spEak You're bRanes

Thanks to Michelle. How do you follow a pun like Londonistan? It’s a tricky one, right? Rolls neatly off the tongue, and everyone knows instantly what you’re getting at. But you can’t just rest on your laurels and spew out derivative shite like ‘Bradistan’, you’ve got to keep racist humour moving. So first thing you need is a town with a sizeable and prominent non-white population. There’s Leicester for a start, but nothing springs to mind. Oldham? Birmingham? Preston? Ah fuck it, can’t be arsed. Work backwards. Punchline first, Muzzies later. It’ll be fine.

Blackpool is aptly named as it will soon be comandeered as a permanent ‘new town’ to resettle incomers and ensure that the sharia can be practised without interference from the indigenous losers , formerly known as ‘The English’.
MAN IN MOSQUE ( Don’t shoot the messenger!)

Well, I’ll give you a C+ for effort at least, but now you’ve put the idea in my head, a spot of shooting’s just way too tempting.

Who would you give your money to? Going to be a tricky one this. For obvious reasons ‘friends’ and ‘loved ones’ aren’t feasible, and ‘strangers’ might turn out either poor, foreign or both. So who then? Straight in first, setting the bar high from the outset, is our shiny new friend Toad in the Hole.

Toad In The Hole wrote:
Who would you give your money to? Future me.

Future you? That feckless arse? Never does a stroke of work, just sits there pretending to be over sixty-five, sponging off past and present you. Probably best you ram a butternut squash or two up your now-jacksie, wreck the lazy fucker’s bowels for him. Revenge is sweet.

D G Cullum wrote:
I give my money to me as I have very little to live on like many people how many billionaires do I know none but I will give them my address if they wish to send me a few thousand dollars. Any money they give they get back in taxes and it will not get them into heaven any quicker than anyone else. Why allow the media to make a big deal out of it its to much many anyway and the one that has made it sees it different than the kids who get to really spend it. Money is nothing it what you do with it so give it all away those rich people spend it on others and be generous about it after all you can not take it with you when you go and maybe someone will remember you for soemthing else and not just for being rich.

See, you didn’t think anyone could beat “future me”, did you? Well you didn’t reckon with the “present me”/”please Mr. Buffet could I have some more?” one-two combo, did you? There’s obviously a lot of talent here, but occasionally, someone will drop the ball and slip into a sense of charity for, like, other people.

UKcerberus wrote:
As a live billionaire, the very first thing I would do is leave this country!!
I would then help as many of the victims of UK governments as much as I could, but from afar. Victims of the UK’s appalling justice (sic) system who have no redress just because they are poor would get help with legal fees. The poverty-stricken children – yes, British children – would benefit from having at least a decent meal every day. Finally, I would ensure that no British child went to bed frightened or unloved. I would do that by sponsoring a private social service – highly skilled and motivated people who would be only concerned with child welfare, and not how easy a time and how politically correct their actions are.

It’s rather a clever happy medium really. You get to show your deep love and affection for sickening, uninhabitable Britain, and heartless disdain for Other Countries, your happy new home-sweet-home. Plus the more you donate, the less chance there is you’ll spend it and accidentally contribute to the local economy. My only worry is that if you do it this way, it might be mistaken for something ghastly like overseas aid and a foreigner might get his garlicky, unshaven mitts on it. Best just stuff all your imaginary billionaire-money in a big sock then have a wank into it.

It’s usually a bit below the belt to lay into someone just on spelling mistakes, but Stephen Murray from Middlesbrough, who I found chatting shite on an old Mail article about Baroness Scotland’s housekeeper, is an exception. Firstly, he’s an idiot. Secondly, he’s an idiot racist with weird paranoid delusions. Thirdly, these are just magical.

She employed this woman nowing she was a imigrant thats why she employed her in the first place ,if you had the slightest dought and you had a job of such importance you would play it safe and look around for uk citizen no problem no fine ,she never thought she would get found out and now she and the labour party are trying desperatly to find some sinario which thay can save her job ,weak priminister and weak goverment.

- stephen murray, middlesbrough

Look at ‘dought’, for a start. Despite his obvious shit-for-brains thought-processes, Stephen understands about silent letters and ‘gh’, he even knows a fair few words that are spelt funny. So he clearly has the makings of a good speller in him. And look at ‘priminister’. It actually seems quite logical if you’ve never seen a newspaper and have no idea what the word is meant to look like. It’s implausible, the more I think about it the more it explains a great deal about the internet, and to be honest it frightens me a little. But the only conclusion I can come to is that Stephen Murray can write but not read.

Thanks to Malcolm. Some tedious bell-end, this time in the Derby Evening Telegraph, flogging the old bend-the-struggle-against-Hitler-round-to-fit-racism horse again.

