There's only one place where he should be Ethiopia or aphganistan so send him there as soon as possible end of story
That's two places, you giant gonk.
18/02/2010
You'd Think I Was Above This.
0 comments
From the Daily Mail comments:
That's two places, you giant gonk.
That's two places, you giant gonk.
13/02/2010
Just Shut Up, Please.
1 comments
Just to warn you, this blog post isn't going to be particularly well focused. It's half past two, I've got Littlejohn's newest column open in another tab, and as usual it's so full of mental excrement, blogging about it feels more like shovelling shit into two piles: Horrible shit and... well, truly horrible shit. Plus, if you've read anything by me before, you'll know that I don't really do sound, reasoned judgements; I tend to deal more with crying tears of sadness for the state of modern journalism, digitising them and jamming them, all higgledy-piggledy like, into this here pokey corner of the internet.
Over-wordy introductions aside, hands up who's read Littlejohn's latest thinly veiled piece of nationalist tat? I have. And do you know what? It's pretty much business as usual. There's some flagrant hypocrisy, a bit or racism, and some *great* jokes.
Well, to be fair it looks like it's all just one big joke, but the detestable little bumdribble's being doing this for so long, I'm actually beginning to think he really means it - Which is both hilarious and hair greyingly horrendous, in roughly equal measure.
We begin with Richard's opinion on Binyam Mohamed, who as you probably know is a terrorist suspect who lived in Britain for seven years, before travelling to Afghanistan for reasons which are unclear, and was detained by American forces for his connection with a plot that was about as devious as Doctor No: pretty fucking devious, but luckily for us, completely bloody fictional.
So anyway, once it came out that the plan didn't exist, the Americans did what anybody would when they find out that their suspect was likely innocent: Tortured the poor sod until he admitted to taking all the teabags, leaving the milk out, or something else that would let them hate brown people a little bit more.
So anyway, after all the torture and the continuous allegations that were thrown at him, it turned out that MI5 might have been a little bit complicit in the things that were done to him, and he was then flown back to the UK as he was applying for asylum at the time, questioned and then released - That's the short version of events; if you'd like to read further, then Google is your friend.
Littlejohn's opinion on the event?
Now I don't know about you, but when it turns out that I might have been complicit in the torture of the man, I'd at least get him some flowers or something. And anyway, argues Littlejohn, even if MI5 were involved in his torture, what's wrong with that?
Just take a step back and re-read that, because there's a couple of key words in that sentence. What Littlejohn is saying is so long as you think someone might have done something (Despite shaky evidence), why shouldn't you try and drown them until they say what you want? That's playground shit right there; it's like kicking the skinny kid until he says that he loves boys, or Mr Williams, the Geography teacher with the funny eye.
Fair enough Rich, but there's legitimate debate as to whether he did anything wrong in the first place, and seeing as he's been let go, according to the courts of this country, he is an innocent man. R-Li then explains, expert of torture techniques that he is, that the things done to him were approved of by the White House (The same one that decided that the Geneva Convention didn't apply to these people), and then says it's completely fine when put into context with the 9/11 attacks - which is arguably a fair point, until you consider that Mohamed was never accused of being involved with them - in fact, he lived in Britain at the time.
Next up is the statement that no conclusive evidence has ever been produced of certain torture techniques allegedly used; which frankly is a bit fucking rich coming from a man who's failed to produce evidence for his own inflammatory bullshit before now, especially when you consider Littlejohn's de facto response to anything a dirty brown says is that it's a lie - Including Mohamed's reasons for travelling to Afghanistan in the first place.
Then Littlejohn says, without a hint of irony or anything, that:
What were those kids called again, Richard? Those in glass houses, and that...
Next up, we're treated to an assertion that Littlejohn doesn't condone torture. You may remember him saying that MI5 "would be failing in their duty if they didn't make every attempt to glean information from suspected terrorists who want to do us harm", which to me implies pretty heavily that anything's fair game, so long as the bloke they're doing it to is a darkie. Richard says that MI5 shouldn't discount information obtained under duress, despite the fact that duress is considered illegal by British courts.
