10.5.12 And What's More . . .

Why did I watch the other day an advert on TV for a Karcher jet wash?  I would have thought that an advert for such an appliance is not quite as effective as it ought to be, because I am given to understand that most disposable income resides in the south east, and it's the south east that's currently in the grip of a hosepipe ban (!)

And what's more . . .

Why the fuck does the newscaster now have to warn all of us that the upcoming report features flash photography.  Every cuntin' time, in line with the nanny state's approach, and the culture of fear that's developed in the UK over everything known to man, I have to be made aware that I am about to experience a few flashes.  BUT - where's the fucking warning about having to listening to the complete shit being spoken by Ed Miliband, then?

And what's more . . .

Why does the BBC persist in describing snooker as a fucking sport?  It's a game, just like darts, that other supposed 'sport'.  I reckon the BBC has lost so much to Sky and others, that it likes to console itself with this flawed propaganda of sports coverage.  So, when the newsreader on the radio announced: "World snooker champion, Ronnie O'Sullivan, is to takes six months off from the sport" it was of course false reporting; " 'Ronnie won't be playing games for a bit'  said his mum" would have been more accurate.

And what's more . . .

I am so pleased that the French have dispensed with Nikolas Sarkozy, because I don't have to listen to twattish newsreaders fucking about with his name.  I did hear a frenchman on a news report the other day, and was pleased yet still surprised when he pronounced it in a straightforward way, without affectation.  Meanwhile, our own news people seem to think Knee-coll-a Sar-ko-zeee is the way to go.  I have already moaned about the Michelin shit on cookery programmes, and 'omm-arj' for homage.  But it does all get worse than this - yes, Vladimir Putin is now a target.  On the radio, Vla-Deee-meer was pathetic on the part of the BBC nob.

And what's more . . .

We can all rejoice after slimy Red Ken failed to beat Boris Johnson in the race to be Major of London.  Boris may not have much of a clue about many things, but he is liked, funny, not scared, and ebtertaining.  Red Ken is of course snidy, oily, sneaky, two-faced and not someone who should be in power.

And what's more . . .

Why are horse riders exempt?  I am talking about fines for thier animal shitting.  Dog owners are threatened with a fine of £80 if Fido shits in the street.  If Seagram, Red Rum or "Blackie the Fucking Big Shire Horse" has a mobile dump, it's 22 kilos in the street or on the path, but no fine? 

And what's more . . .

Walkers have got a nerve, or at least retailers have, on the price of individual bags of crisps.  The Cunt-op wantes 60p for a 35g normal bag.  But Morrisons is selling 22 bags (admitedly the 25g ones) for £1.98.  The latter is thus a 9p per bag rate, and on a like-for-like basis (ie. 35g) less than 13p against the 60p.  This is lunacy, opportunism, flawed economics and a cuntin' rip-off!  All this doesn't even consider the policies in place at mororway service stations where 'grab-bags' require the completion of a loan form, they're such a con.  On Tuesday, I say a bag of McVitie's Mini Cheddars on sale for £2.79.  Admittedly it weighed 200g, which is of course such a mammoth amount that levers and pulleys would be needed to haul it to a car outside.

And what's more . . .

Oxfam is suggesting to women that they ought to donate their spare bras boost the proceeds of the charity.  Yes, apparently females have so many unused bras at home that this is the way forward.  What bollocks.  Sell them to whom?  If so many women have them, whose needs them?  I suspect that many woman would rather not wear someone else's leftover bra, paying for it via Oxfam.  I have no idea what percentage of takings goes on running costs and salaries etc for Oxfam, but the percentage of the takings going to the causes it champions must be a long way short of 100%.  So, probably half of the £3 someone pays for a bra of dubious provenance eventually gets to needy Africans, so they can survive more easily.  Heaven forbid that any Africa goes and buys a bra with the aid, because that would be silly.  I don't think there's a massive call for cheap used bras in this country, nor a demand for trade in them via charity shops that could deliver aid to Africa.  I do suspect that if women have a surfeit of bras, the apparel might be of interest or use to Africans - maybe Oxfam can fly them over?  To my mind, I think they may have other priorities though. 

...