spEak You're bRanes

You might want to clear your diaries for this morning, because Heidi has sent in this Wagnerian misery cycle from Your Freedom, elegantly composed by a man with an awful lot of time on his sticky hands. He evokes his own train-wreck psyche so vividly you can almost hear him sniffing your chair. He’s a Regular Twat in the making, if he doesn’t cast us all sobbing into endless vortices of despair.

Are you sitting comfortably?

Wight1984.

Your argument is based on this in my view now wholly unjusifed position that women are oppressed.

While this may have been true 100 or more years ago, where is the evidence that they are now?

On the contrary, there’s far more evidence that MEN are repressed.

e.g. the UK pensions age is STILL 65 fo women and only 60 for men.

Ironically as women live several years longer than men on average, many men don’t even make it to 65, so it’s DOUBLY DISCRIMINATING aginst men.

And lookee here, we’ve had FEMINISM for about 100 years and especially in the UK for about 50, but NOTHING IS DONE about this GLARING INEQUALITY.

Women can get a state pension at 60 and men have to wait till they are 65. I wonder why?

Or then we have 100s of soldiers dying in wars or arriving home without the faces they used to have or not as many limbs or in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives, and about 95% to 99% of them are MEN.

Seems to be another INEQUALITY issue that the feminists aren’t talking about.

And then there’s what happens in divorces, with people like Heather Mills waltzing up and taking £25m of their husband’s – in this case Sir Paul McCartney’s – fortune, which it doesn’t appear like they’ve done anything to deserve.

HOw many MEN do we see marrying rich WOMEN and coming away with MILLIONS in divorce settlements?

Let’s even talk simpler everyday things.

Why is it that men on the whole have to ask WOMEN out for dates – and face rejection/humiliation if they are refused?

Why is it that millions of women still think it’s OK not to work and let their husbands bring in the money, like the footballer’s wives?

Whereas if a man did that, he’d be viewed as a total sponger and treated with derision and contempt.

Why is it that if a ship goes down at sea,it will STILL be women and children first into the lifeboats, and if any man caused a woman to die to save himself in such a circumstance, he’d have to live the rest of his life with the title “coward” hung around his neck?

So you are clearly swallowing this LYING feminist propaganda that women are some kind of underclass, when it appears that any OBJECTIVE OBSERVER who came from another planet would fairly soon conclude that it is MEN who are the underclass and women are the rulers of this strangely physically stronger, but yet still mostly enslaved and dominated other gender.

I’m now going to explain to you, what your probable REAL problem is, and who is responsible for it, and IT ISN’T MEN.

Men and women basically have simple underlying goals in life despite all the superficial complexities which muddy the waters, and hide the truth of what is really going on despite all appearances.

i.e. men are seeking a mate to make them feel comforted, respected and loved, and have a SEX partner.

If a particular man can afford it, or is considered a “dominant male” as they say, he may well have SEVERAL such “mates” either sequentially or even at the same time.

Women on the other hand also have A BIOLOGICAL MISSION, which once again is basically to find a mate, but this time with the aim of reproducing.

They want to build a nest and have chicks in it.

They want as nice and as protected a nest as they can get of course, and they also want the most esteemed mate they can find to produce the highest quality offspring and maximum degree of protection.

It makes me laugh to know, that one of the most esteemed (probably THE most esteemed) female author in literary history is Jane Austen who wrote Pride and Prejudice.

And do you know what the first line is (approximately) of that book?

She writes “It is an indisputable fact that a man with a fortune and X thousand acres of land must be in need of a wife.”

Her whole book is basically a treatise on the art of manipulation/seduction of a WEALTHY MAN/MATE desired by a woman, and the goal is to get his worship and for him to beg her hand in marriage.

i.e. the same old BIOLOGICAL MISSION of finding the best quality mate and feathering one’s nest to the optimum degree.

And WOMEN THEMSELVES have rated this in polls as the best novel in history.

So let me explain what this cry of “inequality against women” is really all about.

