Unfocused Rage


Delusions of Grandeur and Hypocrites and Miscellaneous Prats and Outsiders and Permanently Bewildered and Retired Colonels and Self-appointed Sages and Unfocused Rage18 Aug 2010 07:30 am

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’.

Credulous Nincompoops and Unfocused Rage06 Jul 2010 09:50 am

Many thanks to Jo, again, who sent us two pieces of shit for the price of one email.

What do you think when someone’s been sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery? Well, if you’re a suspicious yellow gusset stain like The Original Ray, then you think this:

Adultery SHOULD be punished although that seems pretty harsh.

Look at the mess our society is in. Seventy five percent of families break up because the woman decides she wants a different bloke and, in the West, this is rewarded by the state because she ends up with the home, the kids and a large proportion of the father’s income while the father is left to grin and bear it, or banged up if he doesn’t comply. (Never heard a feminist go on about that little imbalance.) Opposite ends of the spectrum is my point.

If you live under that sort of regime, as this woman does, and you know what you are in for if you cheat on your husband then more fool you. Its not like Sharia has just been invented.
The Original Ray, Liverpool

Yeah, Sharia has been around for ages, so she must have heard of it. Ray has, after all. He even thinks Sharia has some merits. That is, as long as it’s doing awful (and entirely proportionate) things to people who’ve done something similar to the bitch who did something awful to him. They all deserve it. They’re all the same. She knew the risks when she took the job. It’s not misogynism, it’s common sense.

Mind you, Ray, pretty harsh? You need to read the article again, mate – it clearly says that when they do the stoning, women get buried up to their necks so they don’t get whacked in the tits. That seems fair enough to me. If we’re going to implement any kind of punishment for adultery in the UK – only for women who deserve it, of course – then we should be very careful that at no point do women get whacked in the tits. And that’s being nice, what with all the houses and the money they’ve been getting for centuries and shit.

Frankly, Sharia would help deal with that seventy-five percent of broken families thanks to women. Something’s amiss in the West, and it’s nothing to do with the fact that Ray is a miserable, bitter, twisted, flaky old ringpiece. No ma’am sirree. We need positive solutions to the problems that aren’t caused by Ray being a stringy piece of knob cheddar, and Sharia sounds like one – a system where men get everything and women get fuck all, and where men can rely on the fact that they’re men to make up any old shit and get all these fucking cheating women swanning around the place like they’re fucking people or something put to death. As long as they don’t get whacked in the tits. That’s the line.

In fact, I heard that seventy-five percent of women stoned to death deserve it. And I’m honestly not just making this shit up because I hate women.

Credulous Nincompoops and Permanently Bewildered and Unfocused Rage24 Jun 2010 11:15 am

What shall we do about gangs eh?

Get their parents in to have major brain surgery to fix their inability to take responsibility for their children. Maybe when that’s fixed a more responsible child will hit the streets. In the meantime, when they’re caught for violent crimes give them a sentence that fits the crime, if they go to prison for 10 years they should do 10 years and no luxuries when they’re inside. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a vacation, so follow monesterial practices, make them pray for foregiveness for the crime they have committed, provide them with just the bare necessities to survive.
Toothpick Harry

Brilliant! We should follow this through to it’s conclusion though. Why bother building prisons when we could just remove the bit of their brain that committed the crime and replace it with a bit of brain that thinks it’s been in prison (or a monastery) for 20 years without any luxuries? The more I think about it, the more I realise that any problem can be fixed by major brain surgery! Can’t spell “monastery” or “forgiveness”? Brain surgery! Education? Fuck that, just use brain surgery! This brain surgegry thing has really got me excitenig. It’s the bESt IDEA EVA. Unless… maybe I’ve had had major brain surgery to make nig think me what brain surgery is a goodnig idea? But how would would I know? Who cares? BRIAN SUGARY! It’s not exactly brain sugary!

Curtain Twitchers and Delusions of Grandeur and Hypocrites and The Regular Twats and Unfocused Rage11 Jun 2010 07:30 am

O mankind, thy nature be thy downfall!

See, the problem with us humans is our duality and shit, the eternal raging battle between our loftier ideals and our raw, bestial urges. For every word of Baudelaire there’s at least two thousand glued-shut copies of Razzle littering the hedgerows of Lancashire alone.

And nowhere is our species’ tragic condition more evident than in these two generous slices of pungent cheese, thoughtfully cut by Randy from some HYS nonsense about some telly programme or something.

There is nothing to which television shows will not sink to attract bigger audiences: Ok, the lowest common denominator is where the action is, tells us a lot about our so-called civilisation!
ian cheese

An admirable stance, Mr cheese! But then, having spent all of three minutes drooling through his vibrating Bundy eyeballs at Corin’s norks, he gets the horn and we see his high horse bolt from under him to dry-hump a Bravissimo catalogue.

