Apologies for two blog posts in a row about letters in my local paper - next blog post might be about Justin Bieber!!!! - but I just cannot ignore these two letters. Quite simply, friends, I think it's fair to say we've hit the jackpot. These two letters contain a level of sheer unbelievableness not seen since my old friend J Wendy Slark, (whatever happened to Slarkie? She disappeared altogether. I'm worried - it has been a particularly cold winter) and I know you'll love them.
I'll start with the slightly less offensive one.
With reference to letters claiming there is no evidence that bringing back the death penalty stops murders.
Those letters would be correct. The other day I found this site: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm
which makes for sobering reading. It's a list of people executed in Texas, and along with their information it lists their Last Statement. Have a quick look at that site - it's absolutely incredible, if that's the right word.
The thing that really jumps out at me however on that site is the length of the list - over 450 names, the first being in 1982, the last a few months ago. The last being a murderer, by the way. Death penalty stops murders happening? Hell, not in Texas.
It is a sure fact that when the murderer is sentenced to the death penalty they cannot come out and commit another crime. This is not revenge, it's justice.
Oh, aren't you funny. And witty. For anyone wanting to be a humourist, let be break this sentence down for you:
"Death penalty means they're dead, innit? Can't murder anyone then can they, because they've been murdered themselves LMAO."
I abhor the death penalty. If it did come back - and it might under this Government, y'know - I'll be on the first flight out of here. Not because I'd be particularly worried about my welfare (I'm not scheduled to murder anyone for a while, bar Val Duncan) but because I think it's appalling, hypocritical, misguided, barbaric and has the potential to cause all manner of problems. I present my case a bit more eloquently here: http://theriseandriseoftimlovejoy.blogspot.com/2010/08/green-mile.html
In that blog post I admit how terrified I am at the prospect of there being a referendum on the Death Penalty. Thick cunts like you, GM Phillips from Ironbridge, fuel my fear.
Staggeringly, out of the two letters I'm putting up here for you to read, that one is the least offensive. This next one is....well, it's the motherload.
The writer of the letter "Victory for Gay Rights" should hang his/her head in shame. Just because the law now says homosexuality is accepted, the reality is that it is man's law. But when compared to God's law (which never changes) it is still wrong.
I think I've read that paragraph six times now. I still can't quite believe it.
It is clear man is exchanging truth for a lie. If this were not so, then why would the following verses be included in the Bible?
The Bible is a bucketload of shit, okay?
According to the Bible it is a sin to:
Get a divorce
Have sex before marriage
Accuse someone
Be angry
Feel anxious
Have an argument
Show arrogance
Complain
Drink
Be disobedient
And, of course, to be homosexual.
If we're taking the Bible verbatim, we're ALL fucked.
"Because of this, God gave them over to sinful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnat...
Actually, you know what?
I'm not even going to type out the rest of the quote. I do not care. If you desperately want to read it, apparently it's Romans 1:26-27, although in the index you'll find it under "more shit".
Name and address supplied says if there is a God, he would love everyone.
I find discussions and opinions about God so futile and unnecessary. Is there a God? I don't know, neither do you. There is no evidence to suggest there is, there's no evidence to prove there isn't. Whatever you think about God, whatever your religion, I wish people would just shut up and go about their lives in a nice, positive manner regardless. And if you really need a 'holy' old book to tell you what's right or wrong, then sort yourself out.
I just wonder how mankind could fulfil God's command to procreate if it were not through man and woman?
This is all just too little. It is too clumsy, too futile, too unintelligent, too insane to even comment on. It is also the end of the letter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior apologies for the wiki link, but that page is interesting reading. Some people are gay. Some animals are gay. Get the fuck over it.
Congratulations Trevor Mytton from Shrewsbury. You've made the list.
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Friday, 4 February 2011
Valedictorian Duncan
It's Val Duncan. It's The Shropshire Star's letter page. You know the drill as well as I do.
Tony Blair
Bliar. Remember, the man lies about everything. I actually bumped into him the other day, nice man. I asked him what he got for Christmas. He told me some nice socks, but after he had walked into the cafe, Cherie told me it was actually boxer shorts. The crazy fucker just can't help himself!
was once quoted as saying it was a shame the UK was so small.
He was lying.
Obviously we didn't fit his vainglorious idea of being the big statesman on the world stage.
This is all just so depressing. I'm not Tony Blair's biggest fan, but whether you like him or not, he is yesterday's news. There are so many things to talk about at the moment - Egypt, the future of universities, the coalition, cricket spot-fixing, financial problems, Manchester United sweeping their way to a 19th league title, Korea. There is so much to discuss, with Tony Blair involved in precisely none of them.
Nevertheless, this is Val Duncan we're dealing with here. We have to be careful - she can wrong foot us at any given moment. Let's be on our guard.
We once had high standing because we had pride and achievements that far outclassed our land mass, but Blair couldn't see that. He gave away our pride and achievements, our history and our ancient laws and liberties for the dream of playing a bit part in Brussels and he came unstuck.
Yes, did you hear about this? Tony Blair gave our history away a few years back. I noticed it when I browsed a textbook in my brother's classroom the other day - apparently Winston Churchill didn't exist, and the Battle of "Britain" (remember Britain? Lol.) is now the Battle of Myanmar.
Bill Shakespeare is now Swedish, and wrote most of his work in the very first IKEA store, apparently. It's all fascinating stuff.
He took an independent country that gave the world some of the greatest inventions known to man and turned it into an over-populated, bankrupt island tagged on to the bottom end of Europe.
Yeah, that's something I noticed in a geography book - we're now at the bottom of Europe.