Long and the short of it: So long as someone says they did something, then it definitely happened, no matter what you did to them to make them say it.
Now, just to go off on a personal tangent for a moment; this is a man who is paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to write for a nationally circulated newspaper and an internationally read website, and he is essentially saying that torture is alright by him. Am I the only one that thinks that might be just the tiniest bit absolutely fucked right up? Thrice in his article, Littlejohn says that he doesn't condone torture, and every time this is followed by the word 'but...'. Seriously, how does this man continue to churn out this shit?
In fact, in a typical piece of Littlejohn backwards thinking, he asks:
Because in the world of Richard Littlejohn, if you're not making hot drinks for people, you're stabbing them in the cock - And there's absolutely nothing in between.
Good point Rich; but hey, next time the police shoot a man dead on the tube, lets just hope they didn't jump to conclusions and kill an innocent man, eh?
Next on the agenda is pub grub. Which is funny, because Richard Littlejohn doesn't live in the UK. Anyway, his point is that chefs don't produce fancy, ridiculous menus because they like to experiment with food; nope, they're all doing it because they're moneygrabbing tossbags. ALL OF THEM.
The next section actually made me sit up and take notice; it's interesting because it shows Littlejohn showing some kind of tolerance towards other religions. Until you read this:
Which is yet more generalisation. Working on a similar theory, I've just worked out that all newspaper columnists are turdy shit-repeaters that use their highly public positions for nothing more than to spume hate like a factory chimney belches smoke. I mean, Littlejohn and Moir do, so the rest of them must, right? I'll miss reading Charlie Brooker, but since this shocking realisation of mine, it seems obvious that all there is to do with newspapers now is papercut yourself to death, drinking in a heady cocktail of fear and shame.
Apparently, allowing Davender Ghai to be cremated the way he wants is a "a perfect example of British compromise"... Although trying to make amends with a man the nation's security services allegedly aided in the torture of is 'yuman rites' gone mad. I mean, for fuck's sake.
Then, two finish, there's two more little joy nuggets:
Fuck off. Just fuck off now. Fuck right off. And don't come back.
No, hospitals are terrified of ill people becoming more ill. That's the point.
But even that's ignored in order to complain about the state of our health service - Which as someone who lives with and is in a relationship with a nurse (And by extension know other medical professionals), just makes me angry. Nurses are, b and large, lovely people who work far too hard, get far too little recognition, and have to put up with far too much shit from twats like you. They're also quite handy at finding the male G-Spot... Or so I hear.
The Mail G-Spot, should you be wondering, is a Lesbian Muslim Paedophile getting a free car and running over a Christmas tree. That chain of events would trigger a ragegasm so tremendous, the actual planet would shit itself.
Over-wordy introductions aside, hands up who's read Littlejohn's latest thinly veiled piece of nationalist tat? I have. And do you know what? It's pretty much business as usual. There's some flagrant hypocrisy, a bit or racism, and some *great* jokes.
Well, to be fair it looks like it's all just one big joke, but the detestable little bumdribble's being doing this for so long, I'm actually beginning to think he really means it - Which is both hilarious and hair greyingly horrendous, in roughly equal measure.
We begin with Richard's opinion on Binyam Mohamed, who as you probably know is a terrorist suspect who lived in Britain for seven years, before travelling to Afghanistan for reasons which are unclear, and was detained by American forces for his connection with a plot that was about as devious as Doctor No: pretty fucking devious, but luckily for us, completely bloody fictional.
So anyway, once it came out that the plan didn't exist, the Americans did what anybody would when they find out that their suspect was likely innocent: Tortured the poor sod until he admitted to taking all the teabags, leaving the milk out, or something else that would let them hate brown people a little bit more.