The feminists – due to their own psychological problems caused by unhappy childhoods – have brainwashed a large proportion of the rest of women into believing that this role of WIFE/MOTHER is some kind of repressed slavery, that has no real importance, significance, when in fact it’s the ONLY thing that really matters in the majority of women’s lives – it is THEIR BIOLOGICAL MISSION.

But finding a mate and having children is also quite a scary mission to carry out, it’s not easy to get the man women really want as Jane Austen explained, men can be very obstinate and relucatnt to commit, and childbirth can be scary, and women then lose their freedom because they have to look after their children, and in most cases then put their own needs in 2nd place.

So it’s very easy for women also to hum and har about it, to ask themselves if that is REALLY what they want to do, and of course the more “intellectual” they are, the more they’ll tend to debate it endlessly, rather than JUST GET ON WITH IT like the lower class, less intellectual women do.

And in that INTERIM, UNDECIDED period, in steps the feminist propagandist, who says that being a wife and mother isn’t the answer, and that a woman should prove she can do anything a man can do: – she should be a nuclear scientist, a poet laureate, a big business chief, an MP or even prime minister, and show actually that women don’t even NEED men, men are nothing really, so they aren’t to be FEARED.

Because women DO fear MEN, just as men even before feminism have lived in fear of women.

Because when another person has WHAT YOU NEED, that gives them POWER OVER YOU.

So in the case of men, they need women as sexual partners – they’ve got this awesome and overpowering biological desire which suddenly just appears TOTALLY UNEXPECTEDLY in their teens – and they also want the SOCIAL EESTEEM of having a girlfriend/wife, or they are considered “losers”.

And then men also have what WOMEN need, which is basically again the ability to give them children via sex,and also to give them esteem, give them a place in society, make them respected by other women, who will enviously look on if they get a “trophy man” like the footballer’s wives do.

Or otherwise the man ends up a sad old bachelor who other men look dubiously at, who clearly “couldn’t get a woman”, or the woman ends up as the “old maid” who no man apparently wanted.

So instead of facing up to the human and animal level biological problem of FINDING A MATE, the feminists divert women, especially young ones, down the avenue of saying MEN ARE THE PROBLEM, that the cause of women’s problem is the behaviour of men, which of course in the sense I’ve explained it is true, just as men’s problem is the behaviour of women.

Because each sex is actually trying to CONTROL the other, in fear of the possiblity that the other gender will use their POWER against them.

So tradiationally men use to congregate in groups, and to some extent still do, and mock women.

Not because they REALLY disrespected them, believed them unequal, but because when you are IN FEAR of somebody, you try to pretend they don’t have the power over you that they actually do.

So all the feminists are doing is basically the same but as regards MEN.

Trying to cut men down to size, humiliate them, so they don’t have to feel AFRAID of them any more.

And naturally because ALL women have got some of this fear, just as all men have some fear of women, lots of young women especially who haven’t yet “got their man” and are in fear of whether they ever will, are easisly persauded to join in the “protest” about the fact that they can’t control men as much as they’d like.

But even worse, by the feminists proposing the solution for the girl/woman who is unhappy about her inability to control the men she desires to, who won’t do what she wants them to do , that they should COMPETE FOR JOBS with men, show they can outdo men in the workplace, they gives a huge problem to a lot of women who DO NOT wish to compete with men or even necessarily enter the workplace at all.

Women in the past were not EXPECTED to be in the workplace, and certainly not in any difficult or responsible job, they were basically just awaiting the day they would marry.

So even if they had some kind of a job as nurse, secretary, teacher or whatever, it was only ever considred to be temporary, except perhaps in older age when their children didn’t need them any more, and they could retake whatever they wanted, for both the money and the feeling of being part of society, involved and contributing in some way.

e.g. many wealthy women who don’t need to work, and probably don’t WANT an ordinary job, because they don’t want to do things they aren’t interested in, or be bossed around, get involved in charity fundraising and so on.

But the problem is that a lot of women are not AMBITIOUS, PUSHY, OUTGOING, they do not WANT to shove their way into “the big bad world” they are NATURALLY reserved, or shy, and there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s party of their natural self-protective instinct.