I get the feeling that you're a bit cynical about this, so let me just photocopy the map that was in the book and then find a way to pop it up on here. You'll be shocked....hang on, just copying it over....
Didn't believe me, did you?
With his bloated ego and lack of intelligence Blair couldn't see that he had thrown away a chance to stand with the greatest statesmen of all time by representing one of the most unique islands on the planet.
I hate this (bloated) sentence for two reasons. Firstly - whatever you think of him, Blair does stand as one of the greatest statesmen of all time. No, really, he does - and that isn't based on opinion. The simple fact is he can justifiably claim that based on three things:
1) He was Prime Minister of an important and storied nation.
2) He won 3 General Elections, which makes him tied-2nd in the all-time list in G.E. wins.
3) He served for 10 consecutive years, putting him 6th in the all-time list in that regard.
(Mind you, I'm getting my info from Wikipedia, so I may be wrong there. Walpole probably only hanged around five minutes.)
Secondly, I hate the bit about Britain being "one of the most unique islands on the planet". Maybe I'm over-analysing this, but surely, by their very nature, every fucking country is unique? Australia is not Swaziland, and Sweden is not Chile. No two countries/islands/places are the same. Perhaps similar, but never the same.
Am I over-analysing? Let me know if I am. I have better things to do then get annoyed at this idiot, and better uses of my time.
We gave the world police, underground trains, public parks, the jet engine, the internet, the light-bulb, the computer, radar, powered flight and a host of other things.
Britain gave the world lots of great things, I have to agree. As I'm generous, I'm ignoring that the first public park was in Seville, the first police force was created by Louis XIV in France, and the origins of the internet are debatable and complicated, though I take the Berners-Lee point.
Now Cameron, Clegg and Miliband are more Blair clones who can't see what they truly represent. They are selling us into political obscurity. They see no further than their own egos and they throw away the greatness within their grasp. There is nothing as sad and dangerous as an ego the size of an elephant, resting on the shoulders of weak politicians.
End of letter. You're wrong, Val. I'd wager there's elderly people out there who lap up every single letter you write - who believe it, because you say so, and so does The Daily Express.
Joseph Goebbels was good at what you do, and he summed it up nicely: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Now that's sad and dangerous, Val.
Tony Blair
Bliar. Remember, the man lies about everything. I actually bumped into him the other day, nice man. I asked him what he got for Christmas. He told me some nice socks, but after he had walked into the cafe, Cherie told me it was actually boxer shorts. The crazy fucker just can't help himself!
was once quoted as saying it was a shame the UK was so small.
He was lying.
Obviously we didn't fit his vainglorious idea of being the big statesman on the world stage.
This is all just so depressing. I'm not Tony Blair's biggest fan, but whether you like him or not, he is yesterday's news. There are so many things to talk about at the moment - Egypt, the future of universities, the coalition, cricket spot-fixing, financial problems, Manchester United sweeping their way to a 19th league title, Korea. There is so much to discuss, with Tony Blair involved in precisely none of them.
Nevertheless, this is Val Duncan we're dealing with here. We have to be careful - she can wrong foot us at any given moment. Let's be on our guard.
We once had high standing because we had pride and achievements that far outclassed our land mass, but Blair couldn't see that. He gave away our pride and achievements, our history and our ancient laws and liberties for the dream of playing a bit part in Brussels and he came unstuck.
Yes, did you hear about this? Tony Blair gave our history away a few years back. I noticed it when I browsed a textbook in my brother's classroom the other day - apparently Winston Churchill didn't exist, and the Battle of "Britain" (remember Britain? Lol.) is now the Battle of Myanmar.
Bill Shakespeare is now Swedish, and wrote most of his work in the very first IKEA store, apparently. It's all fascinating stuff.
He took an independent country that gave the world some of the greatest inventions known to man and turned it into an over-populated, bankrupt island tagged on to the bottom end of Europe.
Yeah, that's something I noticed in a geography book - we're now at the bottom of Europe.
I get the feeling that you're a bit cynical about this, so let me just photocopy the map that was in the book and then find a way to pop it up on here. You'll be shocked....hang on, just copying it over....
Didn't believe me, did you?
With his bloated ego and lack of intelligence Blair couldn't see that he had thrown away a chance to stand with the greatest statesmen of all time by representing one of the most unique islands on the planet.
I hate this (bloated) sentence for two reasons. Firstly - whatever you think of him, Blair does stand as one of the greatest statesmen of all time. No, really, he does - and that isn't based on opinion. The simple fact is he can justifiably claim that based on three things:
1) He was Prime Minister of an important and storied nation.
2) He won 3 General Elections, which makes him tied-2nd in the all-time list in G.E. wins.
3) He served for 10 consecutive years, putting him 6th in the all-time list in that regard.
(Mind you, I'm getting my info from Wikipedia, so I may be wrong there. Walpole probably only hanged around five minutes.)
Secondly, I hate the bit about Britain being "one of the most unique islands on the planet". Maybe I'm over-analysing this, but surely, by their very nature, every fucking country is unique? Australia is not Swaziland, and Sweden is not Chile. No two countries/islands/places are the same. Perhaps similar, but never the same.
Am I over-analysing? Let me know if I am. I have better things to do then get annoyed at this idiot, and better uses of my time.
We gave the world police, underground trains, public parks, the jet engine, the internet, the light-bulb, the computer, radar, powered flight and a host of other things.
Britain gave the world lots of great things, I have to agree. As I'm generous, I'm ignoring that the first public park was in Seville, the first police force was created by Louis XIV in France, and the origins of the internet are debatable and complicated, though I take the Berners-Lee point.
