Goodbye George

Lonesome George 'tasted delicious', confirms Heston.

 The last giant tortoise of the subspecies Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni, nicknamed 'Lonesome George', has died.

George's preserved cadaver was passed to Heston Blumenthal, who won a celebrity chef competition to cook and eat the tortoise. He 'tasted delicious', said Mr. Blumenthal.

"To prepare George, we first had to crack that tough natural shell," explained Heston, "We repeatedly fired him into a brick wall using a medieval trebuchet. After the third or fourth attempt, we finally got him open. After that, it was just a case of preparation."

"After a couple of thousand rotations on a centrifuge machine - commonly used for training astronauts - the meat was nice and tender. I was going for a spicy Indian curry, influenced by the traditional Scottish dish of haggis. After stuffing George full of rice and my special recipe sauce, I marinated him for two days in a mixture of polystyrene and unleaded petrol, before giving him a good flambe, just to make him that little bit more leathery."

"It was possibly the tastiest curry I've ever had".

George was then served to twenty selected guests at Blumenthal's exclusive Fat Duck Restaurant, alongside fresh stone-baked naan bread 

Despite looking like a penis crossed with a hermit crab, George was a reluctant hit with the elite diners.

Not everyone was convinced by Blumenthal's unorthodox approach to cooking George.

"I'd rather someone like Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall did it," said VIP Guest Sarah Taylor. "I admit, River Cottage annoys me with it's cringingly false rustic facade, but Hugh himself is fairly normal. Heston is fucking insane. The man terrifies me. No one should pack explosives into a wedding cake. I hope the police are keeping their eye on him."

"The dish itself was nothing special. It reminded me of the time I had a few too many in one of Soho's expensive niche clubs, before stumbling into the Pride of India down Hackney for a cheeky Madras."

"Long story short, it was like eating a badly prepared takeaway out of a handbag."

Be Prepared

Olympic Security Boosted by Giant Robot

Security at the London 2012 games has been bolstered today after ministers confirmed they were in the final stages of commissioning a giant fighting robot.

“It is simply marvelous,” said Defence Secretary Philip Hammond. “It cost nearly the entire budget, and is the fruition of ten years worth of army supply shortages.”

“It’s completely environmentally friendly too.”

The meat-powered warmachine is rumoured to maintain operational for extended periods by ‘eating’ the poor, an inexhaustible source of renewable energy.

“It basically just sucks them up, tracksuits and all” confirmed Mr. Hammond.

“Obviously we cannot go into details about exact technical specifications, but it has reinforced armour-plate and is armed with a considerable amount of firepower, including surface to air missiles, a huge chainsaw arm and flame-throwers for eyes.”

The two-hundred foot metal behemoth, carved in the likeness of Margaret Thatcher, is to be deployed in an effort to combat terrorism, as well as threats from outer-space and gigantic Japanese lizards which could cause “considerable disruption” to the Games.

The 2008 Bejing Olympics was marred by a fight between Godzilla and King Kong.

Little more is known about the robot, which has been christened “Her Majesty’s Worldfucker”, apart from that it has two giant amplifiers mounted on the shoulders and a fifty-foot George Cross covering the torso. In test-runs, it has been blasting out ‘Jerusalem’ whilst stomping around Exmoor annihilating targets with contemptuous ease.

“We are prepared right up till the Second Coming of Christ,” added the Defence Secretary.

It has been described by army-chiefs as “a supreme example of Britain’s cutting edge military hardware” and “fucking sweet.”

A Matter of Perspective

Church to Stand Fast on Issue of Ginger Marriage

The Church of England has issued a statement today citing it's opposition to proposed legislation allowing ginger people to marry.


Currently, people with hair described as 'ginger', 'strawberry blond' or 'kissed by fire' are allowed to join in civil partnerships, but are not legally allowed to wed.

"For hundreds of years, redheads have been associated with witchcraft and satanic ritual," said Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, "to permit them to marry would be a crime against God and nature."

"To clarify," the Archbishop continued, "this is an ecumenical matter for the Church. If two sinful abominations wish to flaunt their commitment to devil worship in public, then that is a matter for the state. But they have no place in a house of God."

"We have some redheads in our congregations, but all have been thoroughly screened by throwing them into a river beforehand. We had trained lifeguards ready to retrieve those that sunk, and we burnt the ones that floated. May God have mercy on their souls."

Ginger people can currently flout the ban by dyeing their hair and renouncing Satan and all his works.

Some Tory MP's have threatened to vote against any move to permit gingers to marry if the government attempts to carry the proposals into law.

"A few years ago we let left-handed people marry, and it has been an unmitigated disaster," said Herbert Derbingham of West Countryshire. "Unemployment is up, knife crime and drug abuse is out of control amongst our youth, and I'm pretty sure Hitler was left-handed, although I wouldn't be able to offer much in the way of hard evidence"

"I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote against any motion to allow gingers to marry." Mr Derbingham added, "there are just too many consequences that we, as a nation, are not ready to deal with."

