Interesting, oh no sorry my mistake, pointless photo story in the Daily Mail today of the Prime Minister carrying his child in a knapsack.
Just out shopping - I'm as normal as the
next person
Obviously for security reasons it's imperative that the child's face is pixilated out. In this case there's a very real threat - this child is not as others. Most babies bear a passing resemblance to former Prime Minister Winston Churchill, but not this one.
This baby explains the ever increasing power and influence of our Deputy Prime Minister in Government policy, and is the reason you'll never see Samantha Cameron and Miriam González Durántez together - they can't stand being within 30 feet (Or 10 metres for the Lib Dem) of each other. See the photo below for the shocking truth!
Inspired by The Reverend Dr Peter Mullen's crap efforts at limericks in the Telegraph I gave it a pop.
Georgie's the Chancellor's name,
hookers & coke is his game,
as well as helping his mates,
with favourable tax rates,
and giving the poor all the blame.
Is Dave really not a man of the people or does he have really smelly poos?
Economic woe makes folk bitter,
They moan on their blogs and on twitter,
But our leaders are clever,
And we're all in this together,
Except when they go to the shitter.
I was going to say "of the oil industry" but on second thoughts he really is just a tool. Not a big one mind, more a little pink acorn nestling in a thatch of black pubes.
Certainly bullied at school
He's grasped onto a second tranche of emails from 2007 that he feels undoubtably smash the global warming conspiracy. The fact that they're just bit pieces of emails that could be relating to the University of Anglia's Christmas party for all we know is neither here nor there.
One of the emails compares selling Climate change to the world with selling unleaded petrol to an unwilling public back in the 70's & 80's. This is something I've felt for a long time. I'm not really that phased by global warming, I think it's happening and it's happening because of increased Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere. This is the accepted science by the vast majority of respectable scientific organisations, it's also the line a lot of big corporations are taking - and they won't do that lightly as there's a cost associated with that stand-point. However there are people who are vehemently against it as if it's true it will upset their comfortable existence.
So in order to keep their life on an even keel they pick at the science and scientists through popular press and (nowadays) the blogosphere. You don't have to invest time and money into scientific research in order to demonstrate your point, you can just insert some uncertainty into the science that means you're going to pay more to drive to the newsagent.
This is what James Delingpole does, well he doesn't do it personally, he ctrl c/ ctrl v from other's who have the brains to pick out little "Ah but how do you know?" points in the same way people did (and still do) with lead in petrol, lung cancer from cigarettes, CFCs depleting the ozone layer and evolution. This is what was mentioned in the email he quotes and he knows it's a legitimate point to be put against climate change deniers. So he goes for a direct hit and questions the wisdom of removing lead from petrol.
I know what you're thinking - there's data coming out of your ears that show what a great thing this was - blood lead levels have dropped massively in countries that have taken lead out of petrol and this has had great benefits to the health of children. It's even been postulated that the removal could have had a positive impact on crime rates! But yet still JD bangs on about the cost - £600 on the price of a new car - being too much. It appears you can put a price on your child''s health and it's related to the cost of a Ford Escort.
And this is why he's a tool. He's can't bare the thought that someone knows better than him and will tell him what to do. He can't bare the fact he's wrong about anything and he'll whine and bitch until he's puce in the face that he's right. You just know what sort of spoiled brat he was at school and you've got to feel for his parents.
Littlejohn's latest ill-informed ramblings range from moaning the police treat racism, homophobia and murder as a crime via a complete lack of awareness about the Arab spring to wind farms.
I'll not bother going into his own slow-witted attempt to be a jolly version of James (science is hard) Delingpole as it was one of the comments that made me laugh most (see below).
I like the gall of someone who bitterly complains about the noise and grotesque appearance of turbines and how their heart bleeds for anyone who lives near one when they see it through their car window on the M25.
Unless they were driving round another pretty, quiet and tranquil M25 that people clamour to live next to and I don't know about.
How offensive is it to be 'flipped the bird'? Personally I'm not too bothered, there's often no vigour associated with it, kind of a lazy "I just don't care; jog on". It's certainly not as offensive as someone giving you the rods, something a little more violent about those.
But then I would think that as I'm a fully paid up member of the thought police (Still awaiting my warrant card) if you want to find out what the honest to goodness tax payers think of flipping the bird you need to go to the arbiter of public standards - Our Lady the Daily Mail. Amen.
Luckily today's Mail has two stories about giving folk the finger (Not in a good way you understand) so we've double the sample size to base our findings on. Let's jump in.
