I am with Andrea (12.35) on this I will not be party to this erosion that stinks of the EU. Who do they think they are the Borg out of Star Trek where resistance is futile ?. Sorry pal, I am with the resistance on this. There is no way such things as the Cheshire show will be refered to as the 4NW Show. We are not going to throw away over 1000 years of history for the sake of what looks like an efficency drive by the Post Office,which I suspect is an attempt long term to standardise to a EU post coding system by first taking away the individuality of the area.
Mark, Manchester

This is a tricky one. How to shake free from the iron grip of the postie and his shadowy EU paymasters? All I can think of is you could continue to write the county and refer to it in conversation.

I’ll always continue to use county names. The Royal Mail will NOT dictate to me. I AM NOT A NUMBER…….
jb, sussex

I bet your house is called “Dunroamin” you pointless arse.

The Post Office says all they need is a house number and postcode. So, all these years, I’ve wasted hours writing out street, town and county names on hundreds of Christmas cards? From now on I’ll address the card to Aunt Nelly, 39, and the postcode – for the first time ever my right hand won’t be numb on Christmas Day!
Kevin, Belfast

Try sitting on it. Or using your left maybe.

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.

Cease sex education immediately. What a lot of absolute tosh! In this world full of left wing do-gooder, liberal pansies, what do we need this nonsense for. We never had such a waste of time when we were at school, 50 or so years ago, and we found out what to do, as did the early cave men! We will be telling them how to use toilet paper next! Teenagers deserve what they get, as they have no moral scruples whatsoever, following in the footsteps of their parents. Don’t treat them on the NHS, but let them pay privately for their disease. Why should precious resources be diverted from real, and genuine sickness, to deal with the likes of some teenagers who, with their “sex education”, should know better!
grumpovian

Has grumpovian misunderstood the point of sex education, mistaking it for a simple how-to guide for youths so far out of touch with their essential natures in a digital age that they require step-by-step instructions in order to perform the most basic biological functions? Or is the raw, bleeding truth that he/she/it (I’m going to go with ‘it’) knows full well what sex education is, and simply wishes AIDS on the young?

If I wasn’t in a generous mood (and, as luck would have it, I’m not), I’d say the latter.

Is a university degree necessary?

Er… try asking a coherent question if you want a sensible answer.

A university degree is not necessary in the same way as air, food and water are. You can live a happy and fulfilled life without a university degree, you won’t survive five minutes without air to breathe.

If you want to be a medical doctor, a university degree is necessary for you to attain your ambition. (Note for aspiring medics: you also need air to breathe!)

If you want to learn how to learn and how to think, to explore a subject of interest to its fullest extent… well, you can acquire these skills elsewhere, but a university degree is a good way to set your feet on the right track. Oh, and you still need air to breathe.

Define ‘necessary’ and you might be able to answer your question for yourself. Trouble is, I learned how to craft such debate by, er, going to university. Oh, and I still need air to breathe too!
Megan

BA (Hons) in Smug Pedantry, right? I did the same course, which is why I feel qualified to craft this equally smug response: the actual, entirely reasonable question was, ‘is a university degree necessary for success in later life?’

I’ll give you a 48-hour extension to resubmit your answer. Any later and you’ll be forced to wear one of those striped beanies with the little propeller on top for the rest of your life. People will laugh openly as you walk by and small children will follow you around for hours at a time, poking you with sticks, but at least it’ll draw attention from the long, silvery thread of drool perpetually dangling from your chin.

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’.

Ah, except there’s a problem, see. Because the G8 is also committed to treating and preventing HIV and AIDS in Africa and Asia, and – curse you, cruel God! curse your balls! – there’s only so much money that the world’s largest economies are willing… sorry, able to spare in order to save the lives of poor brown people.

So where does the money go? On the one hand, reducing child mortality would ordinarily be an absolute priority for any civilised nation. On the other, diarrhoea lacks the glamour of AIDS.

But wait, says koushixinfei: we’re asking the wrong question. We shouldn’t be worrying about which preventable diseases to treat in the developing world, but whether we should be treating them at all.

The economics doesn’t work. Save a child in Africa now and in 20 years you have another 3 to 5 to save, you need to price that in. A vaccine which saves a child for 10 USD today, will imply another 30 – 50 USD in a generation. Pestilence and Civil war is the african choice to manage population growth. I’m not sure we should be imposing science and engineering on them, any more than they should impose pestilence and civil war on us. And yes, it is us and them if you are going to use the language of “donor nations”.
koushixinfei

Yeah, this saving lives thing is all well and good, but in this post-ideological age, surely pumping billions of dollars into helping people who – let’s be brutally honest here – contribute nothing to the global economy is just a bad investment?

And who says they want to be helped? We have our medicine and technology and infrastructure, they have their disease and child soldiers and rape. We should respect their culture, fucking leave them to it, save the money for other things. Like rats, power tools and Huey Lewis and the News CDs.