Get it Right

"Learn the lessons of Iraq," Blair warns Cameron

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has hit out at David Cameron's proposed extermination of the poor, calling welfare reforms "slow, costly, and and inefficient."

"You cannot destroy an entire civilization by slowly strangling it economically," said Mr. Blair. "If David Cameron is serious about the wholesale genocide of the working class, then he should look at historical examples. We imposed sanctions on Iraq from before the first Gulf War, and while we starved thousands of Iraqi citizens to a slow and painful death, ultimately, it did not work."

"In the end, we achieved more by bombing the shit out of Iraq than we ever did with sanctions. If it wasn't for international pressure and the attention of the world's media, I'm fairly confident we could have killed them all. You cannot conduct the successful extermination of Britain's populace if your mortality rate does not exceed population growth. It is simple economics. Bloody, violent economics of human suffering."

"I would be Prime Minister again," added Mr. Blair, "And where Mr. Cameron would fuck you slowly, I will give it to the people of Britain rough and unsheathed."

I'm prepared to kill again.

Downing Street hit back at the allegations of waste.

"What benefit do we reap from killing the poor?" laughed Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond. "If we starve and oppress them while crucially leaving enough alive, we should have ample fuel for our new meat-powered fighting robot."

The robot, a two hundred foot behemoth carved into the likeness of Margret Thatcher, will initially be used to defend the Olympic games against extraterrestrial threats, Japanese dinosaurs and humungous gorillas.

A Slow Genocide

"Kill them all," Cameron Urges

Daivd Cameron has urged his backbenchers to "remain steadfast" in their conviction to kill as many poor people as possible. The PM was addressing the House of Commons over proposals for the new Welfare Reforms. He admitted that "tough decisions" had to be made over who and exactly how many impoverished serfs should be exterminated in order to meet stringent spending cuts.

"Cameron is boldy marching us towards the Nazi dystopia I've always prayed for," said one backbencher dreamily. "I want a world populated by wretched, emaciated peasants, smog choked by the burning bodies of their own children."

"We will cremate them on pyres fueled by their offspring," confirmed Mr. Cameron.

The proposed criteria for welfare reform were outlined in a speech delivered by Home Secretary Theresa May and Defence Secretary Philip Hammond after the Prime Minister entered a trance-like state during the exchange and began to mumble about his "holy mission".

A breakdown is provided below.

1. Sterilization of  sickness and incapacity claimants.
2. Unemployed claimants of JSA to work voluntary for sixteen hours a day. Recipients will be executed if they have failed to find employment after a period of ten weeks, before being used to feed and warm the elderly.
3. Housing benefit will be reduced to match the weekly cost of a large cardboard box, a mug for rainwater and half a loaf of stale bread. It is expected that replacement mugs will incur a further reduction in benefits.
4. Any crime committed while in receipt of welfare will now carry the death penalty.
5. Single parents will be expected to find work or be relocated to breeding farms in the countryside.
6. Large families will have their benefits reduced, and may only keep two of their children. In cases where three or more children are present in the family, the surplus will be used for experimental weapons testing.

Mr. Cameron has defended his plans for the reforms, stating that Conservative policy "from the outset" was to "kill them all". He has allayed protests from religious leaders by claiming "God will know His own."

NATO leaders react to reports of a virus bomb in Middlesbrough

While not wishing to comment on individual cases, an insider confirmed there was a "strong possibility" that the Prime Minister was going to destroy Newcastle from orbit using high yield tactical nukes.

"There has been some discussion on turning the entire North East into a poisoned and irradiated Hell lasting a thousand years." our source claimed.

Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democracts, denounced the plans as 'insane'.

"You have to understand," said Mr. Clegg as he necked his third bottle of Colvonia, "There's nothing I can do. He has my family."

"Oh god, I'm in balls deep and I don't how to stop him."

The Law of Unintended Consequence

I realise that my last blog post was about 'the gays', and touched on gay marriage. Unfortunately, the wretched denizens of this dismal, blighted world have failed to recognise me as their living god and thus the last post did not immediately set the world to rights. So this one is for you, Craig.

When I got home from wasting my life at university one day*, I enjoyed the surreal experience of my housemate staring at a Mars bar with the intensity of a cobra.

"A less strict vegetarian may still enjoy our products," he mumbled, reading an online press release from Mars with absolutely no conviction. The confusion didn't leave his face.

"A less strict vegetarian. Isn't that someone who is not a vegetarian? I mean, it's either got animals in it or it hasn't."