So anyway, after all the torture and the continuous allegations that were thrown at him, it turned out that MI5 might have been a little bit complicit in the things that were done to him, and he was then flown back to the UK as he was applying for asylum at the time, questioned and then released - That's the short version of events; if you'd like to read further, then Google is your friend.
Littlejohn's opinion on the event?
We owe him nothing.
Now I don't know about you, but when it turns out that I might have been complicit in the torture of the man, I'd at least get him some flowers or something. And anyway, argues Littlejohn, even if MI5 were involved in his torture, what's wrong with that?
They would be failing in their duty if they didn't make every attempt to glean information from suspected terrorists who want to do us harm.
Just take a step back and re-read that, because there's a couple of key words in that sentence. What Littlejohn is saying is so long as you think someone might have done something (Despite shaky evidence), why shouldn't you try and drown them until they say what you want? That's playground shit right there; it's like kicking the skinny kid until he says that he loves boys, or Mr Williams, the Geography teacher with the funny eye.
There is a legitimate debate as to whether he was tortured at all, in the true sense of the word.
Fair enough Rich, but there's legitimate debate as to whether he did anything wrong in the first place, and seeing as he's been let go, according to the courts of this country, he is an innocent man. R-Li then explains, expert of torture techniques that he is, that the things done to him were approved of by the White House (The same one that decided that the Geneva Convention didn't apply to these people), and then says it's completely fine when put into context with the 9/11 attacks - which is arguably a fair point, until you consider that Mohamed was never accused of being involved with them - in fact, he lived in Britain at the time.
Next up is the statement that no conclusive evidence has ever been produced of certain torture techniques allegedly used; which frankly is a bit fucking rich coming from a man who's failed to produce evidence for his own inflammatory bullshit before now, especially when you consider Littlejohn's de facto response to anything a dirty brown says is that it's a lie - Including Mohamed's reasons for travelling to Afghanistan in the first place.
Then Littlejohn says, without a hint of irony or anything, that:
The inconsistencies in his story are glaring
What were those kids called again, Richard? Those in glass houses, and that...
Next up, we're treated to an assertion that Littlejohn doesn't condone torture. You may remember him saying that MI5 "would be failing in their duty if they didn't make every attempt to glean information from suspected terrorists who want to do us harm", which to me implies pretty heavily that anything's fair game, so long as the bloke they're doing it to is a darkie. Richard says that MI5 shouldn't discount information obtained under duress, despite the fact that duress is considered illegal by British courts.
Long and the short of it: So long as someone says they did something, then it definitely happened, no matter what you did to them to make them say it.
Now, just to go off on a personal tangent for a moment; this is a man who is paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to write for a nationally circulated newspaper and an internationally read website, and he is essentially saying that torture is alright by him. Am I the only one that thinks that might be just the tiniest bit absolutely fucked right up? Thrice in his article, Littlejohn says that he doesn't condone torture, and every time this is followed by the word 'but...'. Seriously, how does this man continue to churn out this shit?
In fact, in a typical piece of Littlejohn backwards thinking, he asks:
How do you think this information is gained - with a cuddle and a nice cuppa tea?
Because in the world of Richard Littlejohn, if you're not making hot drinks for people, you're stabbing them in the cock - And there's absolutely nothing in between.
Next time a bomb goes off on a crowded Tube train, let's hope we don't discover it could have been prevented by evidence which had to be discarded because it was tainted by torture.
Good point Rich; but hey, next time the police shoot a man dead on the tube, lets just hope they didn't jump to conclusions and kill an innocent man, eh?
Next on the agenda is pub grub. Which is funny, because Richard Littlejohn doesn't live in the UK. Anyway, his point is that chefs don't produce fancy, ridiculous menus because they like to experiment with food; nope, they're all doing it because they're moneygrabbing tossbags. ALL OF THEM.
The next section actually made me sit up and take notice; it's interesting because it shows Littlejohn showing some kind of tolerance towards other religions. Until you read this:
Hindus are net givers to society, not constantly demanding special treatment like some other minorities.
