Old Slag

To all of you who think the OldSlagPrincessDi was a saint, for the greater proportion of Brits, she wasn't.
I noted a thing inBuddhist Guys blog, a reference to the arch slut. I didn't bother to read it [if it mentions her name, that is enough to merit ignoration], but I guess that it was something about the giant urinal [into which I myself have had a piss] erected to her memory. How far into the future will people "recall" that she was a whore who was only int "it" to further her self?

Not Tested On Animals

I was quite pleased to read that Uncle Tony had signed a petition in favour of animal testing. I've had this worry myself. The past few times I've bathed Sidney, on the label has been the statement "Not Tested On Animals". OMG, what happens if I accidentally drip some on Sindney? He could be damaged irreparably!
To make all things equal, I propose that we sign a motion allowing testing on Tony Blair!

I knew it, I knew it. Just because I read the Daily Mail, I'm taking "stick". For those of you from the former colonies, the Daily Mail is the paper for the wives of the "establishment". That means that it is a more or less staunch tory newspaper.

Although I do like it as a newspaper, over the past three or four years, it's gone a bit "tabloid". By that I mean sensationalism and obsessed with the cult of celebrity.

Now, one of the few reasons that I still buy it is the Answers to correspondents. Its a handful of questions sent in by readers and then a few days later other readers write in with the answers.

Being a trivia hound, I love anything like that. If they ever stop printing it, I'll stop buying it.

Religion, yet again!

I'm sorry I keep dragging this up. This time, no funny pictures.
Reading the Daily Mail, I was incensed when I came across the Saturday Essay. The title ran thus;

"As the film comes to Britain, the

insidious cult of The Da Vinci Code

MUST be refuted..... or the Church

may never recover its authority"

That being the case, bring on the cult of the Da Vinci Code I say!

As soon as I saw the title, I knew it was going to be another "back to Victorian values" effort by A N Wilson.

Wilson should, in the ordinary course of events, be ignored. His prostletising, especially where religion is concerned makes me sick. He says that he has always been a christian, which I don't doubt, but when christianity didn't suit his beliefs, he changed horses mid race [he was C of E then swapped to being a catholic]. I liked that. His church, by keeping up with reality, let him down. So he jumped ship.

Now, he is worried that "people", by reading some rubbish in a book, may possibly believe that it is true, and it could have an impact on their everyday life.

Shit Mr Wilson, that's what you and your religious ilk, are doing with the bible.

What angered me most was the bit about the church losing its authority. About bloody time too! I have never understood why religious "leaders" and religious organizations should be able to influence day to day life.

Take for example the recent debate on the new Gaming Bill [for those of you in the US, that means a proposed law]. Religious leaders were up in arms about it. What fukin' business is it of theirs?

Why should an outfit that is so factionalised and whose whole tenet is based on a two thousand year old fable, be able to hold such sway on the lives of people who neither have, nor want, anything to do with them?

The answer is that they shouldn't.

As he was astute enough to notice, church attendance had dropped massively. What he doesn't say is that it's done so because most people have realized that it's just a way of parting you from some of your money and getting you out of bed on a sunday morning. Other than that, it's a bit like King Arthur of Santa Claus. You reach an age where realization dawns and suddenly you instinctively know that what you once held dear, you now know to be utter tosh.

How old will A N Wilson be before this realization dawns? Until then, us silly bastards who buy the Daily Mail will have to put up with the crap that he writes.

Oldest Mother at 63

The article below is from thr BBC website.

A controversial fertility doctor has defended his decision to give IVF to a 63-year-old woman who is set to become Britain's oldest mother.
Severino Antinori says he only treated psychiatrist Patricia Rashbrook, of East Sussex, in an unnamed European country after strict medical checks.
Dr Rashbrook, who is seven months pregnant with her fourth child, said she was delighted with the pregnancy.
Dr Antinori said age 62 or 63 was the upper limit for IVF in healthy women.
We are very happy to have given life to an already much-loved baby
Farrants' statement
He said he would only consider couples with at least 20 years' life expectancy left for fertility treatment, but argued that older people made better parents

Good luck to her I say. I would rather have the whole town filled with 63 year old mothers pushing their babies around than rafts of 13 year old mothers dragging theirs.