And there you go. It was hardly the most profound thing to say, but I feel for him, since it's an unusual case. Not many people are called to bring down judgement on a Mars bar, but it was probably the most concise, accurate and damning critique I've ever heard that didn't involve spades of foul language. You wouldn't say, "A less strict egalitarian can still enjoy heaps of tasty discrimination," would you? Sometimes, things just are that black and white.

Equality.. You either have it, or you don't. I know for a fact we don't, but it's always comforting to at least pretend like everyone's interested in it.

Calderdale's Arch-Parasite and Lord Overfiend, Craig Whittaker MP, has published an interesting blog recently. In between defending his expenses spending and writing articles on missing children, he managed to get a quick dig in at this week's popular controversy - gay marriage.

"The unintended consequences of same-sex marriage and why I will not vote for it"

Craig's post starts out with a bit of a curveball, just to prepare you for the thigh-deep pools of pointless bile you'll have to wade through later. Anyone who assumed this could be a well rationalised argument immediately finds themselves on the back foot. Clever move, sir.


"It is wrong to say that Gay marriage is the next Civil Rights battle. To do so would make marriage adult centred instead of Child centred as it currently is.

It is important to say that I want to be as objective as I can with what I think is an incredibly important issue and I am basing my decision not on information or beliefs from faith groups, whether my own or others, but on what the unintended consequences of re-defining marriage may bring."

I mean, surplus capital letters aside, it is a readable if not strange way to open an argument.  I don't know how many weddings Craig has been to, but marriage is adult centered. Conducted by adults, for adults, in the presence of other adults and perhaps some children. Unless he means that it is for the purposes of procreation, which displays a terrifying ignorance of biology.

I'm sure he'll clarify, just like he clarified he was being objective. He's already said that he doesn't consider the struggle for gay marriage as a rights issue. Objectivity in motion. It's a deceptively important sentence where a man can claim to be objectively examining something based on a set of made up criteria and hypotetical scenarios that have filled his small mind with stark terror.


"My overriding concern is that if we do indeed as a Parliament change legislation to allow same sex marriage now, then what will our successors be discussing and have to legislate for in the future?; Polygamy?; Three-way relationships?; Who knows what else?"

WHO KNOWS!

Portals to Hell triggering daemonic incursion. One side-effect of same-sex marriage?

I mean, god forbid that you could love more than one person at once. I mean, my feelings on marriage as an institution force me to play Devil's Advocate here, but really?


What follows is a bizarre list of ways the law in other countries has been changed. At this point, Craig's blog could probably do with some sinister music to underline the seriousness of it all. It's all innocuous stuff designed to satisfy a legal framework that only a backward minded yokel would get upset about. But Craig is obviously upset, on the brink of collapsing to the ground and spasming like a panicking fish.


"Marriage has a unique place in our society. It is a bedrock institution and the most stable environment for raising children. Redefining marriage would make marriage adult-centred rather than child-centred."

Reasserting, but disappointingly not clarifying something he said earlier just about wraps up the rest of the blog, bar a few emotive platitudes and a rendition of Jerusalem playing in the background. So it's a bedrock institution, right? For a guy who is on his second marriage, that's quite a bold statement. Not as bold as defining it as 'child-centered'. I mean, he was arrested for assaulting his own son. There's nothing great about hypocrisy from normal people, but from someone in a position of power making moral judgements about the ability of a same-sex couple to raise children. He's either made the worlds worst joke using himself as the punchline, or it's just a staggering amount of arrogance.

People in glass houses, and all that.

At least you can see him coming. Face and all.

It's even stranger that the MP for Calder Valley, containing the unofficial 'Lesbian capital' of the UK, should want to deliberately piss off his constituents. Actually, it's not that strange. He probably doesn't recognise those hippies as legitimate human beings anyway. At least you can take solace in the fact that Representative Democracy allows your representative to turn their back on both the party line and their constituents. That liberating ability to fuck people off without consequence, and absolute freedom just to be a prick.


* Instead of wasting it someplace else.

If You Tolerate This, Your Children Will Be Next

This is quite a serious subject for me, and affects so many people I know it isn't funny. So I hope I've done it justice, and I hope to god where I've inevitably slipped up in my argument, people can see the intention beyond the wording.

Reading back through this blog, it is pretty easy to work out that I am not a tolerant guy.

I used to be quite easy going until I hit 21. Following budget cuts in my personality, I was eventually stripped down to a malicious ball of spite powered entirely by bourbon creams, neat vokda and hate. The wretched and contemptuous creature now hunched over a keyboard in a dark cave of  squalor is the result of seven years in retail and five years studying politics.

I have many bile-inducing opinions, and you can pretty much guarantee that anything I express a mild interest in will inevitably turn to blinding disgust over an indeterminate period of time. And because of this, I am a perfect boyfriend for Jan Moir. She's 30 years my senior, but finding someone with the same ignorant, vomit-inducing opinions as myself has been rather difficult. Plus she's loaded, and if anything goes well with arrogance, it's greed.