Which is yet more generalisation. Working on a similar theory, I've just worked out that all newspaper columnists are turdy shit-repeaters that use their highly public positions for nothing more than to spume hate like a factory chimney belches smoke. I mean, Littlejohn and Moir do, so the rest of them must, right? I'll miss reading Charlie Brooker, but since this shocking realisation of mine, it seems obvious that all there is to do with newspapers now is papercut yourself to death, drinking in a heady cocktail of fear and shame.
Apparently, allowing Davender Ghai to be cremated the way he wants is a "a perfect example of British compromise"... Although trying to make amends with a man the nation's security services allegedly aided in the torture of is 'yuman rites' gone mad. I mean, for fuck's sake.
Then, two finish, there's two more little joy nuggets:
Obesity isn't an illness, it's gluttony.
Fuck off. Just fuck off now. Fuck right off. And don't come back.
Nurses say they'd be happy to [trim patient's nails], but were ordered not to because of the risk of a patient contracting MRSA through a nick in their skin. Hospitals are terrified of lawsuits.
No, hospitals are terrified of ill people becoming more ill. That's the point.
But even that's ignored in order to complain about the state of our health service - Which as someone who lives with and is in a relationship with a nurse (And by extension know other medical professionals), just makes me angry. Nurses are, b and large, lovely people who work far too hard, get far too little recognition, and have to put up with far too much shit from twats like you. They're also quite handy at finding the male G-Spot... Or so I hear.
The Mail G-Spot, should you be wondering, is a Lesbian Muslim Paedophile getting a free car and running over a Christmas tree. That chain of events would trigger a ragegasm so tremendous, the actual planet would shit itself.
09/02/2010
Feet 3: Bunions Strike Back.
0 comments
Guess what?
Victoria Beckham still has Bunions.
Yeah, still.
They still haven't changed, stabbed a nurse, blown a bus up, or sold the cliffs of Dover to Forruns: Nope, they're just deformed little toesies.
But still, the Mail continue to bang on about them, in an article which, when stripped down to it's essence, can be summed up in three words: Woman Wears Shoes. And this is one of their lead stories, right at the top of the page.
So that's 4 articles in two weeks now, on a woman's deformed feet - And this one's a lead story.
Just think about that for a second. Really let it sink in. Not a single front page was given to the victims of Haiti, but stories about one person's deformed feet are given as much space on their homepage as Ali Dizaei. Does that not reek of a paper who have got their priorities a little bit mixed up?
Now I realise that I'm just as bad for going on about the Mail going on about them, but I really believe that the person who wrote that article could have been better utilised writing something a little more worthwhile - But to be fair, it was that charming Daily Mail Reporter chap, and he does write tons.
Oh, and look, there's Littlejohn's column. Joy be unrefined.
Oh good, he's called Gordon Brown crying over the death of his daughter "despicable".
There's something about Littlejohn's smile. It's the smile a man would give you while he held a knife to your scrotum.
Victoria Beckham still has Bunions.
Yeah, still.
They still haven't changed, stabbed a nurse, blown a bus up, or sold the cliffs of Dover to Forruns: Nope, they're just deformed little toesies.
But still, the Mail continue to bang on about them, in an article which, when stripped down to it's essence, can be summed up in three words: Woman Wears Shoes. And this is one of their lead stories, right at the top of the page.
So that's 4 articles in two weeks now, on a woman's deformed feet - And this one's a lead story.
Just think about that for a second. Really let it sink in. Not a single front page was given to the victims of Haiti, but stories about one person's deformed feet are given as much space on their homepage as Ali Dizaei. Does that not reek of a paper who have got their priorities a little bit mixed up?
Now I realise that I'm just as bad for going on about the Mail going on about them, but I really believe that the person who wrote that article could have been better utilised writing something a little more worthwhile - But to be fair, it was that charming Daily Mail Reporter chap, and he does write tons.