Getting a job is not just an activity, it’s being forced to interact with A SOCIAL GROUP, with its PECKING ORDER, and few people who work will not be subject to some kind of abuse or even overt bullying.

You are forced to be with people you often don’t like and almost certainly would never choose as friends.

Envy, competition, rivalry, dislike or even outright hate, and all sorts of other ugly emotions, run rife in the average workplace, so it’s a potentially very threatening environment for a woman, especially a more refined, cultured or sensitive one.

And how have the feminists addressed this problem of women?

They have said, if YOU as a woman can’t hack it in the workplace, if you can’t get a job like men do, if all you can do is keep house and feed babies, you are INADEQUATE.

You should be ASHAMED OF YOURSELF.

You are letting down WOMEN, in their “heroic struggle” to get equality with men, you’re letting down all the millions of women who have been abused, repressed and brutalised by men throughout the ages.

And that’s all NONSENSE.

Throughout the ages, the REAL truth is that as now, MOST men have been the servant, slaves and worshippers of women, and the only women who have complained about it are the ones who CAN’T GET A MAN TO SERVE AND WORSHIP THEM.

e.g. we don’t see footballer’s wives attending feminist study groups.

So I don’t know how old you are, but the reality for young women is simple.

There’s nothing wrong with you getting a job if you want one, but bear in mind there’s a man/boy out there, who’s trying to make his way in life, and HE is your potential mate.

He – and I’m in contact with young men who at times let me into their private thoughts – believes that to be worthy of YOU, being YOUR mate, he has to have A GOOD JOB.

And so if YOU take the job that HE NEEDS to be a respected member of his community, and thus to be deemed worthy of marrying (eventually) YOU, then when it comes to the time you want a mate, HE no longer exists for you.

He is getting drunk in a bar somewhere, bemoaing his failure, or maybe even commited sucide after his failure to SUCCEED.

Do you know, yet another “equality” is that between 4 and 6 time as many MEN/BOYS worldwide are committing SUICIDE than women/girls?

So clearly MEN/BOYS are now under some kind of presure that women/girls are not.

And that pressure is to SUCCEED.

Almost ANY woman can find SOME man or other, on her own level of looks/class/intelligence to mate/marry with, and SHE does not need a job.

But for a man, if he doesn’t “get that job” he is NOTHING, society regards him as a failure, a loser, somebody who should go hang his head in shame, and yes, it might well be better for himself and everyone else if he decided to “end it all.”

And that’s no joke – that’s EXACTLY what numerous young men and even older ones rejected by the system are doing, and even if they aren’t going that far, millions have now gone into addiction to prescripton or illegal drugs.

Have you not seen all the endless DEMANDS to legalise cannabis on here?

What’s THAT all about?

And I can guarantee you few or no women are starting those threads, or supporting them, the drug problem – prostitution aside – it is almost entirely a problem affecting MEN.

Women who use drugs – alcohol and tobacoo excepted – are usually only dragged into it if their partner does, and otherwise wouldn’t do so, except for the posh little rich girls who do cocaine and so on, desperatly seeking attention for their unloved and miserable lives.

So THIS is what’s really going on out there: men/boys being destroyed, and feminists smugly laughing at it vengefully out of their hate for everything male, and INNOCENT women/girls in the middle getting conned into believing that the male is their natural enemy who is suppressing them, when actually he is what they most need as a friend, protector and mate.

It’s appalling, and anybody can see this is what is really going on, if they stop looking through the eyes of prejudice and hate, which emotional states are mainly just brought about by FEAR.

AS I’ve said, boys/men are JUST AS AFRAID, or more so, as women/girls are of men.

Life is scary, uncertain for all of us, and demonising and scapegoating the other gender as the feminists are doing, is no way to security for any of us, quite the opposite, causing estrangement, competition and hate, between those beings – men and women, boys and girls – who should be cooperating, supporting, befriending and loving one another.

Like I said, most womem who get assaulted behave in such a way that they effectively bring it on themselves.