I hope the female wrestler is a lesbian & make love to the beauty queens & the dwarf will be the voyeur.
ian cheese

Christ alone knows how he managed it, but if you look at the above post in its original context, you’ll find it’s actually stained with gobs of tear-diluted jism.

Moderation Martyrs and Outsiders and Unfocused Rage01 Apr 2010 09:46 am

Thanks to Jacob for finding the postings of this angry little stubcock in a thread where ThisIsBristol reported that scare scare hyperbole tearjerk tearjerk now wank yourself silly imagining how you’d vigilante his ass if only you weren’t a fat middle aged clunge.

This is an outrage. Every time I come on here to politely suggest that someone be hanged or stoned to death, my post gets removed.

This is political discrimination ngone wrong. Not happy.
Terry (& June), Falling off a sunbed

Au contraire, Terry. They remove your posts because when you talk politely about stonings and being tanned, they assume you’re a muslim favouring sharia law. Which I think you’ll find is political discrimination ngone exactly the way you want it to. Try being more self-absorbed, angry and patronising. That way they’ll know you’re really an ineffectual white middle class Travis Bickle wannabe.

Hypocrites and The Regular Twats and Unfocused Rage11 Mar 2010 09:24 am

The HYS forum has changed recently. They’ve got rid of the recommendations and paging and I think maybe raised the character limit, resulting in extremely long pages of unreadable bollocks. It’s a massive improvement and hopefully means nobody will ever try to read any of it ever again.

They also got rid of the RSS feeds of user posts. Now I have to scan through, looking for good shit, instead of simply subscribing to the feeds of the most amusingly self-important bellends. It’s not massively rewarding.

I’m going through old ones I saved but never got round to posting. Sometimes, it’s never too late.

If a victim is being physically attacked, the victim can use self defence to protect himself. That is the law of the land, and it should be no different in the classroom.

To those who are shocked with this statement, believing that children should not be taught that violence is the answer to violence. Well remember this: bullying is easy when the victim can’t retaliate; and sometimes, it’s never too early to learn about the real world.
Lloyd Belle, Nottingham, United Kingdom

Good call, Lloyd. Sometimes, the only way to stop bullying is to batter the fuck out of someone much smaller than you.

Permanently Bewildered and Plain Weird and Racists and Unfocused Rage08 Mar 2010 01:41 pm

Thanks to Frankie. I like this comment. It makes you realise how hard it must be for BNP supporters who end up being inexplicably quite bright. They get good A-Levels, go to University, maybe quite a good one. They do of course, study ENGLISH, and suddenly, instead of the extreme-right circle-jerk they hung around in before, they’re in a hotbed of radical liberalism being forced to read books and think about stuff. This is how I imagine these poor smug tossers’ dreams sound after a term and a half juggling paranoid racist fantasies with literary theory lectures.

Dan Oxford wrote:
Destroy your own culture through political correctness, Frnkfurt school inspired Marxist deconstructing and undermining, along with post- colonial guilt, encourage a policy of mass immigration from areas of war and tribal violence, cover up any reference to a likely increase in crime, allow the cultural vaccuum to be filled with money, violence and sex based US ‘street culture’= explosion of tribal gang violence and gang rape. I feel ‘enriched’ already…

Unfortunately Dan, I’m afraid I can only give you a C for this, as you forgot to mention Russian formalists, an influential circle of Viennese psychoanalysts or French radical lesbians.

Outsiders and Unfocused Rage25 Jan 2010 11:20 am

We get occasional tips about The Register. If you don’t know it, think of it as being like Private Eye for the IT industry. There’s lots of worthy stuff about things that absolutely no-one could care about after the discovery of the opposite sex, but they sprinkle funny stuff around it to keep you reading.

Here’s a recent example. In brief, an Australian man has admitted to drunkenly inserting the line

DD Cup breasts, slim waist, tight twat

into the requirements of a job advertisement. He owned up to it and apologised, the ad was fixed and his boss decided to leave it at that, saying:

he got on the turps one night and it went from there. He fully understands what he has done and he’s very remorseful.

What a wonderful display of the Aussie sense of pragmatism. Wouldn’t you agree, intelligent IT professionals who like humour?

Sanity Prevails!
Good to see they saw the funny side.. And take the right attitude (nobody hurt, so it’s all good).. This, in the good ol’ days used to be called “Mischief.”. And mischief has always been seen as a great way to vent stresses and woes in a harmless way..

Yet here in the UK, this would probably have been enough to have the bloke locked away and on every database in sight, with a permanent Social Services tail to make sure he follows the party line.