Oh, and look, there's Littlejohn's column. Joy be unrefined.
Oh good, he's called Gordon Brown crying over the death of his daughter "despicable".
There's something about Littlejohn's smile. It's the smile a man would give you while he held a knife to your scrotum.
08/02/2010
Little Ones.
0 comments
A few quick ones:
Another reference to Vic's bunions. I make that 11 since November 27th - And I'm not including all the general bunion stories and columns the mail has printed inspired by Mrs Beckham's poor tootsies.
'It even went through my mind that this might be some sort of terrorist attack with the bus blown up because I had heard that suicide bombers prayed before attacks' says the interviewee in this story - likely prefixed by the words "I'm not racist, but..."
"Mr Walker said that although the current available broadband speed in the village was only half a megabite it would be a huge improvement on painfully slow dial up." - Jesus, that's on your fucking WEBSITE.
Call in the cavalry! Victoria Beckham flies to Milan to cheer up David after disastrous match
Another reference to Vic's bunions. I make that 11 since November 27th - And I'm not including all the general bunion stories and columns the mail has printed inspired by Mrs Beckham's poor tootsies.
Passengers left stunned after Muslim bus driver pulls over and begins praying in the aisle
'It even went through my mind that this might be some sort of terrorist attack with the bus blown up because I had heard that suicide bombers prayed before attacks' says the interviewee in this story - likely prefixed by the words "I'm not racist, but..."
You want broadband? That'll be £45,000, BT tells couple
"Mr Walker said that although the current available broadband speed in the village was only half a megabite it would be a huge improvement on painfully slow dial up." - Jesus, that's on your fucking WEBSITE.
Bluebirds.
0 comments
Everybody, get your pitchforks! Gordon Brown's going to sell the Cliffs of Dover to the French!
And then he's going to put a baguette up his arse, and use it to draw a beret on the Union Jack!
Both of these stories are in fact, made up. Now, one was made up by me, and the other the Daily Mail. Regular readers will probably recognise which one's mine - it's the one about sticking things up peoples bums, like usual. The other one, though - The one on the website of a national bloody newspaper, and I'd imagine somewhere in the print version too - is the Mail's own work, and is one of those slabs of ineptitude that they truly excel at - the ones that might as well have 'based on a true story' underneath the headline, so much do they twist the original story to their own demented, BNP-lite worldview.
So, the headline reads:
Although the URL and page title reveal that it was originally:
Which meant it was changed to be further from the truth than the original - A theme that runs throughout the article.
Right, you've read the headline; if I asked you to explain the story to me now, I wouldn't judge you if you said "Gordon Brown is selling the White Cliffs of Dover to make a bit of fast cash." Of course, you would be terribly, dreadfully and completely wrong, but I can understand why you'd say that.
Four sentences in, we begin to expose the actual truth:
So not the cliffs then. The port.
So it's not definitely happening yet, it's just 'expected' to be given the go ahead - Who by? Dunno. Oh, and it's not being 'sold to the French' (Implying we went round and offered it to them), it's just that the leading bidders are French.
And it's not being done to decrease debt, it's just being done so that the Port can expand.
It amazes me that the Mail will willfully rubbish it's own lies in it's own articles - I mean, if you're going to spout shit, at least be consistent - but what is even scarier is that people don't see it (This taken from the comments, green arrowed to the sky):
Except they're not, are they? They've applied for their own voluntary privatisation to fund expansion so they can cope with the increased traffic they are expecting. The fact that it's potentially going to be bought by the French just means that they want it the most - And as yet, we don't even know if the bloody sale's going ahead yet!