Now Cameron, Clegg and Miliband are more Blair clones who can't see what they truly represent. They are selling us into political obscurity. They see no further than their own egos and they throw away the greatness within their grasp. There is nothing as sad and dangerous as an ego the size of an elephant, resting on the shoulders of weak politicians.
End of letter. You're wrong, Val. I'd wager there's elderly people out there who lap up every single letter you write - who believe it, because you say so, and so does The Daily Express.
Joseph Goebbels was good at what you do, and he summed it up nicely: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Now that's sad and dangerous, Val.
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Gray Keys
14:53 Hello all. I have come to the university library, with the aim of doing thesis research and meeting at least three different lecturers. Which is why I'm now going to do a blog entry about Richard Keys and Andy Gray - at least, I am, after I've gone and got some lunch. I am starving. "Brb!" as the kids would say...
15:15 Chicken baguette and Lucozade orange. "Brb!"
15:29 So, where we we? Ah yes.
By now I assume you've all read/heard about this - Sky Sports presenter Richard Keys and his cohort (and former footballer) Andy Gray were caught on tape, before a game they were broadcasting, saying derogatory things about a woman called Sian Massey who was an official that day. Since the initial stuff however there's been some more fuel added to the flames, with more comments from Gray and a dash from resident prick Andy Burton:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/8281056/Andy-Burton-dropped-by-Sky-Sports-over-Sian-Massey-conversation-with-Andy-Gray.html
I have mixed feelings about all of this, so let's tackle the initial comments first of all.
The Premier League is massive. It's awash with multi-millionaire players and managers, multi-billionaire chairmen, huge egos, huge clubs, huge stadiums and huge profits, all of which is nicely stirred together by Sky and all their power and money to create a monolith which has suppressed the rest of English football for 20 years. With this in mind, the idea that an official - in this case Sian Massey - would be chosen to run the line in a Premier League match without knowing the offside rule is worse than stupid. It's mindless, moronic nonsense which underlines just how much of a "big boys club" football still is, and it's a direct insult to her and her profession. Before I carry on however, BREAKING NEWS!
16:23 News come through that Andy Gray has been sacked. Blimey. More on that a bit later once I've had time to get my head around it.
Anyway, yes. The comments made by Keys and Gray absolutely stink - not just because of how unbelievably misguided they are, but because they are a representation of the prevailing attitudes that sadly still exist in football. Take homosexuality, for example. It's almost impossible to say how many homosexual men there are in England, but I think we can safely say that statistically, there should be at least 1 homosexual out of all the footballers who play in the Football League. Yet there isn't. Not a single openly gay footballer, and the only one I can think of who did "come out", Justin Fashanu, killed himself a few years later due to the prejudice that was destroying his life. There is no openly gay footballer currently in the Football League, presumably because they are terrified about how fellow players and fans would react. I don't blame them.
But the other comments that have surfaced today, from Gray and touchline reporter Andy Burton, I feel are different. You can see them in the link above, but the summary is essentially this:
Andy Burton: "Female linesman today, bit of a looker according to Steve the cameraman. He says she's alright...not sure I trust his judgement though."
Andy Gray: "No I wouldn't."
Crew Member: "Female assistant Andy - any good?"
Andy Gray: "Nah. I can see her from here."
As much as I hate Andy Burton (and I do) and as deplorable as Gray's previous comments were, I struggle to feel any anger or fury over this interchange whatsoever. In this instance, neither are attacking the woman in regards to her job, instead it's a general comment about attractiveness which 99% of blokes indulge in. I want to share with you all now a private conversation my friend Dan (Hi Dan! *waves*) and I had last night. I'm going to set it out just below here, in full, without any edit, and then I'll discuss it after:
Dan: "Pretty German girl in our class *swoons* i'd smash her wall etc"
Me: "Ask her if you can put your frankfurter in her Munich tunnel."
Dan: "Just made me snortlol on the bus. Not that the idea is laughable though. Not with me on the case"
Me: "It is laughable. More like a cocktail sausage isn't it?"
Dan: "Nein."
Me: "Nein mm? Sounds about right."
Ignore all the clichéd and stereotypical penis banter (a phrase I thought I'd never write) towards the end, and focus on the stuff at the beginning. Is that wrong? Is it wrong for Dan and I to make a few "Carry On" esque comments just for cheap laughs? I don't know - maybe it is, but I bet we're not the only blokes on the planet who say stuff like that in private. In fact, I know we're not - because Andy Gray and Andy Burton have displayed similar tendencies as shown above. As much as I hate Burton, I'm surprised he's been suspended, and almost feel a tad sorry for him.
Gray hasn't been suspended, he's been sacked, and since that breaking news we've since found out that his dismissal is the result not just re. Sian Massey, but also an incident last December involving colleague Charlotte Jackson.
Good. It's time football emerged from the dark ages, a time Andy Gray still dwells in. I believe Richard Keys will be going too, and again I fully endorse that decision. Get in James Richardson, or Mark Bolton, or Ben Shepherd, get in a young and enthusiastic co-commentator, and try and kick-start a new era for Sky Sports football coverage. Try and kick-start a less prejudiced game. It helps to start at the top.
18:25 Right, time to do some thesis research. Just after I go and get some dinner...
15:15 Chicken baguette and Lucozade orange. "Brb!"
15:29 So, where we we? Ah yes.