These alien visitation people are usually very boring and very mental – so much so that these deluded idiots going on about space aliens and probes are just too much for JohnH. Let’s get some science rolling. Some long, windy, science.

Let me explain the science as simply as possible.

You are on a fairground ride, the ‘waltzer’ being spun around very fast. You cannot move your arm, why? Newtons Law of Thermodynamics. A body accelerating increases in effective mass (weight). Go then on the swinging boat thing, as you swing back and forth you feel a lightness in your stomach. This is due to decelerating and a reduction in effective mass (weightlessness).

Now; send up a rocket and travel faster and faster. There has to be a limit and it is the speed of light. Travel at the speed of light (SoL) and you weigh infinity. So if you can only travel at or near SoL it would take 5 years to reach the nearest star and 200 years to reach the nearest S3 planet (its all to do with diameter and distance from a sun – try and keep up!).

So; if aliens are here they have found away to travel by other means. ALL science fiction writers know this. That is why StarTrek uses warp speed, StarWars uses hyperspace, Issac Assimov wrote about traveling in Parsecs etc.

If aliens are here, and its a big if, their technology is so far ahead of ours that to explain it would be like trying to explain the workings of your computer….. to a slug.

And yet.

They are supposed to have ‘crashed’ a spaceship at Roswell in the 1950′s.

So an alien technology that dwarfs ours rides around the skies like a boy-racer on a saturday night.

I don’t think so.

Remember what Hannibal Lectur said in ‘silence of the lambs’…..

“What is it in it’s self”

UFO’s are exactly what it says on the tin, an Unidentified Flying Object.

We do not know what it is and it’s pointless guessing.

Finally, a childrens poem about 5 blind men and an elephant.

None had seen an elephant (obviously) but knew it to be different from all other animals. So they went to find an elephant, and when told one was in a field they each intern approaced it.

The first grabbed it by its tail ‘its like a rope’

The second grabbed a leg ‘its like a tree’

The third touched its side ‘its like a wall’

The fourth grabbed an ear ‘its like a fan’

The fifth grabbed a tusk ‘its like a spear’

To conclude – each went their way, each to sing their song, but though the were all partially right, they were all completlly wrong.

With less to go on than the blind men lets stop guessing shall we?
JohnH

That’s some serious scientific reality there. After getting through that BSc material, I’m feeling about as real as you could possibly get. Normally I float around the place in a daze, but “Newtons Law of Thermodynamics” grounded me like a drunk pilot. Accepting the advanced knowledge of Gene Roddenberry and George Lucas in making shit up took me a step closer to accepting cruel, atomic level reality; and when I got to Isaac Asimov – sorry, Issac Assimov – “traveling in Parsecs” I definitely knew I existed, because I lost control of my bladder. But if I was in any doubt as to how real things could get, the elephant poem effectively cut off my balls and stuffed them in my ears.

I’m very glad I’m real, and not just some kind of massive cunt squatting in someone’s febrile imagination.

I find the subject of UFO’s as funny as the site ‘speak your branes’.
The former do not exist (they are just unidentified flying objects) not flying saucers. QED: Figments of your imagination.
The latter do not exist (they are just dullards who need to learn the English language) being figments of their own imagination.
reflector2

Oh, no! Everything I thought about myself was wrong! JohnH had me believing it, and now reality has been pulled from under my feet like Peter Venkman pulled out the tablecloth from under the flowers in Ghostbusters! Remember that? They caught ghosts, though, not aliens. Ghosts are real. “And the flowers are still standing!” Hilarious. They were in the dining room of the hotel, and they were looking for Slimer? And they had those awesome particle streamers? They were real. Weren’t they? Weren’t they… oh, n-

Let us be realistic here. The issue of milk is to children under the age of 5. Have you ever given a drink to a child that age? Unless totaly supervised, the child is more likely spill it or simply leave it. Its far better to give milk to children at home and under proper supervision.
mildenhalljohn

Well, you got me. Can’t fault that argument.

Really, I can’t. It’s so fucking stupid I can’t think of anything to say in response.

It’s almost admirable how racist Collin has managed to become. Here’s a man approaching critical mass – in the Large Hadron Collider of race relations, Collin is one man who’s been bombarded with too many Muslons, and at some point probably copped an Africon to the temple. When I read his anal dribble, I feel like I’m watching White Beauty escape majestically across the fields, shouting racial epithets and “It’s science! It’s for their own good!” as he goes. And then, just as I’m about to put the cunt out of my misery, I feel Nelson’s hand on my arm…

“No, Dizzy. Let this one go.”

I derive no satisfaction in pointing out using empirically derived data that proves beyond doubt, that Sub Saharan Africans (black people) have a very low IQs compared to many. But being aware of this data, accepting this data as factual, is at least a starting point to properly helping Africans. If we continue to pretend that we are all equally smart, Africans will not receive the help they truly need.