Come back the days of sanity and mischief!

Juillen 1

He comes out of the traps well, straight into a nice patronising explanation of exactly what you just read in the story, but just as he’s getting into his stride whining about a situation that only exists in his head, he goes and balls it all up by ending short on a positive note. Can anyone take the ball and run with it?

Imagine if that happened in Britain
It’s nice to see this man’s boss didn’t take any action against him for posting that advert, or the Australian police didn’t arrest him, a government minister didn’t get involved, or random members of the public didn’t try to sue him for being sexist.

All of the above would no doubt take place if such a “mistake” was made in Britain.

Gary F

Gary F picks up the cross and involves both the government and the general public in a lovely little rhetorical shimmy, has a nice miserablist finish, but he just can’t put it away. Who’s in the box?

Brilliant!
no, not the planker who did it, the whole Aussie attitude!

“oops, sorry, I was pissed”. “OK, never mind, we understand”.

Compare that to what would happen here “oops sorry, I was pissed”. “Constable, add ‘using a computer while under the influence of drink or drugs’ to the charges of sexism, using offensive language in a pulic, erm, publication, and assaulting a police officer…” “But I haven’t assaul OWWWW!” “…and damaging a police table with his head. Sign this”. “What is OWWWWW!” “The sex offenders register”
Ian 54

AND HE’S DONE IT! An absolutely virtuoso display of misanthropy there from Ian 54. He’s on the end of Gary F’s lob, chesting it down with immediate disapproval of the “planker” in the story, and then dodges the defenders by showing a glimmer of appreciation for the Aussie attitude, but it’s all a feint! The approval’s only there so he can swivel on the eighteen-yard line and slam it home with a fever dream stitch-up straight from the depths of his imagination, with an assist from a decades-old episode of Not The Nine O’Clock News. What a dream goal’s come to him like a meteorite from a gift horse’s mouth. I mean, you literally could not make that up. Alan?

Unfocused Rage and Werthers Original Imperialists06 Jan 2010 10:31 am

Old post, I forget the topic. Not that it ever really matters.

UK at that time had invaded and enslaved 70 countries. My grandpa who was barely a teenager at the time spent a couple of nights in Churchill’s prison for listening to a German broadcast while Churchill was waging a war for freedom of speech.

Ali Kazmi, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Well perhaps your grandfather shouldn’t have been a traitor against “the forces of democracy and liberalism”, as Nehru himself called the British-Indian armies fighting against Nazi and Japanese totalitarianism, eh?

[hubertgrove]

That’s YOU told Ali KAZMI. Answer THAT one, QUISLING. Yeah.

Self-appointed Sages and Unfocused Rage16 Dec 2009 03:22 pm

Silly HYS moderators, it’s still 9 days until Christmas. Why have you gone and given every bigot with internet access an early present?

Homosexuals should not be executed. But homosexuality should be recognised for what it is – a perversion of natural sexual relations. Instead in our Godless humanistic society it is almost now being given some sort of protected and elevated status.Homosexual marriage is a travesty and an abomination. As is homosexuals in leadership positions in the church. One sign of a decaying society is the legitimising and the widespread practice of homosexuality.One of the major reasons for the fall of Rome

The Rev Oik, Reading

This is a nice little comment, it’s like a Milk Race of all the standard homophobe’s arguments. Particularly nice is the way “protected and elevated” actually means “equal to everyone else.”

I believe if you asked most “straight” men they would tell you they find homosexual acts abhorrent but you would find few that would advocated executing homosexuals.

We did have legislation in this country but it was removed by parliament.

However I do think it is too much ” in your face” these days ,ably assisted by the BBC – you just have to look at some of their presenters.But I suppose diversity brownie points are the route to promotion

[prettygrumpy]

And that’s the problem with equality, isn’t it. Someone will always game the system. If you can’t take the Konnie Huq route of blacking up with Bisto, and you find wheelchairs too uncomfortable, you can always just chug down a cock or two and sail your way into BBC management.

The basic act of homosexuality may be abhorent to some, but apparently it is not this one act the constitutes homosexuality, as practioners would have you believe it is a cultural/lifestyle thing that is totally in keeping with the 21st century. It is though based solely on this one act, and doesn’t merit “rights”.
The death penalty – no. Just pay more taxes than hetros.

The Big Fish, Stockport, United Kingdom

Great idea there, The Big Fish, but what happens when they get sick of taxation without representation and refuse to pay the tariff? It starts with the Boston Bumsex Party, then they’ll have a revolutionary war, then before you know it they’ve gained independence and they’re the major economic superpower on the planet. With fabulous hair to boot.

Next Page »