The first story involves a woman, a bus driver and a missing 20p. I don't think the details are that important needless to say it ends up with a shocked woman staring at a single middle finger.
Blimey that's not very nice is it? All she did was scream at him for the duration of the bus ride, he really should man-up and take it on the chin, after all he's got that plastic screen thing protecting him from her spittle. The tone of the piece makes it very obvious that we're not to be impressed by the driver's actions - it's not big and it's not clever. But more importantly what do the readers think? Let's have a look at the top 6 rated comments.
Oooh people aren't very happy with him, and bus drivers in general it seems. So 'Flipping the bird' seems to be nasty. Let's confirm this with digit disgust story number 2.
So this unhappy Russian newsreader seems to have developed manual Tourette's syndrome which means every time she says "Barrack Obama" she has to unfurl the third finger, on the news, in front of 120 million current affairs loving Russians. So does showing off and acting clever in front of twice the population of the UK anger the Mail's loyal readership as much as a pissed off bus driver?
Apparently not.
So there it is, inconclusive evidence on the offensiveness of the bird. Flip it to an angry woman on public transport and it's bad, flip it to a leader of the free world and it's funny. However please keep in mind if you ever meet David Cameron on the bus all bets are off we just don't know what the etiquette is.
Of course it does, we all know that. However - in yet another European scare story it appears common sense has been trumped by foreigners once again. It seem they just can't let it go can they? There always has to be some Belgium or Portuguese know-it-all telling us we're wrong.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are the people who made the ruling which was prompted by a submission from two Germans - Prof. Dr. Moritz Hagen Meyer and Prof. Dr. Andreas Hahn. The first is a lawyer specialising in food law & science and the second is a food scientist. They didn't make the submission because they're planning to launch a super-tasting extra-wet bottled water onto the market, they did it for political reasons.
In order to make a claim on a food product you have to obtain a positive opinion from EFSA. This is to stop you selling a block of second-hand chip lard and promising it'll make your feet stop smelling of cheese. obviously the food industry (in which I work) isn't too happy. This is because many companies make a lot of spurious claims about their products, and generally try and flog them through Holland & Barrett, but mainly because it takes forever to get an opinion published. Not a great situation when you're trying to rush a product to market.
The reason it takes so long is obvious, there's thousand of products in Europe and only a handful of scientists of looking at all the submissions made, digesting the information given, comparing with what's been said before and publishing an opinion. This can take years, and in the case of the submission made by our German friends it took three years. This is why they they did it, to highlight the delays this relatively new way of working causes. They also did this very cleverly as, knowing how the system works, they ensured the actual wording was technically ambiguous.
What they wanted to say is “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance” This seems pretty standard, but it does require some back-up information in the submission and this is where the difficulties begin. The way this is worded means the panel has to treat dehydration as a disease, however within the submission the Profs stated that the risk of the disease is increased by a lack of fluid in body tissues and this could be remedied by taking in water. (Full submission can be seen here) Unfortunately water loss in tissues is defined as the "disease" and not a risk factor in causation of the disease. Hmm, that doesn't make a lot of sense.
In essence the Profs wanted to claim that not having dehydration reduces the risk of being dehydrated, they probably knew this is what they were asking too.
It really is a word game, a law question, a technicality that means our German friends couldn't get a positive claim on their submission. This is still Manna from heaven for people wanting to show how mental all Europeans are (Except our mischievous Germanic academics) you can't say drinking water stops dehydration!
Oh but of course you can. EFSA had previously assessed health claims around water in April 2011 (Lookie here) where they stated (In their legalise):
Maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions
The claimed effects are “hydration, e.g. body function, physical and cognitive performance”, “adds to fluid intake and supports hydration”, and “hydration”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. The Panel considers that maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions is a beneficial physiological effect.
Loss of body water of about 1 % is normally compensated within 24 hours. Without compensation and with further increase of body water loss, physical and cognitive functions are impaired.
The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the dietary intake of water and maintenance of normal physical and cognitive functions.
The Panel considers that, in order to obtain the claimed effect, at least 2.0 L of water should be consumed per day. Such amounts can be easily consumed as part of a balanced diet. The target population is the general population.
Dehydration in a bottle
So you can claim that drinking water hydrates you, and with a clever commercial and regulatory people you can word that so it states that drinking water stops dehydration.