The introduction of the story, it must be said, sounds like it's torn directly from the UKIP book of England:
Is it just me, but is calling France the 'age-old enemy' just a little bit dickish? If it were a German company, would that have read "Recent conquest - Germany"? Those three sentences are followed by a picture of a Spitfire flying over the Cliffs, just to remind us of what happened last time them Forrins dicked about with our ports. Prospective Tory MP Charles Elphicke has also stuck his dirty little oar in, saying:
Which is really fucking despicable. Whether it's the Mail's editing or a direct quote isn't clear, but the heavy implication there is that Gordon Brown himself is selling the entire town of Dover, and that somehow this going to affect the border of the country - And for a prospective MP to so willingly distort the reality of the situation is fucking sickmaking.
Looking back at the story, it's very nearly the perfect Daily Mail story: We've got truths being knowingly distorted, Labour Bashing, hatred toward foreign people and commenters who've read exactly what they want to read - the only things missing are Bad Muslims and PC gone mad - Both of which I'm fairly certain they could have got in, if they'd really tried.
Update: Tabloid Watch have further destroyed the story here and here.
And then he's going to put a baguette up his arse, and use it to draw a beret on the Union Jack!
Both of these stories are in fact, made up. Now, one was made up by me, and the other the Daily Mail. Regular readers will probably recognise which one's mine - it's the one about sticking things up peoples bums, like usual. The other one, though - The one on the website of a national bloody newspaper, and I'd imagine somewhere in the print version too - is the Mail's own work, and is one of those slabs of ineptitude that they truly excel at - the ones that might as well have 'based on a true story' underneath the headline, so much do they twist the original story to their own demented, BNP-lite worldview.
So, the headline reads:
White Cliffs of Dover to be sold to the French to help reduce Government's debt
Although the URL and page title reveal that it was originally:
Dover, symbol of British sovereignty, could be sold to French to help reduce debt
Which meant it was changed to be further from the truth than the original - A theme that runs throughout the article.
Right, you've read the headline; if I asked you to explain the story to me now, I wouldn't judge you if you said "Gordon Brown is selling the White Cliffs of Dover to make a bit of fast cash." Of course, you would be terribly, dreadfully and completely wrong, but I can understand why you'd say that.
Four sentences in, we begin to expose the actual truth:
The Port of Dover is being recommended by Government advisers for sale to the French authorities.
So not the cliffs then. The port.
The sale is expected to be rubber-stamped and the leading bidder has emerged as Nord-pas-de-Calais regional council, which also owns Calais.
So it's not definitely happening yet, it's just 'expected' to be given the go ahead - Who by? Dunno. Oh, and it's not being 'sold to the French' (Implying we went round and offered it to them), it's just that the leading bidders are French.
Chief executive Bob Goldfield said: ‘The time is right for the voluntary privatisation of Dover. We want to invest around £400million on a second terminal and need to invest in the existing terminal, but are unable to because of public sector borrowing constraints. We want to throw off the shackles.’
And it's not being done to decrease debt, it's just being done so that the Port can expand.
It amazes me that the Mail will willfully rubbish it's own lies in it's own articles - I mean, if you're going to spout shit, at least be consistent - but what is even scarier is that people don't see it (This taken from the comments, green arrowed to the sky):
How dare any UK Government sell the country to foreign owners. So called New Labour has surely plumbed the depths as far as this is concerned.
Except they're not, are they? They've applied for their own voluntary privatisation to fund expansion so they can cope with the increased traffic they are expecting. The fact that it's potentially going to be bought by the French just means that they want it the most - And as yet, we don't even know if the bloody sale's going ahead yet!
The introduction of the story, it must be said, sounds like it's torn directly from the UKIP book of England:
For generations Dover has stood as an indomitable symbol of Britain’s freedom and independence.
The town, with its white cliffs, port and sprawling castle stood at the very edge of the nation’s frontier with the Continent.
But now part of that proud history is up for sale and the leading bidder is revealed as the former age-old enemy – France.