RECENTLY, we commemorated the 70th anniversary of the Dunkirk evacuation.

For many veterans, the memories of the carnage have been difficult ones. A number of veterans said that, had the invasion not been repelled, Great Britain would be speaking German today.

No disrespect to our war dead, but I am now finding it increasingly difficult to understand the many foreign languages now spoken in Derby.

Dennis Monk

I bet not many of them are German though, are they? I love how these idiots always imagine the worst thing about living under the iron grip of National Socialism would have been having to do a relatively easy language in school. Yeah, so a few people get enslaved, tortured and gassed but I have to spend an hour or two a day clearing my throat. Who’s the real victim?

Plus think how many other ways we’re disrespecting the war dead. They gave their lives for our freedom not to be a racist batty-crease, but Dennis Monk is still a racist batty-crease. I’m sure someone somewhere once gave their life for our freedom not to push racist batty-creases from Derby into wheat threshers, but if there was one and Dennis Monk was looking the other way, I’d still be sorely tempted. Makes me sick thinking about it. Hypocrites.

Thanks to Chris.

bigsid
I watch with sadness as our brave soldiers are constantly being reported as being victims of IED’s whilst on foot patrol.

It would seem to me then that maybe in the areas where a lot of this is constantly happening, a curfew should be set at sundown and locals should be made to stay in their compounds or villages (there’s no streetlights so they don’t really have any legitimate business to be outside their compounds).

During nightfall, drones, satellites, helicopters etc. could be watching these hot spots using infrared sights and if they see people huddled by roadsides, or areas known to be likely used for IED’s, they could call in an air strike, mortar or big bomb to land on their heads.

As the locals would have been warned of this curfew and the repercussions of it, they would stay indoors and only IED planters would have any reason to break the curfew.

After a few get bombed, the rest would think twice about planting their sneaky bombs.

Another stupid, cretinous, half-baked idea from some mouthy prick with zero military war-experience of real fighting in the proper army. I mean, when do we use an air strike, when do we use a mortar and when do we use a big bomb? Are we going to scope in smallish, middle-sized and really-big bombs? What about those rocket-sized sniffer-bombs to find the sneaky bombs and desneak them? You’ve not thought this through.

Seriously though, what if a Major General or a Red Admiral or one of those other important army people reads this and gets confused? You’d have big-bomb blood on your hands, wouldn’t you? Maniac.

Thanks to Rónán. On that Bloody Sunday report a while back. Ever think it’s crazy how judges/PC liberals decide on goodies and baddies based on who does good things and who does bad things, rather than who is a lion with a plucky sidekick and who has bumbling henchmen and a skull for a face? Well you’re not alone.

lochraven wrote:
Isn’t it funny how people’s sense of right and wrong changes with each circumstance, and who’s doing what to whom? I think this whole incident should be called a draw. No winners, and no losers. Stop looking for a villain, it’ll get you nowhere.

It’s funnier how people’s sense of flat-head and cross-head depends on what screw they’re screwing into what. Where’s the consistency, eh?

Visit Openbook for all your facebook-status-to-yell-at-the-world needs. Liberal Conspiracy tried out “I’m not racist but…“. I tried it with “not racist but” and ‘paki’*.

POLICE ARE GOING AROUND CLUBS AND PUBS SAYING WE CAN’T WEAR OUR ENGLAND TOPS FOR THE FOOTIE AND GOTTA TAKE DOWN OUR FLAGS AS ITS UPSETTING PEOPLE THAT DON’T COME FROM HERE! NOW IM NOT RACIST BUT, THIS IS TAKING THE PISS! THIS IS OUR COUNTRY AND WE NEED 2 MAKE A STAND IF YOU DONT LIKE IT DONT BE HERE! WOULD YOU REMOVE YOUR TURBAN OR BURKHA BECAUSE IT UPSETS ME? THOUGHT NOT, IF YOU AGREE POST THIS AS YOUR STATUS. IF ANY PAKI TOLD ME TO TAKE MY ENGLAND SHIRT OFF I WOULD SPLATTER HIS PICKAXE NOSE…

It’s very easy to make fun of people who aren’t racist but, but I think we might be misinterpreting the phrase. To a layman, it seems like “I’m not racist but…” is a rubbish pre-emptive justification for saying something massively racist in an age where it’s unacceptable. But to the insider, it’s just a social formality, like “I’m fine thanks” when you’re sobbing uncontrollably and a little bit on fire. “I’m not racist but…” is probably just how racists clear their throats.

*Oh and what with prejudice being collective and everything, it works even better plural.

Thanks to Ashley.