Of course that's not what will ever be reported - but every time you now see some overpaid, fat, racist columnist (Can you guess who it is yet?) use this as another example of the meddling Luxembourgers you'll know it's just not true and is in fact the mischievous doings of food industry insiders trying to stir up controversy.
We've all joked about the Mail's obsession with differentiating the world into "Cures-cancer" and "Causes-cancer" to the extent that there's numerous websites and a facebook group dedicated to documenting the newspaper's findings and Russell Howard has even written a song about it.
Thankfully after years of research the Mail themselves have finally gathered enough evidence to publish their definitive list.
This expert thinks he's in with
a chance with that expert.
Lists are brilliant. You know where you stand with a list, can't argue when it's there in black and white, it is what it is and you can base your opinions and actions on whereabouts in a list any issue sits. I imagine the newsroom walls are papered with flipchart sheets full of lists.
"Where do we stand on Leylandii trees in Hampshire?"
"According to the suburbia list, they're better than 'Lithuanian bricklayers' but worse than 'Unseasonal showers'. They're tied for fourteenth place with 'Gary Lineker'.
It seems they were making full use of the "Horrific Events" list when reviewing a new episode of Family Guy. In the episode Stewie and Brian travel back and stop the horrible events of 9/11 only to find that this causes a nuclear apocalypse in the present. Horrified they duly use their time machine to go back and ensure that the terrorist atrocities occur and then, after averting a 'When the wind blows' future, they high five in a manner popular with happy Americans.
So let's take this to the list wall. Where does a Martini drinking dog and an evil baby high-fiving, after using their time travel machine to avert a nuclear winter by ensuring 9/11 happens, sit on the 'Horrific Events' list? Well the evidence put forward by the article seems to suggest it's worse than drink driving, abortion and the holocaust.
Thank god for lists helping us keep everything in perspective.
Sometimes, when I've exhausted poring over the Daily Mail for things that annoy me enough to bang on about them here, I like to see what other crazies in the world have to say.
I like to look at the BiasedBBC blog - they seem to think that as it's license payers money paying for Radio 4's Today programme it really should be a propaganda instrument for the Israeli army. I've no idea why a blog that should be angry about the wrong coloured ties being worn when monarchs drop dead is actually more concerned with god bothering nutters blowing each other up at the other end of the Mediterranean, but whatever makes them happy. It's good to get it off your chest.
However the gold medal for mentalness is reserved for Fox Nation. This is a chance to worship at the altar of Sarah Palin, complain that the Occupy protesters smell and kill puppies and prove how un-racist you are by liking Herman Caine. Aside from politics and justice and media and campus (Includes a story about Wisconsin Uni professors being banned from carrying concealed weapons) they have a section set aside for culture.
So what passes for culture in the Fox Nation?
Why bare naked ladies of course, and I've been paying no attention to culture previously as I thought it was all about dusty paintings, classical music not good enough for adverts and un-rhyming poetry.
The Mail's Science section is a kaleidoscope of wonder and nonsense that prove both how amazing the natural world can be and how little attention many wannabe journalists paid to science lessons at school.
Wednesdays are often a good day for misunderstood science stories as it's the day before New Scientist is published and the sneak previews offered to the press lead to many exaggerated claims about the health benefits or dangers of many a household object or how in just six months time we'll all be flying to the moon in a biscuit tin.
However it seems a new dawn is approaching. No longer content with nibbling at the scraps the scientific press throws from its table once a week it seems the Mail's leading a charge in expounding the merits of the new scientific method for the 21st century: Cartoonism.
This breakthrough, hinted at by Einstein in his twilight years and heralded by Stephen Hawkings as a god-send, opens the doors to a new century of discovery; a new renaissance; a better world for us all.
The method itself is so simple a journalist could grasp it. By visualising and then committing to paper your hypothesis you bring it to life and thus prove it to be true.
A fine example in today's DM demonstrates that yes indeed the good people at Pixar know their archaeology and their nut chasing mammal Scrat really did exist. Look there's a cartoon!
Yes, proof indeed
Bolstered by this amazing piece of Crayola based research The Mail has undertaken more studies. The following discoveries are yet to be fully published in peer reviewed literature but their importance to mankind cannot be kept waiting.
My view is that the criminalisation of drugs leads to more misery, through the violent supply chain, than would be caused by the subsequent public health issues legalisation brought.
Peter's argument is that if we legalised drugs civilisation would end and we'd be ruled by cruel Chinese masters. No really that's what he thinks.
