Channel 4 are making a mockumentary on the aftermath of Bush\’s assassination. One can only hope life imitates art.
If you support the government\’s allegedly planned ban on the possession violent pornography, you should be raped, strangled and have your bodyÂ dumped in a garage for a week. It\’s a fucking appalling, indefensible piece of legislation.
Update: these people have a more productive take on the issue.
Remember the terrible events in Beslan two years ago, when evil Muslim terrorists callously blew up and gunned down a school full of children after taking them hostage?
According to the Russian expert investigating the case, the explosions were all caused by Russian grenades, with the gunmen only opening fire in response to the Russian attack.
I\’m sure that all those people who opined on the gunmen\’s great evil at the time will now apologise…
Here are two examples of adverts featuring comedy violence – a joke Glasgow hardman (in a bird costume) making silly threats, and a girl slapping a bloke for using sleazy lines on her.
Both adverts attracted a few complants – but worryingly, not just from the usual mad busybodies who feel the need to land someone else in trouble every time they see a pair of tits or hear someone saying \”fuck\”. The first advert was complained about by the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit of Strathclyde Police and the Clinical Director of Glasgow Royal Infirmary\’s A&E department. \”Stop writing timewasting letters, and go catch some criminals and sew some people up\” would seem to be an appropriate response…
The Advertising Standards Agency rejected all complaints on both adverts, wisely reflecting the fact that both Glasgow hardmen and female-on-male domestic violence are broadly funny rather than serious (if you\’re a male who is in or has survived a physically abusive relationship reading this, then hahahahaha). But I\’m still disturbed that serious public service professionals think this is an appropriate way to behave.
The most cogent post on airline security so far, now up at Chase Me Ladies:
The point is that once again my enjoyment of the in-flight snack was marred by burning hatred of the airline, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the cast of Dr Doolittle 3 (the in-flight movie). Bin Laden I donâ€™t mind so much. To me heâ€™s just a nutter in a cave on the other side of the world. I donâ€™t feel anything like the rancour towards him that I feel for the interfering old gusset-face who made me wait behind the yellow line until it was my turn to put my shoes in the x-ray machine. In fact, I quite like him.
Relatedly, here\’s some convincing analysis showing that even if the current accused exploding-Yank-flights terrorists are for real, their attempts would certainly have failed -Â at best, theyÂ might have made a bit of a bangÂ and put the aeroplane\’s toilet out of use. Not everybody is impressed by that piece, but then not everybody isn\’t a crack-addled halfwit.
If you were a passenger on Monarch Airlines flight ZB613, and if you objected to the fact that some Asian-looking chaps were talking in a foreign language and looking non-white, thereby contributing to them not being allowed to fly for fear of popular lynch-mobbery, then youÂ would beÂ subhuman filth and wouldn\’t deserve to live.
And even if said Asian-looking chaps were in fact trying to look a bit suspicious for a laugh (without breaking any rules or laws), this reaction is still inexcusable. The chances that your flight will be targeted by terrorists are zero (to any degree of stastistical significance). If someone is behaving suspiciously on your flight, it is because they\’re silly or terrified or a bit mentally ill. If you think it\’s because they\’re a terrorist, you\’re wrong and an idiot. If you\’re afraid of becoming the victim of a terrorist attack, you\’re wrong and an idiot.
If anyone in the UK is likely to be a victim of terrorism, it\’s someone who lives and works in central London, commutes by public transportÂ andÂ frequently travels by air. This description, coincidentally, applies to your host.
Therefore, your host is not best pleased by idiots who suggest that – merely because he understands that the chances of being a victim of terrorism are so miniscule to not be worth worrying about, whereas the chances of being inconvenienced by excessive security measures approximate to 100% – he displays a callous \”I\’m alright Jack, sod them\” attitude.
Your host has a similar attitude to violent crime, having recently graduated from the age and gender group most likely to be a victim of violent crime to merely being in the age and gender group third most likely to be a victim of violent crime.
In both cases, there isn\’t very much of it, it\’s not very scary, and the people who are most scared of it are the people who don\’t stand any real chance of experiencing it anyway. And if said people have the fucking audacity to tell me I should think otherwise, despite the statistics tallying with my personal experience in such a way that makes obviously clear that they\’re wrong and I\’m right, then they\’re welcome to go and blow themselves up.