By now I assume you've all read/heard about this - Sky Sports presenter Richard Keys and his cohort (and former footballer) Andy Gray were caught on tape, before a game they were broadcasting, saying derogatory things about a woman called Sian Massey who was an official that day. Since the initial stuff however there's been some more fuel added to the flames, with more comments from Gray and a dash from resident prick Andy Burton:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/8281056/Andy-Burton-dropped-by-Sky-Sports-over-Sian-Massey-conversation-with-Andy-Gray.html
I have mixed feelings about all of this, so let's tackle the initial comments first of all.
The Premier League is massive. It's awash with multi-millionaire players and managers, multi-billionaire chairmen, huge egos, huge clubs, huge stadiums and huge profits, all of which is nicely stirred together by Sky and all their power and money to create a monolith which has suppressed the rest of English football for 20 years. With this in mind, the idea that an official - in this case Sian Massey - would be chosen to run the line in a Premier League match without knowing the offside rule is worse than stupid. It's mindless, moronic nonsense which underlines just how much of a "big boys club" football still is, and it's a direct insult to her and her profession. Before I carry on however, BREAKING NEWS!
16:23 News come through that Andy Gray has been sacked. Blimey. More on that a bit later once I've had time to get my head around it.
Anyway, yes. The comments made by Keys and Gray absolutely stink - not just because of how unbelievably misguided they are, but because they are a representation of the prevailing attitudes that sadly still exist in football. Take homosexuality, for example. It's almost impossible to say how many homosexual men there are in England, but I think we can safely say that statistically, there should be at least 1 homosexual out of all the footballers who play in the Football League. Yet there isn't. Not a single openly gay footballer, and the only one I can think of who did "come out", Justin Fashanu, killed himself a few years later due to the prejudice that was destroying his life. There is no openly gay footballer currently in the Football League, presumably because they are terrified about how fellow players and fans would react. I don't blame them.
But the other comments that have surfaced today, from Gray and touchline reporter Andy Burton, I feel are different. You can see them in the link above, but the summary is essentially this:
Andy Burton: "Female linesman today, bit of a looker according to Steve the cameraman. He says she's alright...not sure I trust his judgement though."
Andy Gray: "No I wouldn't."
Crew Member: "Female assistant Andy - any good?"
Andy Gray: "Nah. I can see her from here."
As much as I hate Andy Burton (and I do) and as deplorable as Gray's previous comments were, I struggle to feel any anger or fury over this interchange whatsoever. In this instance, neither are attacking the woman in regards to her job, instead it's a general comment about attractiveness which 99% of blokes indulge in. I want to share with you all now a private conversation my friend Dan (Hi Dan! *waves*) and I had last night. I'm going to set it out just below here, in full, without any edit, and then I'll discuss it after:
Dan: "Pretty German girl in our class *swoons* i'd smash her wall etc"
Me: "Ask her if you can put your frankfurter in her Munich tunnel."
Dan: "Just made me snortlol on the bus. Not that the idea is laughable though. Not with me on the case"
Me: "It is laughable. More like a cocktail sausage isn't it?"
Dan: "Nein."
Me: "Nein mm? Sounds about right."
Ignore all the clichéd and stereotypical penis banter (a phrase I thought I'd never write) towards the end, and focus on the stuff at the beginning. Is that wrong? Is it wrong for Dan and I to make a few "Carry On" esque comments just for cheap laughs? I don't know - maybe it is, but I bet we're not the only blokes on the planet who say stuff like that in private. In fact, I know we're not - because Andy Gray and Andy Burton have displayed similar tendencies as shown above. As much as I hate Burton, I'm surprised he's been suspended, and almost feel a tad sorry for him.
Gray hasn't been suspended, he's been sacked, and since that breaking news we've since found out that his dismissal is the result not just re. Sian Massey, but also an incident last December involving colleague Charlotte Jackson.
Good. It's time football emerged from the dark ages, a time Andy Gray still dwells in. I believe Richard Keys will be going too, and again I fully endorse that decision. Get in James Richardson, or Mark Bolton, or Ben Shepherd, get in a young and enthusiastic co-commentator, and try and kick-start a new era for Sky Sports football coverage. Try and kick-start a less prejudiced game. It helps to start at the top.
18:25 Right, time to do some thesis research. Just after I go and get some dinner...
Friday, 21 January 2011
Football - Bloody Hell
Everything you are about to read is true, which is what makes this so bloody wonderful and brilliant. It's my favourite football story of all time, and to be honest I can't believe I've not put it up on here before. I will now try and explain it as clearly as I can, although it's not easy. Turn off your music, stop eating, and read carefully...
It is the Shell Caribbean Cup, and it is 1994. Barbados are playing Grenada, and the scenario at the beginning of the game is relatively simple - Barbados need to win the game by at least 2 goals, but if after 90 minutes the score is tied, there will be Golden Goal extra-time.
The game goes as follows: Barbados take the lead, 1-0.
Barbados score again, 2-0.
Grenada score, 2-1.
There is five minutes left. Grenada are defending like beavers, as 2-1 is fine for them. If Barbados score again however, that's 3-1, and that's good enough for them. They launch attack after attack but just cannot breach the Grenada defence.
And then they stop, and have a think. You see, the organisers of the Shell Cup decided on a completely insane and baffling rule, which went like this - the Golden Goal scored in extra-time counted as double. The 1 goal, counted as 2. You can see where this is going, can't you? In the 87th minute, a Barbados defender deliberately scores an own-goal.
It is 2-2, and means that the game is going to extra-time, and if Barbados can just get 1 goal, that will count as 2, and they will go through - as they need to win by 2 clear goals, remember. So by scoring a deliberate own goal, they have more time and a better chance of winning the game than trying to scramble a goal with 3 minutes left.