Nick Clegg is probably one of the least liked politicians in the country - that's some achievement from a man who was so fantastically popular during the leader's debates, prior to the election, that queues of well-wishers used to form at his house with gifts and offers of domestic service. Now it's said he gets dog eggs delivered through his letterbox with aplomb envied by many a postman.
To be fair he has brought it on himself. If he hadn't been such a twat over admission fees perhaps his hallway wouldn't smell like a dirty protest and people wouldn't give the finger to the phone when they take his calls. So imagine if you had to spend five hours sat next to the man on a flight to Cairo. How much Business Class free booze would it take before you were telling him he's a grade A shit who sold out his principles for a sniff of power?
Did you drink my Buckfast?
Well according to the Mail it doesn't take any time at all. A fellow passenger was on him like a seagull on a saveloy, banging on about his party's reluctance to scrap the Human rights act. She was so wound up apparently that she had to be "physically restrained". Much as I don't like the man you've got to feel for someone who gets "verbally abused" for 5 hours by a, presumably, drunk mentalist.
Daniel Martin is acknowledged as the journalist who brought us this nearly story - in fact it's so lame as a story he ended up padding out the last third of the text with a totally bizarre un-related dig at Tony Blair's work and earnings since he left office. I imagine Daniel had been tasked to deliver 500 words about Clegg's traumatic flight got 300 words in and realised there was nothing else to say so he pasted in a few paragraphs from another story hoping no one would notice. Lazy get.
Eh?
He'd probably have been better off trying to find someone who was on the flight and getting a quote off of them to pad it out. That would appear to be easier than Daniel could have imagined too as the mountain came to Mohammed and a quote made its way onto the website unbidden.
There's a message in the comments section from Simon Windsor-Green, nestled among the usual retarded Hitler loving renta-quotes, who was on the plane and explains what actually went off. It seems it was actually very little.
I wonder if Daniel had known this before he submitted his half-arsed copy he'd have had to pad out the text even more. I like to think he'd have filled the space with a short tale of a man and his pet parrot who spoke of secrets and lies but then choked on a peanut, we'll never know and perhaps literature is poorer because of it.
The fight for the Republican nomination for next year's US Presidential election is hotting up. Current darling of the GOP faithful is the batty pizza chef Herman Cain. His brand of quick fix, easy answer, low tax, ignore the rest of the world mentalness reminds them fondly of their previous slow-witted hero Dubya.
Cain's lack of interest in countries to the east or west of his country is best articulated with his pre-emptive tirade against journalists earlier this year;
However the rantings of Herman aren't my main concern at the minute. I was wondering if there was some way of finding out how the wing-nuts at the Mail feel about a second term for Obama. Unfortunately they're keeping their position on the matter quiet. I'll keep digging and if I find a chink in their armour and a glint of what their opinion might be come the election I'll let you know.
Richard Dawkins has been making some seemingly controversial remarks about blinkered religious Muslim beliefs in the Times Educational Supplement.
In his opinion of all the faith schools he's come across the Muslim ones are the worst for passing off their creation myths as hard fact. This is then carried onto university where the poor under-graduates are so shaken by evolutionary theory that they have to walk out of lectures.
Strong stuff, and worthy of a story. What would make a worthwhile article would be perhaps contacting the professor and asking him if he'd like to expand on his thoughts for the wider, and less niche, audience provided by the Mail.
Unless you're lazy arsed reporter Hugo Gye. In this case you'll copy and paste the raciest phrases from the TES and then quote the Daily Telegraph as either their take on the issue is key, or it happened to be nailed to the back of the door while he was ruminating in trap number three.
World class reporting that allows him to get his required copy in in-full whilst leaving plenty of time for buttock scratching and bacon sarnies. Keep up the good work Hugo.
Off on holiday for a couple of weeks. I'm pretty sure you'll cope admirably without my inane rants for a fortnight.
While I'm away can I recommend you try the properly researched and well written blogs on the left. It'll be a refreshing change from the barely thought-out stuff I usually offer. Tweet
In his Sunday Mail column this week 50's Teddy-boy fan Peter Hitchens dares people to accuse him of 'moral panic'. Why - in this specific case - would you want to accuse the perennially grumpy old sod of moral panic you may ask? Well Peter does his best to regale us of a horrible case of persecution, bullying and intimidation that were heaped upon the undeserving Fiona Pilkington and her daughter.