Stephen wrote:
PR = Party Rigging
PR = Pointless Rambling
PR = Politically Revolting
PR = People Revolted
PR = Partial Revelation
PR = Presidential Rule
PR = Person Redundant
PR = Pontential Revolt

Ashley adds:

Possum’s Receptacle.

Thanks to Aaron. Someone’s worked out gay rights and religious tolerance might somehow end up in conflict.

Yes, I can’t help thinking that the PC agenda may be self-limiting since homosexuals and Islamists must be on a collision course with each other.

That will be an interesting collision that could rip the Left apart as we know it.

posted by reprobate

You wonder what reprobate thinks goes on here at PC Brigade Towers. Dreadlocked, bespectacled, computer experts, hunched over their machines, tapping oppressed minorities into complicated models to resolve their differences without offending any of them. Transvestite executives, sipping fairtrade organic differently-abled-accessible coffee over lengthy meetings about whether to use gays to undermine marriage so the Welsh can take over, or Marxism to undermine Britain so the Muslims can take over. Put-upon lesbian secretaries (male of course) trying to cram as many attacks on hardworking English families into their asylum-seeker bosses’ already packed PC agendas. Sounds a nightmare.

If only reprobate knew our real agenda. Throw darts at pictures of white people and dick about on the internet all morning, have lunch, check facebook, do the opposite of whatever UKIP want then hit the pub around four. Quality.

Will faith influence your vote? As usual, a couple of tedious cockwipes took this to mean ‘What’s your least favourite foreigner?’, grinning proudly to themselves at how cleverly they’d linked it to the real title.

john wrote:
my faith as been destroyed when it is hard to hear english in my city

warriorsottovoce wrote:
All He asks for is for us to believe in Him and all will be OK. Sorry Gordon, it’s not going to work this time. After 13 years of Labour it would be like asking a Scotsman to pass through the eye of a needle before he could get into Parliament

Which I’m not even going to dignify with a put-down. Mostly though, it was an unbearably smug battle between the unbearably smug god-botherers and the unbearably smug god-botherer-botherers.

Megan wrote:
As a Christian EVERYTHING I do is informed by my faith. My choice when I come to cast my vote is no different… but it isn’t based on trivia like whether or not my chosen candidate happens to hold any faith, let alone the same one. It’s based on the policies for which he or she stands and how well they accord with what I think Jesus would want.

Poster seen in a church doing duty as a polling station: “You have come to mark your X – remember the one who died on a + for your salvation, and consider what He would have us do.”

Good idea. I’ll start praying for guidance on the common market and effective fiscal policy. It’ll give me the edge over those ghastly, self-righteous atheists, who can just change their entire philosophy at the drop of a hat.

Peter wrote:
I learned a new word yesterday – Laicism: ‘the nonclerical, or secular, control of political and social institutions in a society’. As a Laicist I will be looking for leaders who actively deny the role of religion in government and will be ignoring any desperate enough to involve the mystical, spiritual and utterly intangible in their political pitch.

Someone desperately needs to teach Peter the word ‘onanism’ the day before a job interview.

Normally, after reading a dozen sanctimonious, cocksure atheists whining about how definitely right they are and how stupid everyone else is, I’m usually all but ready to side with the Christians, who generally seem dimly aware that they believe some astonishingly implausible stuff. But you can’t ever generalise about these things:

John McCormick wrote:
Hello, #21,
You make your point forcibly but foolishly.
You seem to be saying that belief in a faith requires no empirical evidence.
In return, I would argue that maintaining an atheist or agnostic position is illustrative of mental blindness on a (literally) cosmic scale.
To disbelieve in God, you have to believe some really improbable “facts”:

1) That the universe came into existence without help. Whether you go for 10 dimensions, or whatever scientific mumbo-jumbo holds your attention for now, ultimately you have to believe that something can pop into existence where once there was nothing. Sorry, but I don’t believe in magic – obviously you do.
2) That matter can become animate without help. Please refer to a wonderful chapter in Bill Bryson’s Short History of Everything in which he describes the mechanism that would be required to achieve this for 1 protein molecule. The odds against this 1 molecule are so high that there simply has not been enough time (even 20 billion years) for this to happen by accident.

There have been some really wonderful theories promulgated by scientists through the ages to explain the universe (And the daft ones believed by the church were non-biblical, too) – such as the universe being eternal and the earth being in the middle. And lets not forget the search for luminiferous ether while we’re at it. Reminds me of the search for dark matter (When all you need to do is un-apply the laws of thermodynamics for a little; while the universe is being created).

As far as I can see, atheists are not faithless – they believe in some really amazing impossibilities!

Yeah, like magic. Magic! Can you imagine? And it’s a slippery slope too. Start off believing in magic, next thing you know, you’re believing in some gigantic old man who has all the magic in the universe and sends it to smite the bummers.