If my forthrightness makes me a race-hating-bigot in the eyes of liberals, so bit it – it is a price I’m willing to pay, to make a real change.
Collin Brown

Oh. I see. Yeah, very, er, ‘forthright’. I could see how people could easily confuse that with racism, but on closer inspection, it’s not racist – Collin doesn’t hate Africans. He just pities them with science and shit. After reading Collin’s posts, I’m starting to see the benefits of keeping them doing manual labour and breeding them. If only someone had thought of this a few hundred years ago. They could have built a country.

Collin doesn’t feel good about this absolutely true and empirically derived situation – on the contrary, the burden of this knowledge weighs heavily on his shoulders. The way he bears this cross is practically heroic. Clearly, this man is a fucking saint. Benevolent pity is the only realistic way forward. Feeling sorry for the poor bastards who had the misfortune to be born closer to animals than to God’s glorious shade of pristine-white-or-maybe-slightly-pink-depending-on-the-season is a much better approach than anything we’ve tried so far. Most importantly, it’s not hatred. No – that would be racist! After all, you don’t hate horses for being horses, do you? That’d be silly! Also, horsist.

Being born in a stable, doesn’t make one a horse.

British Muslims, – can there really be, such a thing? Maybe in a civic sense – but a Muslim is a Muslim and no amount of political correctness will change their DNA into British DNA.

If 10’000 Muslims moved into a corner of a British city they, (as a policy among Muslims) will only spend their money within their community – a system known as (Black Money) They will shop at major supermarkets but they wont spend money with British tradesmen and small retailers.

As a result, long-established British business dry-up owing to a severe drop-off in trade which of course leads to: job losses.

Jewish people? Hmm, OK. You did ask, so here goes.

Atheistic Jews (non-religious-Jews), lack many Semitic features that characterise a Jewish person. Semitic Jews are not the Jews, that people constantly criticise. Atheistic ‘Jews’ – such as Peter Mandelson, look ordinary – void of a Semitic (orthodox, Palestinian-look). It is these (select) ‘Jews’, who insist on countries having anti-Semitic laws (not to protect Semite Jews, but to stem criticism of their business practices from coming under scrutiny). Atheistic ‘Jews’ claim to be a people – not a race – a statement which in part, is true. However, this claim does not hold up because Atheistic (internationalist, high-flying ‘Jews’, are essentially European ‘Jews’ -(Bolsheviks) – the architects of communism – void of many Semitic features.

Atheistic ‘Jews’, (in the strictest sense), are not really Jews at all. A portion of them make up part of the international elite who influence and control politicians around the world. The ‘Jews’ who do this, are universally disliked not for what they are, but for what they do.

Orthodox Jews – on the other hand – Semites are a peace-loving race who believe in keeping themselves to themselves. Off course there are many, Semitic descendants in this world with Jewish names, who have no aspirations to impoverish the lives of ordinary people for self-gain.
Collin Brown

Oh, man. I don’t mind telling you that after reading all those facts, I have a tingly feeling going on in the crotch area. It’s brilliant – the scent of a rose that blooms once every thousand years. You just don’t get this quality of racism nowadays. The study of the Jew! British DNA! That kind of stuff extends my phenotype, if you know what I mean. I start picturing beautiful, pristine white British DNA being attacked by some kind of multicultural radiation. Koranium or Judaenium or something. And the only thing that stops it is a suit lined with… oh, I don’t know, Griffonium? Yeah, Griffonium.

But if you thought Collin was just about disjointed race-based thinking, then you thought wrong. He’s also all about the curse of Gay. And again, Collin doesn’t resort to base emotions like hatred – the recourse of liberals and Marxists everywhere. No, he uses reason, and his objections are not raised to stop you from having equality – heaven forbid – but to save you from a major social faux pas…

For heterosexual married-couples departing a hotel after a 7-day stay, it is quite common for either party to announce one, of the two, exit phrases:

(1). My husband and I, would like to checkout – please.
(2). My wife and I would like to checkout – please.

How, I ask, will same-sex ‘married’ couples phrase their exit announcements, not to mention introductions. Imagine, (as a newly ‘married’ SSC) attending a cocktail party (for business reasons) as a man having to introduce everyone to your new husband – or for that matter, as a female, having to introduce everyone to your new wife?

Is this really, what same-sex couples want? As a SSMC, will both of you – (emotionally-speaking), be able to live up to your new-found status or, will you revert to ‘reticent-mode’ when straight-couples look upon you in a somewhat quizzical fashion?
Collin Brown

You didn’t think about that, did you, you selfish fuckers. In your drive for ‘equality’, you forgot that you could, on occasion, confuse people at business-related cocktail parties. Just imagine the look on your line manager’s face when you introduce your same-sex husband as your husband over a plate of cheeses on sticks. Can you picture the look of searing pain across his face as he tries to work it out? Well, then. Lesson learned. Now we can save him all the pain of reconciling that in his poor, overheated brain. Did I mention that in this fantasy your line manager is black? He’s black.

Enjoy Collin Brown to the fullest. He’s a dying breed – after all, the nearest he gets to reproducing is the crusty sock he keeps under his pillow next to the well-thumbed copy of Mein Kampf.

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.