But the Grenada players aren't stupid, and they know why Barbados have just smashed in an own goal. And this is where it gets fun - because Grenada now try and score a goal at both ends. This is complicated, but hang with me:
If Grenada a) score a legitimate goal, they win 3-2, and go through.
b) score an own goal, they will lose 3-2, but will still go through.
However, quite hilariously the Barbados players aren't stupid either, and realise this is Grenada's new game plan. So, in the remaining 3 minutes of the 90, they try to keep hold of the ball, make sure the game is played in midfield, and defend both goals. Unbelievably, their plan works.
The game does go into extra-time, and Barbados score the Golden Goal, meaning that the game finishes 3-2, but because of the nonsense rule they effectively win 4-2, and thus go through.
http://www.snopes.com/sports/soccer/barbados.asp
It is the Shell Caribbean Cup, and it is 1994. Barbados are playing Grenada, and the scenario at the beginning of the game is relatively simple - Barbados need to win the game by at least 2 goals, but if after 90 minutes the score is tied, there will be Golden Goal extra-time.
The game goes as follows: Barbados take the lead, 1-0.
Barbados score again, 2-0.
Grenada score, 2-1.
There is five minutes left. Grenada are defending like beavers, as 2-1 is fine for them. If Barbados score again however, that's 3-1, and that's good enough for them. They launch attack after attack but just cannot breach the Grenada defence.
And then they stop, and have a think. You see, the organisers of the Shell Cup decided on a completely insane and baffling rule, which went like this - the Golden Goal scored in extra-time counted as double. The 1 goal, counted as 2. You can see where this is going, can't you? In the 87th minute, a Barbados defender deliberately scores an own-goal.
It is 2-2, and means that the game is going to extra-time, and if Barbados can just get 1 goal, that will count as 2, and they will go through - as they need to win by 2 clear goals, remember. So by scoring a deliberate own goal, they have more time and a better chance of winning the game than trying to scramble a goal with 3 minutes left.
But the Grenada players aren't stupid, and they know why Barbados have just smashed in an own goal. And this is where it gets fun - because Grenada now try and score a goal at both ends. This is complicated, but hang with me:
If Grenada a) score a legitimate goal, they win 3-2, and go through.
b) score an own goal, they will lose 3-2, but will still go through.
However, quite hilariously the Barbados players aren't stupid either, and realise this is Grenada's new game plan. So, in the remaining 3 minutes of the 90, they try to keep hold of the ball, make sure the game is played in midfield, and defend both goals. Unbelievably, their plan works.
The game does go into extra-time, and Barbados score the Golden Goal, meaning that the game finishes 3-2, but because of the nonsense rule they effectively win 4-2, and thus go through.
http://www.snopes.com/sports/soccer/barbados.asp
Monday, 17 January 2011
Wow
Hello all. I've sat down to write another blog entry, but I'm having doubts about it. You see, a) it will be two blog posts in a row where I bash an article from a newspaper, and I always strive to make TRAROTL varied and interesting, and b) attacking the Daily Mail is like criticising Hitler, or kicking a puppy. It's all a bit too easy, isn't it?
But then I read the article again, and I realised I have to write about it. You see, this is so much more than "Miranda is shit lolz" like the last article I referenced - this piece is shameful, disgusting, misguided, irrelevant, pointless, worthless, crass, puerile, juvenile, an insult and so many other words that I'm not clever enough to reel off at the top of my head. I'm sorry Liz Jones, but I can't ignore this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1347621/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Becoming-just-thumbnail-police-website.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
I'm ignoring the title, I think. The answer is "no" though, whilst we're here.
It's Friday night and I’m in the Ram bar on Park Street in Bristol.This is where Joanna Yeates spent her last evening before she set off up the hill, past all the twinkly shops and bars (a Habitat, a Space NK beauty emporium; Bristol is nothing if not upwardly mobile) towards her death.
This is particularly important. I for one never knew that Bristol had a beauty emporium, nor that it was upwardly mobile. I must visit one day.
The bar is OK but ordinary. The wine list, chalked on a board, says ‘Lauren Perrier’.
At this point I need to rein myself in a little here. I do get quite a few foreign visitors to this site - mainly those wondering who Tim Lovejoy is dating. As ever, I do not know. Nevertheless, for the benefit of our friends overseas, a little bit of back-story, if I may. This article is about a lady called Jo Yeates, who just before Christmas was murdered in her home town of Bristol, England. Her body was found on Christmas Day. It's all very horrific, sad and disturbing, and that's just the newspaper coverage of it. The simple fact that Jo was a bright, attractive young white lady means that the papers have whipped themselves into a complete frenzy over this one. As someone just remarked to me on Twitter, if a black man from a rough estate was murdered, the papers wouldn't care, and the headlines would be very different. Horrible to say that, but it's true. This article here is the latest about the murder, something I find relatively amusing considering that none of us actually know what the police are thinking right now. Anyway, let us proceed.
I wish she had spent what were probably her last hours on earth somewhere lovelier. The food is awful (I ask for a veggie burger and it comes without the burger – and without the bun!) but the young women behind the bar are sweet with huge, wary eyes.
There is so much about this paragraph which is just ghastly. I'm going to be very kind, and not remark that if you're a vegetarian you're probably a fucking idiot, but there are some things here we just cannot ignore. Is it really acceptable to write an article about a girl being murdered, and kick it off by complaining about food in a pub she happened to be in once? The horror, oh the sheer horror of it all! To me, that's like saying this:
"Picking my way through the shattered remains of Hiroshima, I found it nigh on impossible to locate a decent sushi bar."
Not my work that one - credit to @NicholasPegg on Twitter. I do love Liz's 'huge, wary eyes' comment - it smacks of satire, but the gas here is that you know full well it isn't. It's just horrid.