Is it just me, but is calling France the 'age-old enemy' just a little bit dickish? If it were a German company, would that have read "Recent conquest - Germany"? Those three sentences are followed by a picture of a Spitfire flying over the Cliffs, just to remind us of what happened last time them Forrins dicked about with our ports. Prospective Tory MP Charles Elphicke has also stuck his dirty little oar in, saying:
‘It’s clear Gordon Brown has no sense of the history of our nation or the pride of our town.
‘How dare he consider selling it all off to the French? Dover is the English border. The people of Dover have a clear message for him – hands off our port, hands off the English border.’
Which is really fucking despicable. Whether it's the Mail's editing or a direct quote isn't clear, but the heavy implication there is that Gordon Brown himself is selling the entire town of Dover, and that somehow this going to affect the border of the country - And for a prospective MP to so willingly distort the reality of the situation is fucking sickmaking.
Looking back at the story, it's very nearly the perfect Daily Mail story: We've got truths being knowingly distorted, Labour Bashing, hatred toward foreign people and commenters who've read exactly what they want to read - the only things missing are Bad Muslims and PC gone mad - Both of which I'm fairly certain they could have got in, if they'd really tried.
Update: Tabloid Watch have further destroyed the story here and here.
05/02/2010
Feet 2 and More.
0 comments
Jan Moir has graced us with another sparkling droplet of her joy juice today.
So it turns out, right, Victoria Beckham has bunions. But not just any bunions, these are now world famous bunions - Or at least they are in the eyes of people who get all their information about the world from the Daily Mail, and in practice I find they know slightly less about current affairs than someone who gets all their worldy info from a drunk child.
See, while the Mail has produced9 10 stories about a woman's mishapen foot in a little over three months, the Express have ran one, the Star two and The Sun Two. The rest of the world seemingly isn't quite as excited about them as the Mail, certainly not excited enough to mention them three times in a single week - And I'd like to point out that these bunions haven't killed anybody; they've not claimed thousands on expenses that they shouldn't have, or jumped over the walls of Buckingham Palace and tried to force themselves down the Queen's throat, they've just stayed on Victoria's feet, like bunions do. Jan says:
Good point - Can you imagine working for the paper that has ran more pictures of those bunions than anyone else in Britain, rather than reporting on... Ooh, I don't know, proper news, for fuck's sake? It'd be embarrassing. Or rather, it would be, if it didn't add more fuel to Moir's giant shit powered hate machine, which this week has also splattered itself all over Avatar, the most recent potentially Oscar winning James Cameron blockbuster - which Moir has declared 'boring'. So it seems that if you enjoyed the film, you and millions of other people all across the world are just one of the "geeks, sci-fi buffs and those with no interior life". Of course, Moir hasn't seen the film, but seeing as she seems to be studying for her Little Miss Littlejohn badge at the moment, one can understand why reading, research or checking things that aren't in the Mail aren't really important to her.
Of course, Moir's covered the Quiche story as well (Littlejohn did, so Moir has to keep up, see). This was the Mail's lead story the other day, but what's interesting is that to begin with they weren't interested in the story, according to the Leamington Observer, who first broke the story. Originally, the Mail wanted nothing to do with it as The Sun had ran it, but after it was repackaged and they saw its potential as another piece of ZaNuLab Broken Britain propaganda, they took the first available opportunity to scream it from the rooftops and then leave the clamouring hands of the Daily Mail commenters to tear it to shreds with baseless accusation, uninteresting narrative and wit so dull you could bake bread with it - despite the fact that not one other person in the world has actually managed to corroborate this story. Tesco can't find the person responsible, and no-one else has been quoted in the story, but according to the Mail and it happened and that Quiche is representative of everything ClownBrown McIrnBruJockBottle One-eye has done to this once great countrzzzz....
So it turns out, right, Victoria Beckham has bunions. But not just any bunions, these are now world famous bunions - Or at least they are in the eyes of people who get all their information about the world from the Daily Mail, and in practice I find they know slightly less about current affairs than someone who gets all their worldy info from a drunk child.
See, while the Mail has produced
Poor Posh. Imagine having the most famous and most pictured bunions in Britain.
