often than men do. He wasn't judging you or insinuating anything, he just wanted to check that it was yours. Why don't you understand this?

I know that in today's tolerant society, people should be allowed to wear and carry whatever they like, but the fact is, some people wouldn't know a James Long bag if they fell over one, and 99% of the time, a red patent bag is a woman's bag.

Charlie finishes his article by saying:

It made me sad too, that the codes by which we interpret clothing are so entrenched, and that something away from the masculine norm can cause such an unexpected reaction.

Are you honestly criticisizing a security guard for picking on something out of the ordinary? That's his job, for Christ's sake! He's seen something that even by your own admission, isn't usual, and he's checking up on it to make sure it's not a problem! He didn't hurt you, or physically detain you - just asked you to prove your identity (And he could have been a dick about that, if he liked - It's private property, after all), and then let you go on your way. No-one was hurt, no great injustices occurred, a man with a bag just got upset when asked to prove it was his.

One can only hope he never meets an airline check-in person.

Sue Reid.

Having just Read 5 Chinese Crackers' excellent post (Thanks for bringing this to my attention) on Sue Reid'd latest journalistic lazy wank detailing how all those naughty, naughty darkies have come over here and demanded their children be cured of their horrific diseases, like medical care is some sort of human right or something (Which is a moot point, as we know human rights are only for white, middle class Christian Brits), I decided to do something I very rarely do: I clicked through to the Mail's article.

And it would seem that the story is worse than I thought.

Click here for the map in question.

Only eighteen children from the UK? Quite apart from the fact that all this image is based on is a paper frigging map on the wall of a children's ward, You will notice that there are more stickers on Britain than anywhere else - The USA comes in second place, and given how hard they're trying to keep their privatised health care that they're so proud of (Nationalised medical care is for Commies! Oh Say, can't you sing...), I think it's safe to say that those Americans are not health tourists, which is what the article implies. Apparently 3 Canadian children were treated by this hospital. Well, that makes up for the fact that my girlfriend's sister just moved to Canada with her family, including three children then - I think that means Canada and us are equal. After all, as every Daily Mail reader knows, the only way to judge immigration into this country is to compare it to how much we do it to theirs ("You don't see us goin' to no Oogieboogiestan and building no churches...").

The same number of people came from Australia as Pakistan, but interestingly enough, I've never heard a single person complain about all the Ozzies in the country, ("They come over here, barbequeue our food, put up with our weather... Makes me right plum sick, it does") nor all the Americans either; And don't forget, the yanks were more of a 'strain' on 'our' NHS than both India and Pakistan were - In fact, combine India and Pakistan's figures together, and they still don't equal the amount of people treated from the USA and Australia combined - And as previously mentioned, both of these countries have fantastic health care systems, and neither of these countries are mentioned when the Mail start beating the immigration dead horse once again - But of course, it would be churlish of me to think that that's because they're white, Christian countries, wouldn't it?.

In fact, given the fact that 30 million people come to this country every year on holiday, I think we should give the people detailed on this map the benefit of the doubt - After all, it's entirely possible that their children have been struck ill while they're over here, and they've been treated by the well meaning and diligent staff of this ward.

It would appear that 5CC have updated their article with the following quote:

'Chelsea and Westminster Hospital is a specialist referral centre and cares for patients of many different backgrounds, reflecting London’s very diverse population.

'Of the 550 babies admitted to our Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) every year, a very small number of these are overseas patients. In 2009, there have been just two overseas admissions.

'The map was placed in the NICU nearly four years ago to provide the families of the babies we care for, as well as staff, with an opportunity to indicate their background if they wished. It is not an indication of country of residence or citizenship.

'It was intended to illustrate the diversity of staff working on the unit and the families of the babies we care for, to encourage everyone to reflect on different cultures, in a fun and informal way.

'Chelsea and Westminster Hospital’s NICU provides intensive care, high dependency and special care facilities for babies and is a specialist referral centre for neonatal surgery.'

So, a horrible article, based on wildly inaccurate figures, implying that foreigners are ruining the country and that our tax money is being wasted. All it needed was a picture of Jordan's tits and to implicate the BBC and all of you playing Daily Mail bingo would have had a full house.

Something else has just struck me; This was an Intensive Care ward for children. How many parents, when told their baby is dying, turn to the doctors and say "Well, get him off that drip, doc - We're taking him to Blighty"? None, I think it's safe to bet.