Then I read this article, back in 2009. You should all be familiar with it. It was originally entitled 'There was nothing 'natural' about Steven Gately's death." Following complaints, it was re-edited to become 'A strange, lonely and troubling death..." I kind of stopped masturbating to her columns after that. That was a bit too far, Jan. I'm struggling to wonder if it was as bad as Peter Hitchen's 2009 article, entitled, "We show tolerance to 'gays' and get TYRANNY in return." Jesus, Pete. Tyranny? Why is 'gays' in inverted commas? Why are you warbling on about child hostages?

The Gays sacrifice foster babies to appease Satan and prolong their lives. If you tolerate this, your children will be next.

I'll be honest, I read most of his post and some of the stuff below that and just thought it was a parody article. It must be a parody article. Blood is pouring from my eyes and, Oh Jesus, he meant every word.

And since we're now neatly on the topic of both 'the gays' and 'bigoted vats of bubbling prejudice', I guess I can finally get round to talking about what I was going to talk about anyway. I was going to do this awhile a go. I was also going to make it good. But with the furor over gay marriage raging across every possible information medium ever, it's time to go.

I'm not going to write about gay marriage. My thoughts on gay marriage should be abundantly clear, albeit a little muddied by my opinion on the institute of marriage as a whole. I'm going to write about tolerance, and why I don't, nay, can't, tolerate gay people.

WARNING: This image may be considered inappropriate for people with insane socially backward worldviews.

 

tol·er·ance

 [tol-er-uhns] 

noun

1.

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

Sounds pretty good, right? Even if sexuality must fall under the broader category of 'ect'. I mean, I used to be tolerant. I cringe when I remember saying 'I'm a tolerant guy'.

per·mis·sive

 [per-mis-iv] 

adjective

2.

granting or denoting permission

I stopped being tolerant because the idea of writing to every gay person in the United Kingdom, granting them permission to be gay and to continue their lives under my benevolent gaze was simply too time consuming, and also crazier than a sack full of cats. Let me break it down for you.

All views are not valid.

I cannot claim to be a proponent of social tolerance and be selective about it. If I have gay friends, and have no issue with people being gay, does that mean I should let fascists roam the streets spreading hate and fear? Ultimately, all things are not valid. It would be lovely to think they are, but they aren't. That's how politics works, you have your political self, with its beliefs and motivations, and ultimately you cannot reconcile who you are with something you find abhorrent. In that view, tolerance is just a word. It is barely an idea. Tolerance is selective.

Without equality: Tolerance is a myth.

Alright, I stole that from an article I was reading online, but it is true. If we take tolerance to be the bare minimum attitude a society should have, yet do not treat gay issues as being of equal value to other prevailing ideas, then we, as a species, are suffering from self-delusion. They are synonymous. You cannot have equality without subscribing to commonly accepted notions of tolerance. You cannot have tolerance if you do not have equality. Do we have equality for gay people? No we do not. Ergo, to call oneself tolerant is dubious to begin with. In my mind, you are subscribing to a lie.

Thanks, straight guy, for letting me live my life.

 

So what is this tolerance thing which we strive for but obviously don't have and probably don't want? Calling oneself tolerant is a construct. It is a lazy and unhelpful way of saying you're not a bigoted homophobe. It is a dismissing wave. Do whatever you want, leave me out of it. You can be as fabulous as you like, that's fine by me. Thanks for asking. I'm going out on a limb when I say that tolerance, on the surface, looks pretty good. But ultimately, it is not tolerance that society needs. 

ac·cept·ance

 [ak-sep-tuhns] 

noun

1.the act of taking or receiving something offered.

2.favourable reception; approval; favour.

3.the act of assenting or believing

4.the fact or state of being accepted or acceptable.

Even that sounds a little crude. Perhaps a political notion of 'post acceptance', might be a little bit more dignified. The Wikipedia article spells it out beautifully, for me, although I'm sure there are some bright political types who could do a better job than I. 

"Acceptance in human psychology is a person's assent to the reality of a situation, recognising a process or condition without attempting to change it, protest, or exit."

A person's assent to the reality of a situation. Doesn't that sound much better? People are gay. They will never need nor want your permission to be so. This is the reality of the situation. Ultimately, that is the problem with tolerance. Whenever I have spoken to a gay friend of mine, they have never expressed a craving for permission. They're human beings. They don't want people to put up with them. They do not want people to view their sexuality in academic terms. They do not want to settle for a legally enforced, socially informed view of tolerance that people subscribe to basically because intolerance is taboo.

As far as I've always understood it, people are all fairly similar to one another. They want you to respect them, to love them, and ultimately, to treat them as equally as you would treat others. And that is why I am not tolerant. Permission to be gay is not necessary. It is not something I can give or withhold. So there you go. Fuck tolerance, try treating people like people.