These horrendous events are a clear demonstration that the world has slid into a mire of lefty lawlessness with benefit baddies running amok. His main stab at a point revolves around the fact that these heinous type of events did not occur when there was fear of the law. He seems to think that the past was a country bereft of evil, although if you do a quick search you'll find plenty of cases of people coming forward with their horror stories of abuse and harm inflicted on the vulnerable by people in positions of power; nuns & priests for instance.
Perhaps Peter pines for an age where there seems to be much less vicious crime purely because it's reported less. Hear no evil, speak no evil so there can't be any evil?
That's not Peter's view of course he believes that it's a fear or reluctance of intervention by authorities that allows offenders to get away with their actions. As he paraphrases them "We can do anything we want..." Why can they do anything they want? Surely because no one is stopping them.
A little further down his rant - past a piece whimsically praising stay at home mothers and pinafores - he tells a tale of a stroll through modern Britain, presumably taken by himself. In this stroll he comes across a "Menacing young man" who looks like he's going to attack a group of young women with pushchairs. Does Peter - a man in a position of authority, a respectable pillar of the community, a guiding light and example to millions of readers - intervene and try to protect these young women vulnerable to attack. Well you'd imagine he would, he spent a few hundred words not far up the page criticising a lack of intervention, but of course he doesn't. Apparently there's no sign of authority and he's not interested in helping. He's not interested in making the country better, he's not interested in looking out for the weak, he's not interested in challenging offenders.
He is interested in spying on a scene of potential violent crime, writing about this as an increasing amount of evidence of 'moral panic' in modern Britain and pocketing a big fat cheque for the privilege though.
Over at Angrymob Uponnothing welcomed the unveiling of the Mail's collection of Bloggers grouped together under the heading "Rightminds" - I did wonder what you called a group of reactionary drama queens and now we know. I thought a 'Horror' or maybe a 'Lynching' were more likely candidates, apparently not.
They have brought together some of the oddest minds in journalism to eek out bilge, fear, uncertainty and doubt into an undeserving world, but - believe it or not - this isn't the A-team they're fielding.
I've been lucky enough to get hold of a early draft of Simon Heffer's wanted list that he dropped onto Paul Dacre's desk. Unfortunately in these days of extravagant transfer fees and ill-timed deaths he couldn't quite pull together the Championship winning team that could compete with Fox news - but his fantasy team is below, imagine what we could have won.
Tax is a kick in the teeth, most people think this. You work your fingers to the bone, sat on your fat arse in an office, then pay day comes around and some of your hard-earned is creamed off to spend on killing God-bothering-nut jobs in Afghanistan. Of course most of the tax actually gets spent keeping the street lights on or having an ambulance on stand-by for when I decide Ice Hockey is actually the sport for me. So based on this you suck it in, write off your losses and get on with your life.
Canadian Can-Can
Unless you can afford a PR company. In which case you get them to round up a few tame academics - who will do anything for a sniff of cash and almost anything for an undergraduate with a nice smile and a lack of morals - and get them to tell the world that the 50p tax rate is making the country unbearable to live in and repelling free floating wads of cash from landing here. Making the rich pay this high rate of taxation on their well deserved pay-packets is driving them out of the country and raising a barrier to stinking rich foreigners coming over and building business empires here.
To be honest who cares if they leave and who cares if they don't come, neither will really happen. The real driving force of the economy in this country is the small & medium sized businesses and it's rare their owners and employees would come close to earning the £150,000 pa required to be taxed so heavily. The people who take home this sort of size pay packet tend to be working in the Service / Finance sector and so don't add much to the real economy - but keep the coke dealers in The City busy (I'm looking at you Chancellor...)
Hookers & Coke - not an upper class
department store
The few people actually paying the estimated £2.7bn this tax raises feel hard done by and so, after getting very angry and beating their Au Pairs with an ivory golf club, came up with the brilliant idea to tell us peasants that if they continue to have to suffer this inhuman taxation regime it'll actually be worse for us in the long run. The economy will continue to fall because of it and the only jobs available will be part-time trainee floor moppers at Kansas Fried Chicken.
This is known as pissing down your back and telling you it's raining.
As a youth I used to work behind the bar in a working men's club - the working part is ironic I think - during the tombola (Not bingo, tombola) I used to contemplate how many pints of lager I'd earned so far that night. It worked out about a pint an hour so I used to count down the minutes till another Carling Black Label had been earned. This impressed on me the importance of how much per hour you're paid and therefore I wondered how much these hard done by folk take home per hour after the tax man's had his cut, for all the fuss they've kicked up it must be a significant drop, a real belly blow to the take home, when they hit the magic number. So I did a smashing graph showing how much people take home per hour after tax & NI compared to their gross annual income. What I was expecting was a huge kink in the curve at £150,000 justifying their cry baby antics. What I got was a straight line and proof that they're just greedy bastards.