These women have every right to be a little more nervous than usual, but I absolutely hate this section. It's peddling fear, something these papers do very well and very often. Someone as cynical as me can ignore it, but I do worry about my Gran. Every time I talk to her she starts a sentence with "I read in The Express..." and it will end with some nonsense like "...and then the meteor will kill us all, so I'm off out to panic buy some bread. You can never be too sure." As far as we know, Jo's death was an isolated incident, and has not been linked with others. Should women be a bit more worried? Perhaps so, yes. But it's not like there's a serial killer going round.
Yes, you can tell that, just by the pizza she bought. Naturally. I saw someone buying a Mars bar the other day - bet he's a right cunt. And abuses his wife.
There is one police van on the green as I turn right into Canynge Road. I bet Jo’s heart lifted as she reached this junction, looking forward to the feeling only a Friday night near Christmas can give you. As I near her basement flat, at No 44, the road is quiet. Earlier in the day there had been an ITN news van here but it has gone now. I’m reassured to see two policemen standing vigil at her iron gate, either side of a small, discreet pile of flowers in varying degrees of decay. I tell them I’m spooked, walking here. ‘Don’t be spooked,’ one says. ‘Residents are campaigning to get brighter street lights installed.’
Brighter street lights - good idea.
So the antique, lovely ones are to disappear to be replaced by ugly ones because of something even uglier.
Or not, clearly.
That afternoon I had gone to the lane where Jo’s body was found. It was horrible and windswept. I don’t know what I had expected but not this.
I didn't know what you expected either, to be honest. A fun fare? An Indian restaurant? Noel Edmonds?
There was no ceremony here, no policeman, just that lovely face on a now dog-eared poster. I got the feeling the world is starting to forget Jo, that she’ll become just another thumbnail on the Avon and Somerset Police website, along with the faces of the other murder victims no one can recall.
She was a bright, attractive white female. No chance love.
I’d have expected the cars to slow down here to show respect but they sped past, carrying people on their way home from work.
Literally insane. Liz, you're the person who slows down at car crashes aren't you?
The lane is narrow. I can’t see how a car stopped here and a man struggled with a body without being beeped at and told to get out the way, as I was.
Perhaps there wasn't a struggle there. I don't know. Neither do you. Let's stop playing Nancy Drew for a minute, eh?
There were no messages with the flowers, just one card, still sealed in its Cellophane. The person who left it hadn’t bothered to scrawl a note. Leaving Jo’s flat, I return to my car. My satnav takes me to the Clifton Suspension Bridge.
Isn't it fucking disgusting that thousands of children died in Haiti last year, yet I'm not allowed to buy a PS3 for 12p and a tube of Smarties? Fucking joke.
He didn't say that.
End of article. One of the most insensitive things I've ever read, and I pray that Jo's parents never set eyes on this bullshit.
But then I read the article again, and I realised I have to write about it. You see, this is so much more than "Miranda is shit lolz" like the last article I referenced - this piece is shameful, disgusting, misguided, irrelevant, pointless, worthless, crass, puerile, juvenile, an insult and so many other words that I'm not clever enough to reel off at the top of my head. I'm sorry Liz Jones, but I can't ignore this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1347621/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Becoming-just-thumbnail-police-website.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
I'm ignoring the title, I think. The answer is "no" though, whilst we're here.
It's Friday night and I’m in the Ram bar on Park Street in Bristol.This is where Joanna Yeates spent her last evening before she set off up the hill, past all the twinkly shops and bars (a Habitat, a Space NK beauty emporium; Bristol is nothing if not upwardly mobile) towards her death.
This is particularly important. I for one never knew that Bristol had a beauty emporium, nor that it was upwardly mobile. I must visit one day.
The bar is OK but ordinary. The wine list, chalked on a board, says ‘Lauren Perrier’.
At this point I need to rein myself in a little here. I do get quite a few foreign visitors to this site - mainly those wondering who Tim Lovejoy is dating. As ever, I do not know. Nevertheless, for the benefit of our friends overseas, a little bit of back-story, if I may. This article is about a lady called Jo Yeates, who just before Christmas was murdered in her home town of Bristol, England. Her body was found on Christmas Day. It's all very horrific, sad and disturbing, and that's just the newspaper coverage of it. The simple fact that Jo was a bright, attractive young white lady means that the papers have whipped themselves into a complete frenzy over this one. As someone just remarked to me on Twitter, if a black man from a rough estate was murdered, the papers wouldn't care, and the headlines would be very different. Horrible to say that, but it's true. This article here is the latest about the murder, something I find relatively amusing considering that none of us actually know what the police are thinking right now. Anyway, let us proceed.
I wish she had spent what were probably her last hours on earth somewhere lovelier. The food is awful (I ask for a veggie burger and it comes without the burger – and without the bun!) but the young women behind the bar are sweet with huge, wary eyes.
There is so much about this paragraph which is just ghastly. I'm going to be very kind, and not remark that if you're a vegetarian you're probably a fucking idiot, but there are some things here we just cannot ignore. Is it really acceptable to write an article about a girl being murdered, and kick it off by complaining about food in a pub she happened to be in once? The horror, oh the sheer horror of it all! To me, that's like saying this:
"Picking my way through the shattered remains of Hiroshima, I found it nigh on impossible to locate a decent sushi bar."
Not my work that one - credit to @NicholasPegg on Twitter. I do love Liz's 'huge, wary eyes' comment - it smacks of satire, but the gas here is that you know full well it isn't. It's just horrid.
Alex is working her way through uni, where she is studying English. She comes from London and her parents are now terrified something is going to happen to her.