You don’t agree that, because you think women should have a freedom in society that is just not realistic, and no SENSIBLE women (you know, most of whom have NEVER been sexually assaulted) agree with YOU.

If you don’t want women to get raped, it’s REALLY EASY.

I’m going to give an even longer list of things women SHOULDN’T DO now, seeing as you have now annoyed me.

1. Don’t go in bars alone or even with just one girlfriend unless you are getting WELL KNOWN taxis to and fro door to door and preferably a relative or friend instead of a taxi.

2. Don’t walk in any public area on your own. You can get away with it in crowded city centres, as long as you stick to the CROWDED areas, avoid quiet streets where you could be dragged into a back alley or whatever without anyone noticing.

(university campuses tends to have a lot of these dodgy little quiet parts, and hence we find a lot of girl students get attacked).

3. Don’t dress in public in any provocative way. Not EVER. When you are married, your body is FOR HIS EYES ONLY.

4. Avoid mixed sex work places, and if you have a choice, don’t work at all, because as soon as you do, if you’re attractive, every male in the workplace will see you as an object of quarry/sexual fantasy.

If their parents can’t, THE STATE should support unmarried girls who need the money with basic benefits, and such girls/women should be entitled to refuse any work or not work at all if they please, as any form of work is a potential threat to their security.

If you must work, pick a female dominated environment like a hospital, typing pool or a girl’s or junior school.

If you expose yourself to public view on a routine basis, you will become an object of fantasy to any male who is able to see you regularly (but if you’re mostly covered up, that won’t happen much even if you are visible in face).

5. Don’t ever go alone on buses or trains if you can avoid it, or certainly not regularly or in any place you are not familiar with.

6. Don’t get drunk and incapable, because you think you can trust your girlfriends, but you may be wrong when they too have had a lot to drink.

7. Don’t have men friends except relatives, foolishly imagining you can have an “only friends” relationship with a boy/man, because any male friend of your own age if he finds you attractive (which you may not realise) will see you as a potential mate, and thus you can’t guarantee he won’t try to make the “friendship” physical sooner or later. It’s that old thing called his BIOLOGICAL MISSION “popping up” again.

8. Don’t tease with or flirt with men ANYWHERE. They’ll imagine you might want to have sex with them, when maybe all you were doing was trying to get served first at the bar, or “being friendly.”

9. Find a mate/marriage partner via one of your relatives or friends, (or some civilised group you can safely be part of like a church or whatever) and don’t EVER agree to go out with a man who you haven’t checked out thoroughly, and you wouldn’t see as long term relationship/marriage material.

10. Don’t go to university or college after 16 and attend a single sex girls’ school before 16, not a dreaded and dangerous comprehensive, full of boys all hoping to sneak a peek at you in the showers or be the first to rob you of your “virtue.”

If you want a degree, go to a girl’s only college or do an Open University degree.

We need to open some WOMEN ONLY universities/colleges for women who want to be doctors or teachers etc., and don’t want to be harrassed at such an early age.

You can stil have a social life amongst family and trusted friends.

Just make sure you are always (when out) part of a LARGE and (adequately sober) GROUP.

There you are – there’s govt helper’s 10 commandments.

If you follow ALL of those, your chances of getting even sexually assaulted, let alone raped, are almost zero.

PS and if you protest at any of those, you think you should have “more freedom”, undestand that boys and men have to be careful of thier movement too, not usually for fear of rape, but for fear or violent assualt, that can happen to men in all kinds of place – e.g. pub toilets – you wouldn’t even dream about, and for very flimsy reasons (e.g. somebody decides “you gave them a dirty look” or “you were ogling my girlfriend/wife”)

So please GROW UP and realise men have got LOADS of problems like women have too, and have to take LOTS of care with their own personal safety, just like women do.

You only have to read the news, and you see that grown men get beaten to death on a fairly regular basis by gangs of one kind or another, usually for some flimsy reason like complaining about the noise they were making or whatever.
govt_helper

I’m assuming govt_helper has recently suffered some rejection/humiliation himself.

