The Gramsco-Greenazis have nobbled the telegraph


David Davis

Today, there are at least five major news or feature-refs to climte change, implicitly meaning AGW. Here, here, here, here, and here.

and, why do these bloody models always look so effing miserable? There they are, their names and fizzogs in lights, modelling the planet’s most expensive togs, and yet they’re always scowling as if they’ve just eaten a piece of dogshit:-

 

.....yuk!

.....yuk

…and you sort of feel sure that Mr Versace or whatever his name is ought to have been able to afford to give the poor girl a nice pair of b***s, before sendng her out like that….like this one:-

 

Ta, they feel better, can I go on the catwalk now?

Ta, they feel better, can I go on the catwalk now?

God versus Science: something for the commentariat to argue about over the weekend…


David Davis

This just floated in from somewhere. Personally I see no problem whatsoever with Science co-existing with religious belief. Many scientists I have known were devout Christians.

I think we all ought to read 1.John (1 and onwards a bit) and ask what it meant.

But the fella relates a nice story.

Citizen Tom obviously thinks about stuff. I might go back from time to time and see. But for now, here’s what Keeley Hazell thinks. We will continue to employ her for now, inspte of Gordon Brown and his “end to Tory boom and bust”…

Keeley Hazell doesn’t want you to get burgled, so buy an i-Pod with a gun attached…..


David Davis

So that you can shoot straight, it seems you need an i-Pod now:-

Here she is, I expect the gun fits between the boobs, without being observed quickly:-

khburglaryimage1

And, thanks to The Remittance Man, we have this, just in! When I grow up, I want to be like mommy:-


And here she is again….(update, someone on the interwebthingy seems to have removed the image from the link…)


Get it on…


Vlad the Impala

I am indebted to David Thompson for this (er) small matter:-

The fascination among Fabian fascists and other nazis for condoms – presumably to be commanded to be used by nasty low hoi-Polloi other then themselves –  has often troubled me. Libertarians are often confused with “libertines” – in fact my dear neighbour Dominic, a blameless port-drinking 40-something  husband and father-of-three with a university degree, often gets at me over this matter. He is saying that we ought to alter our name libertarian completely since it upsets what he calls right-thinking-people, and makes them think we are in favour of what he calls Free Love….he’s even a bit concerned about the free-market thingy, too.

And yet the promotion of the mass use of these little rubber machines seems to go hand in hand with socialism. VIZ:- Wehrmacht standing orders for Barbarossa were that they were specifically to be worn by the soldiers while shagging Polish and Russian girls: and British Big-State secondary schools mandate it in PSHE lessons.

The phrase “family planning” sticks in mind, as used by the socialists. I should have thought that the only time you’d use a “durex” is when you are specifically _not_ planning a family…or have I missed something?

Harking back to University days, I do agree that condoms do actually decrease the risk of pregnancy. Here’s how it’s done. There was nothing more calculated to eliminate one’s libido than, at the ciritical moment with a young lady, she’d hop up naked out of the clinch, open her chest of drawers, and get out a…. Durex! You felt immmediately that, really, she was not for you – she clearly either had it planned, in which case “you” had been “for her” all evening and so she had just been acting in front of you: or else she did this sort of thing all the time, and therefore she plainly was not “for you” but “for anyone she had decided that fancied tonight at the student union disco”. The ability to “perform” was thus immediately severely limited, and almost none of these encounters was able to be pursued. Things didn’t improve even if you managed to get one of the blasted things on either: feeling nothing, you could do nothing, and had to fake it cleverly a second or two before you lost your erection, if you wanted to keep the girl.

I don’t really kow what’s the libertarian position (sorry) on condoms: who ought to use them, who ought not, that kind of thing – perhaps someone could “put me straight”? Would the Pope know? Perhaps we ought to ask Keeley Hazell. The blog editor does, so why not me?

Sir John Mortimer 1923-2009: what a good chap for smoking because of the ban.


David Davis

Just a brief rundown. You can’t find it in your heart to criticise such a good old chap, even though he didn’t like Thatcher quite as ecstatically as I do.

Here, and here, and here, and also here, are reasons which Mortimer would have approved of, for why you should smoke.

The saddo socialist buggers do not own your body, even if they say they do subliminally, by “urging people towards a healthier lifestyle”. Who’s life is it anyway? (As the man, I forget who, said.)

Is this true?


David Davis

From The Remittance Man we learn this: householders will be visited by bureaucrats dispensing advice (here’s the original source) about cooking with leftovers…..

Sometimes we here, on whichever of the duty-typwriting squadrons is on “watch”, are tempted to emulate the language of Obnoxio The Clown, or the Devil himself. (He’s uncovered a previously unstudied State-Bogus-Charity in that one…Obnoxio’s latest just refers to some bureucrat or other as a c*** . )

But this is a family blog, so, apart from saying shit and crap which is rather weak playground stuff now, we only go so far as to merely write f*** (sometimes even c*** these days.) And also we only show pictures of Keeley Hazell wearing bras (until we get bored with her and we go and get someone else. Possibly Lucy Pinder – anybody got any preferences? See poll below. If in doubt, go here and select someone else.)

To get back to the point, the government is bust, the main world’s private banks have feverishly bought themselves into virtual bankruptcy by queuing for 15 years to buy each others “securitised” pigs-in-pokes, Gordon Brown is printing money….and then they all go and spend it on what? Food-police. Here’s an exerpt:-

Home cooks will also be told what size portions to prepare, taught to understand “best before” dates and urged to make more use of their freezers.

The door-to-door campaign, which starts tomorrow, will be funded by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), a Government agency charged with reducing household waste.

The officials will be called “food champions”. However, they were dismissed last night as “food police” by critics who called the scheme an example of “excessive government nannying”.

WE MUST ALSO BEAR IN MIND THAT THIS IS ! “ALL ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS” !  People who have purchased food are entitled to dispose of it how it pleases them. The bought food DOES NOT become State Property: it belongs to the householder.

No bureaucrats yet come round to tell you not to throw a brick at your Wireless Tele Vision, thus rendering it at least partially if not fully unserviceable, whenever Jonathan Ross come on screen: why should they come and tell you what to do with food whiche displeases you?

It’s all very sad: it’s as if the poor government buggers just can’t kick the gravy-train (sorry) habit, even when there’s really no money, as opposed to just the appearance of no money.