If you buy a dog, you need a license. If you re-home a dog, you get the third degree plus a home visit from the charity concerned. If you pup a brat, you just spread your legs around the back of Tesco and the government give you a cash handout!

Ladies apparel

As my straight colleagues have pointed out to me [every thirty seconds] "A bit of sunshine brings all the talent out". How true. Some of the blokes that I saw while wandering around today...... I had to have a wank when I got home!
Anyway....... something that seems still to be in fashion [for females], fuck knows why, is a dress with a pair of jeans worn underneath.

I can guarantee that any female found wearing such garb is certainly ugly. More often than not, not only should they be covering their legs and shrouding their arse but their face should be enrobed with a bag.

I must admit, though, that today, I have seen the ultimate in mad / bad dress. A pair of jeans cut off at the knee, with a pair of leggings underneath and all topped off by a skirt. She must have been sweating like a rapist, today being very warm, but she was the ugliest creature I've seen this side of Leeds.

Give me a man pretty, handsome or otherwise, anytime.

Starbucks

Please, forgive my ignorance, but why do people have suck a big problem with Starbucks?

I can understand why people have a grudge against McDonalds, the things that they sell are shit, a bit like anything sold by Richer-sounds, say, or Maplins. It looks like the real thing, but, in actuality, it's shoddy tat.

Starbucks sell coffee. If you want is so, bog standard hot water plus coffee. If you so desire it, you can have it adjusted to your preference. If not [and nobody forces you], bang, there you go, coffee.

So, maybe it's the fact that Starbcks are springing up everywhere, like cow shit in a field. Is that a bad thing? What coffee shop are they displacing? None as far as I can see. Starbucks arrives first then some clone has a go within a few yards and all of a sudden Starbucks is the bad guy, not the originator. [I don't recall everybody playing fuck about Cafe Nero when they were springing up like crack-houses, nor about McDog when they started to oust the good old Wimpey Bar].

Well maybe it's the fact that its an international [left wing speak for American] company that pays its worker peanuts. Does Starbucks on Euston Rd pay its staff any less than the Euston Flyer nextdoor? No, they actually pay them more.

I know that I hate Tesco but it's not because they just made £2 billion profit, it's because their staff don't know one brand of cig from another despite working the samecounterr selling the same fuking thing every day [how often have you ever been in Starbucks and the staff didn't know which coffee was which?].

So, please, somebody, tell me why people hate Starbucks!

[and I don't expect any white trash with dreadlocks I make my own clothes from recycled turds type answers]

Easter is late this year

I know that Easter has past but my tripping through the liturgical calendar was always a bit of a minefield for a godless bugger like me.

The pic of the bunnies appealed to me on three levels. One I like rabbits [with Yorkshire Pudding and onion gravy]. Two, I like chocolate, you don't get this fat eating Ryvita. Three, one of then has had his ears bitten off. While I still have one complete "lug", my remaining left stump still bares the teeth marks. [I can also empathise with the one with the dodgy arse. My own ring-piece is suffering this today.... more than somewhat!]

Crap web sites

I think that I've mentioned this topic before but here goes for 2nd time around.

I was trawling shit in the net looking for something about KES, one of the best Brit films ever.

Sadly, there were only a few decent sites dedicated to the film but fukin' hundreds of links to the IMDB [internet Movie Database].

It's not that I don't like the IMDB, I don't. I absolutely hate it. It's a list of not every film ver made, mostly with incorrect details in terms of cast, crew etc, etc. The fact that it's such a reference can only compound such errors.

A similar load of old shite is Wikkipedia. Wildly inaccurate and compiled by any fool who wants to contribute without checking their facts. Does nobody moderate anything anymore?

I've been on the receiving end of this creative mania for info on the web.

Many moons ago, when I worked for a living [running pubs & nightclubs] I would get loads of phone calls from persons who were "doing" a web site about pubs. Click, as I put the phone down. These twats seldom get halfway through A in the alphabet and mostly the details they do give are wrong.

Why bother?