Uncle Vince has started the day off telling the world and their wife that when the Independent Commission on Banking (ICB) makes its recommendation on ways to stop Mr Barclays taking the country to the cleaners again the government should jump on it like a footballer on a Page 3 model.
That's fine for a Lib Dem to say that, they need to keep vegans onside not bankers, but it seems he's wound up the money lenders anyway and they've released the big dogs.
John pleasures a tiny
invisible man
The head of the CBI - John Cridland says it's madness to ask the banks to change their ways. After all they've learnt their lessons and promise to not do it again, fair enough should we leave them on the naughty step? The British Bankers association said it would be better for all (their members) if the reforms were put off - at least until everybody had forgotten about them. It also seems David Cameron has been given a prod in the right direction as it seems any suggestions will be implemented after he's had the funding to fight the next election.
Of course big DC - when he's worrying about putting jobs at risk - is thinking about his own and not about your shelf-stacking get-rich-quick-scheme.
The Telegraph, home of tax dodging slave owning bankers since 1979 - has pre-empted the ICB's report by publishing it's own top ten banking bugbears. The ten things that anger the Telegraph and its readers about banks, bankers and other financial shenanigans are shown in the screenshot here...
Yep nothing to see here. The bankers are all right, now give them your money.
Net immigration is up 20% and while, in truth, this is due to a big reduction in people leaving the UK it's not stopped the Mail dredging up some intense fear-mongering stories about hordes of aliens arriving uninvited.
An interesting question raised here, why does it always happen in Siberia? Whenever anyone ever mentions little green men or probing cows' bums or flying saucers it's always in that God-forbidden wasteland of the east.
The young have been in the limelight over the past few weeks following the violent riots and the record exam results - on an aside it's funny to think that there were probably no more than 20,000 kids who were involved in the riots and there were around 200,000 kids doing A levels and we're going to change the way the country's managed to suit the criminal minority?
Everybody - including me - has had their say on today's youth; David Cameron thinks they're at the heart of Britain's broken and / or sick society, Nick Clegg reckons orange jumpsuits should be their apparel of non-choice, Ed Milliband reckons we're all as bad as each other from MPs down to burglars, crazy racist historian David Starkey reckons its acting like you've got darker skin than you really have that caused the mayhem and it goes on.
Right wing crazies in the Mail & Telegraph reckon the riots prove them correct; the world's gone to hell and we're only minutes away from a Pol Pot type revolution where anyone who's ever listened to Radio 3 will be slaughtered in their beds. Left wing luvvies in the Guardian & Mirror think the A-level results show the kids are alright it's the bastard bankers stealing our money and shipping it all out to Bermuda that'll leave us freezing to death in December when we can't afford 50p for the gas meter. You pay your money and take your choice, until now.
Finally from the swirling maelstrom of opinion comes a guiding light. A beacon that we can all cling to and learn from the wisdom that spouts forth from this fountain of knowledge. Step forward sage of our time... Joan Collins.
Yes Joan Collins that's right. World famous actress, star of Martini adverts (or was it Cinzano - and more importantly is there a difference?) and former UKIP pin-up has spilled her wisdom out onto the pages of the Daily Mail, and as you've probably already guessed, it turns out to be the unstable rantings of a pre-senile rich old woman who thinks today's children are all evil devils. Even her own grand kids.
Realising that she's witnessed so much wrong, and the world should be told, she's had a little Indian slave girl she keeps in a cupboard write down her observations in blood (Probably) and then has paid a tame publisher to print them in a book for her. This is being serialised in the Daily Mail for people who like Grumpy Old Men on the BBC but think it's observations are too clever, funny or communist.
There's much that peeves her, too much to wade through - she's worse than Grandpa Simpson but one thing she's not too happy about is the culture of instant gratification that's prevalent in today's celebrity world.
Instant fame and popularity for wapping them out is no basis for a career in the entertainment industry, some standards must be upheld. This comes from a woman who's early work was a series of soft porn films written by her mucky sister.
Getting them out was for artistic
reasons and not cos she's a slapper
This culture is having a terrible effect on the evil little rugrats of the world, as she says...
"I pity the poor children of today who are exposed to the nasty adult world of profanity, porn and poverty of thought."
Tweet