Hardly a tribute to be treasured, is it?
Good point - Can you imagine working for the paper that has ran more pictures of those bunions than anyone else in Britain, rather than reporting on... Ooh, I don't know, proper news, for fuck's sake? It'd be embarrassing. Or rather, it would be, if it didn't add more fuel to Moir's giant shit powered hate machine, which this week has also splattered itself all over Avatar, the most recent potentially Oscar winning James Cameron blockbuster - which Moir has declared 'boring'. So it seems that if you enjoyed the film, you and millions of other people all across the world are just one of the "geeks, sci-fi buffs and those with no interior life". Of course, Moir hasn't seen the film, but seeing as she seems to be studying for her Little Miss Littlejohn badge at the moment, one can understand why reading, research or checking things that aren't in the Mail aren't really important to her.
Of course, Moir's covered the Quiche story as well (Littlejohn did, so Moir has to keep up, see). This was the Mail's lead story the other day, but what's interesting is that to begin with they weren't interested in the story, according to the Leamington Observer, who first broke the story. Originally, the Mail wanted nothing to do with it as The Sun had ran it, but after it was repackaged and they saw its potential as another piece of ZaNuLab Broken Britain propaganda, they took the first available opportunity to scream it from the rooftops and then leave the clamouring hands of the Daily Mail commenters to tear it to shreds with baseless accusation, uninteresting narrative and wit so dull you could bake bread with it - despite the fact that not one other person in the world has actually managed to corroborate this story. Tesco can't find the person responsible, and no-one else has been quoted in the story, but according to the Mail and it happened and that Quiche is representative of everything ClownBrown McIrnBruJockBottle One-eye has done to this once great countrzzzz....
03/02/2010
Feet.
0 comments
If I were Kim Kardashian, I'd be most unhappy. It would seem that she's now been replaced by another woman in the Daily Mail obsession stakes.
Well, to be more precise, another woman's feet:
That's right. 9 stories about Victoria Beckham's bunions have been written since November 27th last year. The bunions haven't changed at any point, but the Mail feel like they need to report on them, including two stories today. Of course, one could argue that it's a shrewd way of sticking pictures of women in high heels on the front of their website, or perhaps another excuse to bash someone for the way they look - But I'm fairly certain that most reasonable, non-insane human beings would argue that the journalists paid to write these articles (Especially that "Daily Mail Reporter" chap, he writes shitloads) could have been better off utilised covering something important, or perhaps doing some fact checking.
Shame those bunions weren't in Haiti, really.
Well, to be more precise, another woman's feet:
Bunions Beckham: Years of killer heels have left Victoria in agony - and in need of an urgent operation
Victoria Beckham shows off her pedicure (and bunion) as she loses a shoe
Have bunions got the better of Victoria Beckham? Posh swaps high heels for ballet flats
Posh ditches heels for new look... or is she just having trouble with her bunions?
Dressed down Victoria Beckham sticks to flats for a day out with the boys
Sorry Posh, your bunions aren't safe in flats either!
Mind my bunions! Barefoot Posh hit by a wave as she dips her toes in the Pacific
Despite the painful bunions, Victoria Beckham squeezes back into heels for long-haul flight to London
What bunions? Kelly Brook looks all Posh in pair of killer heels... but confesses she struggles to walk in them
That's right. 9 stories about Victoria Beckham's bunions have been written since November 27th last year. The bunions haven't changed at any point, but the Mail feel like they need to report on them, including two stories today. Of course, one could argue that it's a shrewd way of sticking pictures of women in high heels on the front of their website, or perhaps another excuse to bash someone for the way they look - But I'm fairly certain that most reasonable, non-insane human beings would argue that the journalists paid to write these articles (Especially that "Daily Mail Reporter" chap, he writes shitloads) could have been better off utilised covering something important, or perhaps doing some fact checking.
Shame those bunions weren't in Haiti, really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)