And by ‘assuming’, I mean ‘hoping’.

Look, I’m going to level with you. I don’t like people. I think they’re brutal, selfish and stupid. Nevertheless, I sometimes wake up in the morning with the sun shining on my face, feeling almost at peace with the world, and in those moments I question myself. I think, am I the problem? Am I the one who needs to change?

Then I get up and take a look at HYS (currently asking: would you step in to help a child?) and BAM! Top two comments, pair of cunts.

You only need to read the ‘Sarahs law’ HYS to see why people are fearful!

I found a 4 year old wandering the streets near my old flat with no shoes on, in mid winter with snow on the ground. I had to stand on the pavement waiting for 20 minutes for the police to show up because I was so terrified of the implications of taking a half dressed kid inside to warm up. The kid nearly froze as a result.
Peter_Sym

No, I wouldn’t help. And yes I am concerned they would be abusive.

The problem nowadays, is that an adult is considered a threat to a child despite the adults good intentions.

Personally, I’d walk away, and if the child was hurt or abducted, then sorry, but not my fault. Blame the parents, government, society as a whole.
martin622

So the first two people we encounter on this thread are: a man who’s such a coward that he’d have watched a toddler freeze to death before risking any course of action with ‘implications’; and a complete monster who wouldn’t lose any sleep if he abandoned a child to some horrific fate, purely to make a point.

Extrapolate this result across the rest of our species. I feel vindicated. Equilibrium is restored.

Generously-remunerated public servant decries massive base salary, suggests safeguards, stops shy of doing anything rash like giving any of massive base salary away or something. Prick replies.

Thanks to Dan.

Actually it would be fairly easy to deal with the massive debt problem in this country. Introduce conscription for the armed forces (5 year term), only allowing single people in. Dissolve the fire service and hand those duties and euipment to the armed forces. Privatise the health service, education and waste disposal services. Dissolve social security, the state pension and force public sector workers to fund there own pensions. Repeal all laws that do not tackle criminality, or hamper businesses and individuals with beaurocracy. Also ban divorce for good measure.

People will be forced to adapt and have a choice with education, health and having the family and church as a support network, not the state.

How much have I just saved the country? £430 Bn a year which after three years we’ll have have paid off the debt and could reduce taxes to about a fifth of what they are now. So pay 6% flat tax and no NI contributions anyone?
gordon beresford

I’m jumping to conclusions here, but I’m willing to bet that Gordon Beresford is married and rich, with a healthy portfolio of low-risk investments, and lives in a flame-retardant house. I bet he also runs a small business producing generic Viagra, his wife is threatening to leave him, and he’s an ugly, selfish green smear of gleet on the sofa of humanity.

When he’s not hanging around in playgrounds, he punches hamsters to death for sexual thrills, but he’s so jaded that nothing, nothing will ever again elicit even the faintest twitch in his withered, bitter dribble of a penis.

Yesterday he went to the town hall to deliver a petition demanding the closure of his local Sure Start centre, stopping on the way to steal a scratchcard off an old lady. But it didn’t win, so he kicked her. Then he took some change out of a busker’s hat, and force-fed it to a pigeon.

Except it wasn’t a pigeon, it was a baby.

I was disappointed that no-one at the Times was agreeing with the idea that spending £1.4m a day for the next 20 years on something that’s never going to get used was just fucking brilliant, so I went over to HYS. Among the people sensibly discussing the real-world policy implications of such a move, I found leambloke making the only sensible argument.

Trident was a weapon and deterant of a totally different time and enermy. It does not fit in with todays enermy as they know we wouldn’t use it.
It should be kept until a more suitable deterant or weapon is developed that would scare the bejesus out of terrist like the Taliban and Al-Quieda or even some of the more unstable Middle East nation like Syria Iran etc.
Be prepared to use it as a show of intention not just keep it lockd away in the tubes of subs gathering dust and costing a small fortune to maintain.