She was working in the bar on the night of December 17, when Joanna was having a drink before heading home. ‘I don’t remember her,’ she says.
‘It was so busy that night. I used to walk home but I always get a cab now.’
Lyn, with white blonde hair, who was also working here that night, says she is ‘more fearful now, I’m more nervous. It’s just so mysterious’.
These women have every right to be a little more nervous than usual, but I absolutely hate this section. It's peddling fear, something these papers do very well and very often. Someone as cynical as me can ignore it, but I do worry about my Gran. Every time I talk to her she starts a sentence with "I read in The Express..." and it will end with some nonsense like "...and then the meteor will kill us all, so I'm off out to panic buy some bread. You can never be too sure." As far as we know, Jo's death was an isolated incident, and has not been linked with others. Should women be a bit more worried? Perhaps so, yes. But it's not like there's a serial killer going round.
I leave the bar at 8pm and retrace Joanna’s steps. Even though it’s January, the streets are packed. There are a couple of women joggers but they are with boyfriends or husbands.
I walk past the beautiful university building on my right, with Waitrose on my left. I wander the bright aisles, full of young women rushing round after work, leaving with carrier bags and expectation.
I head up the hill towards Clifton, the leafy part of the city. It’s quieter now, and darker. I find Tesco, and go in. I almost buy that upmarket pizza; the choice tells me Jo wanted a lovely life, something above the ordinary.
Yes, you can tell that, just by the pizza she bought. Naturally. I saw someone buying a Mars bar the other day - bet he's a right cunt. And abuses his wife.
There is one police van on the green as I turn right into Canynge Road. I bet Jo’s heart lifted as she reached this junction, looking forward to the feeling only a Friday night near Christmas can give you. As I near her basement flat, at No 44, the road is quiet. Earlier in the day there had been an ITN news van here but it has gone now. I’m reassured to see two policemen standing vigil at her iron gate, either side of a small, discreet pile of flowers in varying degrees of decay. I tell them I’m spooked, walking here. ‘Don’t be spooked,’ one says. ‘Residents are campaigning to get brighter street lights installed.’
Brighter street lights - good idea.
So the antique, lovely ones are to disappear to be replaced by ugly ones because of something even uglier.
Or not, clearly.
That afternoon I had gone to the lane where Jo’s body was found. It was horrible and windswept. I don’t know what I had expected but not this.
I didn't know what you expected either, to be honest. A fun fare? An Indian restaurant? Noel Edmonds?
There was no ceremony here, no policeman, just that lovely face on a now dog-eared poster. I got the feeling the world is starting to forget Jo, that she’ll become just another thumbnail on the Avon and Somerset Police website, along with the faces of the other murder victims no one can recall.
She was a bright, attractive white female. No chance love.
I’d have expected the cars to slow down here to show respect but they sped past, carrying people on their way home from work.
Literally insane. Liz, you're the person who slows down at car crashes aren't you?
The lane is narrow. I can’t see how a car stopped here and a man struggled with a body without being beeped at and told to get out the way, as I was.
Perhaps there wasn't a struggle there. I don't know. Neither do you. Let's stop playing Nancy Drew for a minute, eh?
There were no messages with the flowers, just one card, still sealed in its Cellophane. The person who left it hadn’t bothered to scrawl a note. Leaving Jo’s flat, I return to my car. My satnav takes me to the Clifton Suspension Bridge.
The theory is the killer took the long route from the flat to where he dumped the body to avoid the CCTV cameras. Perhaps he also wanted to avoid the 50p toll.
I don’t have 50p and try tossing 30p and a White Company button into the bucket. It doesn’t work.
There is now an angry queue behind me. Isn’t it interesting that you can snatch a young woman’s life away from her in the most violent, painful, frightening way possible, take away her future children, her future Christmases, take away everything she loves, and yet there are elaborate systems in place to ensure you do not cross a bridge for only 30 pence?
Isn't it fucking disgusting that thousands of children died in Haiti last year, yet I'm not allowed to buy a PS3 for 12p and a tube of Smarties? Fucking joke.
Finally, a man in a taxi jumps out, and runs to me brandishing a 50p piece. ‘Not all men are monsters,’ he says, grinning. Maybe not. But one monster is all it takes.
He didn't say that.
End of article. One of the most insensitive things I've ever read, and I pray that Jo's parents never set eyes on this bullshit.
Monday, 10 January 2011
Miranda
Over Christmas, someone linked me to an article which they knew I'd hate. And funnily enough, I did. So I saved it, because I knew that at some point in January I'd dig it out of my Bookmarks list and have a look at it. "So here we are now", as Father Todd Unctuous once said.
You may or may not be familiar with the comedienne Miranda Hart. In my opinion, she's quite funny. That's tough for me to say, as I'm of the opinion that 99.9% of women are spectacularly un-amusing. In fact, let's just take a moment to list funny females:
Linda Smith
Clare Grogan (in Father Ted)
That woman off The Vicar of Dibley who isn't Dawn French. You know, the thick one.
Pamela Stephenson
Erm....
Well, yes, exactly. ANYWAY I quite like Miranda Hart, and I do like her sitcom "Miranda". Really, I do. Is it the greatest thing ever made? No. Is it going to win a bajillion BAFTAs? No. Is it the smartest comedic writing since Frasier? Definitely not.
So what is it? For me, it's just a bit of fun. It's light-hearted, it's warm, and the majority of characters are likeable. It's a sitcom you can watch with your parents, and there's always a bit of physical humour which kids would appreciate. There's no swearing, and no crude humour - I'm not a prude, at all, but sometimes it's welcome to watch comedy that can be aired before 9pm.