One final thought, however, and I truthfully hope Sue Reid reads this (If there's anybody reading that knows how we can do that, please leave a comment):-


Taken to it's logical conclusion, what Sue Reid is implying is this: That staff at this hospital have saved Children from a multitude of different countries, when they should have turfed them out onto the street for not being British, where they could die in the gutter like the dogs that they are - Hey, one less foreign in the world to worry about, eh?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that if you were to peel back Sue Reid's skin, you wouldn't find bones, organs and muscles like you would in a human; just a shiny metal carapace with the words "DISGUST-O-BOT 3000" stamped into it.


Why I do Comedy.

I've been considering this for a while now, mainly because ever since I decided back in August to take the plunge into stand up comedy, people have asked me "what made you do that?", and I've not been able to give them an answer other than "Dunno, like tellin' jokes an'at, dunn-I?".

And quite frankly, I don't think there's one specific reason why I decided to try my hand it - Actually, I'd imagine that if you asked any other successful comedian why they got into stand up, they wouldn't be able to give you a definitive answer - Unless they'd written a wonderfully decisive and cutting blog like I'm about to.

As a preface to this article, I'm just going to write it as it comes to me, so expect some purely train-of-thought rambling, possibly some contradictions, and, more likely, no insight whatsoever.

For me, at least, there are a myriad of reasons why I will voluntarily climb onto a stage and tell the same embarrassing stories from my childhood to drunken strangers night after night, the first of which is the fact that it's so much fun. Of course, you don't realise this until the first time you do it, and every time before I go onstage my stomach is always turning, but the first time you get a whole room full of people to laugh at something you've said (And not like in school when you called your teacher 'mum'), it's a hell of an adrenaline rush, and you end up pushing yourself to try and get bigger and bigger laughs out of the crowd, just to get your hit - I honestly love nothing more than to watch somebody absolutely hooked on comedy perform - It's more like a dependency than a job to them, and I think the moment they lose that addiction is the moment they start to lose their edge. I quit drinking about the same time as I started doing stand up comedy, and truthfully the feeling described above is more addictive than beer, more addictive than any other drug I know.

What else? Well, you could take the fact that around strangers, I'm actually quite a quiet person. I have this paranoid delusion that if I show people the "real" me before I've got to know them, they're going to think I'm a thundering cretin with pathetic hair - And it can quite often take me a long time to feel comfortable around new people, lest they think me a cock. Put me on a stage, however, and it's a different story - Let's face it, it's basically your job to be a bit of a dick on stage; you're trying to make people laugh, after all! I'm probably about 100% braver when I'm performing than in the 'real' world - consider it a slightly less nerdy equivalent to World of Warcraft; an opportunity to be the person you want to be but haven't got the balls to be in day to day life - Whether that's a wildly offensive comedian or a level 30 Elf.

A lot of people say they got into comedy because they were bullied, and that doing it is a kind of therapy for them - Conquering the insecurites that yes, you might be fat, or ginger, or a bit ugly, but the fact that you can stand on a stage and make people cry laughing is something that not many people can do - And by doing it you've beaten those people that made you feel worthless, because look at you - Even if all you're doing is a 5 minute open slot, for those five minutes, you are the star of the show. People will hang off every word you say... You're the most important person in the room at that time, you're not worthless at all.

Of course, that does suggest that people might get into comedy to feed their own ego, and I think it's fair to say that people like that are the people who don't do very much before they give up. See, part of being a comedian which you don't get in too many other jobs is real time feedback from your audience. Essentially, what that means is if you're shit, they're going to tell you you're shit, and they're not going to have any qualms in doing so. Obviously, that's not great for people just in the game to feel important, or people not willing to admit that sometimes, their material or their delivery just wasn't good enough and that it's time to go back to the drawing board and rework those bits that didn't work too well. Same with thin skinned people - if you can't take a little unconstructive criticism from a pissed up prick with a DIY pritt-stik head, you either need to toughen up, or fuck off sharpish.

The more I think about it though, I think truthfully, it just boils down to one thing:-

Some people like to make other people laugh.

They like spreading a bit of joy, of happiness (And christ knows, in this world we need as much as we can get), and quite often, one of the most direct ways to do that is to stand on a stage made out of crates in a dingy pub in a town you hate, and tell some fucking jokes. You don't have to be some adrenaline junkie, hooked on the sound of human laughter, nor a bullying victim baring his soul to get a few laughs and cleanse himself at the same time. Deep down, really, I think all comedians would admit that the reason they do it, the reason they pick up that mic and step on them boards is nothing more than the fact that at their core, they like to make people laugh.