Either way, non of the current political leadership would dis-arm unilaterally as there is too much political outfall.
leambloke

See, that’s where we’re going wrong! Everyone’s complaining because they want to spend £100bn on something that’s out of date and not going to get used, but with all these people pointing out that there’s no-one to fire them at, only leambloke has managed to come up with the perfect, obvious, middle-of-the-road solution to everyone’s problems – just use the bastards anyway! Defy expectations! I’m glad leambloke is around to remind us that the option to fire nuclear missiles is always there, at least until Dr. Strangelove comes up with the Doomsday Machine.

Thanks to Dan for pointing out this next one:

A friend of mine has a painted biscuit tin hanging on a nail outside his house. He’s never been burgled. All the deterrent value of a real burglar alarm, without the expense.
So instead of wasting £80 billion on real nuclear missiles, why not just make some hollow metal shells and release lots of photos of them? They’ll never actually be put to the test anyway, so it’s a complete waste of money to make weapons that will never be fired. But if people think we have them, they’ll still work as a deterrent.
Graphis

Spot on. That rusty old tin of Peek Freans that your mate painted white and scribbled “BUGLER ALLARM” across in red marker is exactly the model of deception we’re looking for. I look forward to a nuclear defence policy that consists of sixty cardboard missiles with Geoff Hoon hiding behind them going “woosh, woosh, eeeeooooooowwwww”.

I’m not kidding, that’d be fucking awesome.

Our independent nuclear deterrent is worth much more than the 80bn pounds (upper estimate)it would cost to replace. Without nuclear weapons, we would lose our permanent seat on the UN security council (I don’t know if you’ve noticed but all the other countries are nuclear powers), lose our remaining influence in the world and become relegated to becoming a backwater European power on the same level as the Netherlands. From here, we’d lose preferential trade agreements and much of our strong negotiating position, the cost to the economy as we became more and more irrelevant would be huge. This is all quite apart from losing the industry which depends on the maintenance of nuclear weapons in this country.
Nuclear weapons are about a lot more than just causing untold destruction and it is important that people remember this before just thinking about the upfront cost of a replacement.
Anthony

Also, I heard they’re kicking us out of the Tufty Club because Gordon Brown only looked one way when he crossed the street. That’s much worse, because getting kicked out of the Security Council would only lose us our right to go first in the queue at the UN cafeteria, but getting kicked out of the Tufty Club would mean the nice policeman wouldn’t come and do his puppet show at Parliament.

Should the rules for Scrabble be changed?

357. At 5:33pm on 07 Apr 2010, Raymond Hopkins wrote:
Swear word with a Z? As it happens, I know five of them, although one should really only be counted as a gross insult. Ah, the benefits of a broad education!

Cuntzip?

A bunch of retired generals have written to The Times, saying that Britain needs to rethink replacing Trident. I think it’s safe to say that generals know fuck all, so I just dive right into the comments for my commonsenses and standstoreasons. There’s just so much wisdom there that I didn’t think I’d fit it all in before I felt a compulsion to throw myself under a bus.

No one should be surprised that some of our generals want to get rid of our nuclear deterrent.None of them have had experience of working with nuclear weapons or looking at other state’s nuclear, chemical or biological capabilities and their Army Staff College training will have taught them nothing about nuclear strategy – a subject which still isn’t taught in any depth in the current modern Joint Staff Courses.

The cavalry generals were arguing the same thing to get more tanks in the Cold War – even when all their tanks and 30-40 million of their countrymen could die in minutes without a credible nuclear deterrent. Now its the infantry generals arguing for more money and lives to be spent fighting far away gro-
David Davies

I had to stop David there, because it goes on for a while and he’s a massive twat. You could go and look at the article to find his comment, but I guarantee there’s nothing interesting in the rest of it, and he’s a massive twat. He also posted this at 1.42am, so he’s probably also either a jobless and gormless massive twat, or taking a break from his job playing with his winkie while watching war documentaries on the History Channel and National Geographic – which is probably where he learned everything he knows about the military and which, incidentally, would also make him a massive twat.

Speaking of massive twats…

If it is Britain’s future to be dominated/controlled by the EEC… then Britain is finished. Britain will have no future: A glance at History will tell us that Britain MUST stand on her own two feet. That will require British brains, British confidence…British guts. Sometimes I wonder if we have lost it all.

It is truly amazing how quickly the lessons of History are forgotten in Britain today. Those who forget the past…are doomed!
ANTHONY GUMBS

Lost it all? Jesus Christ, Anthony! That’s not the Dunkirk Spirit! That’s not what won the war for us! We will fight them on the beaches! We will fight them on the streets! We will fight them by the swimming pools, especially if those Kraut bastards try and sneak down first thing in the morning and put their filthy European towels on the sunbeds while we’re having a good British lie-in! For fuck’s sake, Anthony! Nearly seventy cocking years gone by, seventy years of reinforcing that the British won a British war with British guts and British confidence, not to mention British brains spread liberally all over British fields in British France, and you’re wondering if we’ve lost it all?

Don’t worry, Anthony. We haven’t lost it, not if your example is anything to go by – your example of posting about twenty fucking times on the same fucking article with hard-up patriotic bollocks referring to abstract qualities every country in the world claims for their brave boys in uniform. That still says to me that if there’s something utterly pointless and shit to do, then there’ll always be a British man ready to step up and be shit at it while failing to realise it’s all utterly pointless.

This wouldn’t happen to have anything to with the Generals wanting the Army to have a higher proportion of defenence spending?

Talk of a silo based system by the Liberal Democrats also shows them to be unfit to govern. Such a system would:

- Make the UK homeland a target
- Place a strong incentive on an enemy of the UK to launch a first strike
- Be highly vulnerable

A bomber launched system have the same disadvantages but would also require the huge cost of buying or developing a fleet of strategic bombers.
Andre Deutsch

I know for a fact that:

- Our very real enemies currently have plans to fire missiles randomly into the ocean in the hope they’ll hit a Trident submarine, instead of at the places where all the people live
- The locations of the missile silos will all be on Google Maps, along with the nearest hotels with prayer rooms and roadside cafes that don’t sell bacon
- I can’t think of a third one, so I’ll just make something up that seems slightly plausible, because all the really great arguments always make their points in threes

Well the £80 billion is the total system cost of its like, about 25 years.
So £80 billion divided by 25 equals £320 million per year. Given parliament costs about £500 billion per year, and one could also ask to what use I don’t think that is a bad price to pay to dissuade some nutter who might decide to launch a nuke at us one day.
Jack Black

Personally, I think the money could be better spent on remedial maths classes for adults. But then, what do I know. Apart from basic maths.

About something called mephedrone or some such. Never heard of it myself, of course. I don’t move in such circles.

I was under the impression that Ministers where supposed to govern the country and not rely on advisers. It is quite simple a Minister stands up and says its banned until such time the awaited report is produced when a further decision will be taken. Those that want to embroil children into the shady world of drugs and supply plant food to them can then have the option of going to court and ask for a Judical Review of the Minister’s decision. I’ve got a pound that says they wont go to court. I’ve got another pound that says there isn’t a minister in this government that’s brave enough to take the decision.
Phil Davies

Fuck it, why not just ban everything in the world until someone can present a watertight case for it not being illegal? Just to be on the safe side.

The case against shouting at squirrels:

• Noise pollution
• Squirrel distress
• Sore throat

The case for shouting at squirrels:

• Erm

Based on the evidence put before the court, shouting at squirrels shall remain an offence. Now we’ll hear the Crown versus Lightly Tickling The Inside Of One’s Own Forearm.

Thanks to Robert for finding [MrWonderfulReality] telling us how he’d like to keep children safe on the internet.

I’d just use plain & simple common sense, but unfortunately, although it is commonly available to all, many would not recognise it unless it was packaged up & sold in £1 shops or Primark or came with tomatoe ketchup on top.
[MrWonderfulReality]

Robert says: “I believe MrWonderfulReality has confused ‘common sense’ with a pair of socks and a burger”.

Something about wearing pyjamas to the shops.