...Although, thinking about it, that means that really, my answer to the original question actually is "Dunno, like tellin' jokes an'at, dunn-I?".


But, at least now when people ask, I can give them a URL to read in their own time. People are very busy and I don't want to waste their lives with this twaddle.

I'm amazed you're even still reading.

That's it.


Fuck off.


A Poem.

To Ceri,

I miss you.
I am blue.
Wish I was in
Ca-na-da too.


The Papers.

It would seem that I've been a little bit naive.

See, until I started reading the rather fantastic Tabloid Watch, Enemies of Reason and Angry Mob, I pretty much assumed that the papers weren't as bad as people made out. I mean, they couldn't be, could they? Surely, if they really were as full as blatantly made up bollocks, people would pick up on it, and there'd be complaints, and the paper would be forced to apologise... Wouldn't they?

Wouldn't they?

Wouldn't they?

Huh, looks like the people who's job it is to inform the good people of this country are a bunch of wankers. Who'd have thought?

In seriousness though: OH FUCK!

Seriously, how are we supposed to go about our day to day lives with the media so willing to lie to us? I know that this is a very old topic that's been discussed by anyone who matters at one time or another, but I don't think people realise just how much shit the papers spread (For a rough estimation, imagine a farmer fertilising his fields with manure. Then double it. Then heap a load more shit on top of that. And triple that).

The problem is, if you're anything like me, you're either far too busy, far too lazy, or a combination of the two to actually research the stories the papers present to you - You haven't got time to look back at last Thursday's Star to find out what they thought about the latest immigration figures; all you know is what the papers have told you today, which is that THE STREETS ARE FULL OF THEM LOT AND THEY'RE GOING TO NUKE US ALL.

Of course, if you read the story through and actually check the details yourself it's plain to see that it's bollocks, but consider the main readership of the Star: Generally, we're talking blokes who have very little time for things that aren't whistling, calling women "love" and adjustable spanners - And as a result their opinion on the world is generally based round the headlines, which often read like JORDAN: ARAB SEX BOMB PLOT, which could be about an explosion in a whorehouse in the middle east, the script for Katie Price's inadvised Bhangra musical being leaked, or possibly just a collection of buzzwords lumped together to make people buy the paper. After all, I think it's fair to say that the editors of this tat couldn't give two lustrous turds whether or not the content within the pages of their publication is decent, just so long as there's words vomited carelessly on the front page that are either relate to darkies, cancer or famous bits being put in other famous bits - The exception of course being the Express, which would rather give it's main story to a cup of tea than a war widow - Because they know that daft fuckers will buy it and take it as gospel.

Speaking of daft fuckers, the daftest fuckers of all, in my opinion at least, are the columnists who write for these tat rags. Reading the literary piddle of people like Littlejohn and Amanda Platell, one gets the distinct impression that every week all they do is flick through the headlines of their 'home' publication, repeat the headlines verbatim, throw in a few "jokes", thinly disguised calls for militantism or blatant hypocrisy, then spunk it into a few hundred words an hour or so before deadline, email it to the office, and carry on deciding which pile of money they'd like to shove up their big ignorant arses this afternoon. "You couldn't make it up", as Littlejohn would say, after reading pages of (quite often demonstrably) bollocks in the paper that pay him nearly a million a year to be a little volcano of hate.

The Gig List.

Below you'll find all the dates, times and places you can watch me embarrass myself in the name of Stand Up Comedy.

No gigs booked at the mo - You change that by clicking this here link.

Let's Blog.

Well then.

I sit here, with my girlfriend in Canada, the end of Johnny Vegas' new DVD fumbling chaotically to a close, wondering why exactly I started this here blog.

And honestly, I don't really know. I'm fairly certain it's not going to be on one given topic, given my mind's frankly irritating habit of flitting from one obsession to another like a meth crazed, ADHD suffering magpie in a vault full of milk bottle tops.

So, as Russell Howard's new DVD spins in the tray, a thought struck me: Why not make it about anything and everything, seeing as absolutely no one will read it?

I mean, I'll tag and label it all nice and everything, so you can cut out the crap you don't want, and read the crap that you do.

Let's Blog!