I fully support Tesco’s action. It is high time that all people learned to have and show respect for others and this is just one way to do it. This attitude should prevail in schools, workplaces, actually everywhere and maybe we would then see less ASBOs and cruelty.
Dani Bertschy, Poole, United Kingdom

Yeah, that ought to do it. The crime rate would plummet if everyone took the time to put on a pair of chinos and a smart jacket. I mean, when’s the last time someone well-dressed turned out to be a lying, corrupt, selfish, racist, warmongering, mass-murdering, money-grubbing, right honourable, power-crazed fuck?

I used to live in the Dunfermline area and had cause to speak to the management of Asda.
It was a warm summers day and a man came into the store to buy items for a barbeque, he was only wearing a pair of shorts, no shoes, no top. He was a very hairy and heavy chap and was leaning over open produce counters, I found this to be completely inappropriate. I am not a prude in any sense of the word but his state of undress was suitable for the back garden or the beach NOT A FOOD HALL
Anne-Marie, Stirling

I looked up “prude” in a few online dictionaries for you and found definitions as diverse as:

• a person excessively concerned about propriety and decorum
• a person who is easily shocked by rude things, especially those of a sexual type
• someone who is overly concerned with modest or proper conduct, speech, dress, or the like

… are you absolutely, completely, 100% positive you didn’t mean “prune”?

You’re the captain of a Royal Navy tanker. You see a British couple being kidnapped by Somali pirates. You crew isn’t trained for such a situation, and wouldn’t be able to attack anyway without putting the couple in danger. What do you do? According to the comments on this MSN thread, you KILL THEM! KILL THEM ALL!

And, with the same cavalier disregard for relevance as you’d have for the safety of the innocent, you might also sieze the opportunity to do yet another stream-of-consciousness belch about Everything That Is Wrong With This Country, right in the internet’s face. Thanks to Pete.

Like the rest of this country under Gordon Brown the Royal Navy is hide bound by stupid health and safety regulations. Bring back Vian and the cry ‘The Navy’s here’ when they boarded the Altmark in Norwegian waters to rescue the British prisoners held aboard her.
Phil Adwick

Fucking Gordon Brown, can’t stop messing around with the Royal Navy, constantly wandering into their headquarters at three in the morning, naked but for a pair of socks and a floral hat, waving around pieces of paper with yet more stupid health and safety regulations on them, stupid health and safety regulations such as:

• Don’t fire on civilians!
• Try not to endanger the lives of civilians!
• Don’t kill civilians! Especially when trying to rescue them!

Something must be done to halt these blatant acts of piracy. As an ex military man my response would be to destroy every craft on the Somali shoreline and every craft on the South Yemen shoreline if they support these criminals. If that proves insufficient then level Somalia to glass, leave nothing. They think life is cheap….then let us make theirs so.
Lurcher

That dishonourable discharge still rankles, doesn’t it?

Unfortunately the lawyers run the asylum, where people in authority know it is better to play safe than act. Nobody will sack the captain (teacher, policeman, doctor, electrician) for doing nothing. It’s doing something which leaves you vulnerable to the blood sucking lawyers and the judges. Judges who claim their judgements seem ridiculous but ‘their hands are tied’. Kids sue teachers, yobs sue anyone who intervenes, burglars sue the home owner. Captains of Navy ships would rather see an old couple be dragged off by ruthless pirates than risk making a mistake. And I’d have done the same. Britain is in a hell of a mess, getting worse each generation.
wshrtbe

I think washitterbee must keep this comment on a text file somewhere, and just copies it into any thread he/she/it blunders into, with some token reference to the actual topic clumsily stapled to its balls.

But there’s an interesting twist. Check out the admisson that: “I’d have done the same”. I think this basically translates as: “this country is a massive shitbasket of cowardice and opportunism, and I’m as much to blame as anybody. When is someone else going to come and make it better again?”

Well, we were waiting for you to sort it, wooshtibrubber. But you let us down and now we want blood. You might’ve heard a knock at the door just now – that’s the Royal Navy come to blow your face off with a massive battleship on wheels. Apparently you’re exempt under the stupid health and safety regulations.