Nevertheless it does seem fashionable at the moment to hate the programme, which I struggle to understand as there's far, far worse out there (I'm looking at you, "Big Top") and it's not really harmful in any way. However, maybe I'm about to understand why people hate it so. Because Catherine Gee has written, for The Torygraph, six points as to why she thinks it's rubbish. Let's have a look.
One: Canned laughter. Once upon a time, audience laughter was used to signal where the jokes were, when producers thought that viewers wouldn’t be able to figure it out for themselves. Now that comedies such as The Office and Peep Show have proved said viewers more than capable, it seems strange to still use it. Even stranger is the audience's apparent need to squeal with laughter at the most insignificantly small remarks.
Utter rubbish. To compare a sitcom like 'Miranda' with 'The Office' is absolutely insane, as they are two very different beasts. A laughter track/audience laughter would never have suited the 'The Office', just on the basis of it's "mockumentary" style. In Catherine's point here there is an assumption that a sitcom which has audience laughter recorded onto it is somehow bad. To my knowledge it never stopped Fawlty Towers, Frasier, Friends, Only Fools and Horses etc. from being successful.
Two: The jokes are about as original as a clown slipping on a banana skin. Yelling “my eyes” at the sight of something rude was reused countless times by Friends in the Nineties. As was, come to think of it, the overbearing mother who wished to marry off her daughter. And the overly sexually liberated parents. And the male friend who struggles to prove his masculinity
It's fucking difficult to write something that is original nowadays. Yes, some of the characters are clichéd (as we'll see in the next point). But again, that's not necessarily a BAD thing - it only would be if it was a direct rip-off from 'Friends', and I defy anyone to watch 'Miranda' and think "Oh yeah - this is just like 'Friends' innit?" The really hilarious thing about this point is that the relationship between the mother and the daughter is the best thing about the show. Clichéd? Yeah, sure, but it works. It really does.
Three: The role she’s written for herself is basically the socially inept sibling you’re embarrassed to introduce to people. Why voluntarily watch them at their most excruciating? Every week?
Alan Partridge. David Brent. Basil Fawlty. Blackadder. Private Godfrey. Father Dougal. PC Goody. Woody Boyd. Frank Spencer.
All of those characters come from brilliant sitcoms, and yet they all have severe character faults. Some are stupid, some are excruciatingly arrogant and smug, some are bad-tempered, some are nasty and spiteful. Yet as characters they work really really well, the majority of the time when they have someone to play off. This is the same in 'Miranda' - she may be slightly socially inept, but that's in direct contrast to her friends and her aspirational mother. Earlier on I stressed that the show is quite sedate and simple, so I don't want to think about these things too deeply, but to claim that the character is un-watchable because she's often awkward is a really rubbish point.
Really? There's only one character in the show I don't like, and that mainly stems from the fact that every episode this character starts waving a picture of Heather Small's head around whilst singing badly.
Five: The humour relies purely on Hart’s attention-seeking oddball behaviour and rarely rises above the immature level of toilet humour and falling over gags. Or on the hope that breaking into song at inappropriate moments will remain amusing for an entire series.
Fawlty Towers is possibly the greatest thing of all time, and reflecting on it I realise how much physical comedy plays a part in it. Admittedly this is aided by John Cleese who is so wonderful at it, but think for a moment - the Hitler walk he does, the moose falling on his head, the abuse he dishes out to Manuel, when he implores Polly to hit him, when he accidentally gropes the girls breast, when the guests return back to find him lying on top of Manuel. I'm sure there's more but that's just off the top of my head, but my point is that if it's okay for the best thing evah~!, it's good enough for me. There's a lot of falling over in 'Miranda', yes. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No.
And of course let's not forget when Del Boy fell through the bar....and Trigger made a face.
Six: Miranda’s asides to the camera are completely unnecessary. In the episode in which she and her mother find themselves in a therapist’s office, Miranda asks the therapist (played by the woefully underused Mark Heap) if the fruit in his bowl was real. He responds by asking the old psychiatrist cliché: “How do you mean?” After she simply rephrases the question, she turns to camera and adds “I don’t know how to make it any clearer.” It’s a struggle to decide whether Hart considers her viewers to be so mentally challenged that they can’t see the joke implied, or if she genuinely thinks she's being funny.
This is such an unbelievably petty thing. So petty in fact that the cynical part of me ponders whether you were asked to write 6 points, but could only come up with 5 so had to cobble a load of shit together to pass off as the 6th one. You can't bullshit a bullshitter, Gee.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8215227/Miranda-love-her-or-hate-her.html is the link for the article, which also contains a brief defence of the show and lots of varied comments from readers.
Such fun!
You may or may not be familiar with the comedienne Miranda Hart. In my opinion, she's quite funny. That's tough for me to say, as I'm of the opinion that 99.9% of women are spectacularly un-amusing. In fact, let's just take a moment to list funny females:
Linda Smith
Clare Grogan (in Father Ted)
That woman off The Vicar of Dibley who isn't Dawn French. You know, the thick one.
Pamela Stephenson
Erm....
Well, yes, exactly. ANYWAY I quite like Miranda Hart, and I do like her sitcom "Miranda". Really, I do. Is it the greatest thing ever made? No. Is it going to win a bajillion BAFTAs? No. Is it the smartest comedic writing since Frasier? Definitely not.
So what is it? For me, it's just a bit of fun. It's light-hearted, it's warm, and the majority of characters are likeable. It's a sitcom you can watch with your parents, and there's always a bit of physical humour which kids would appreciate. There's no swearing, and no crude humour - I'm not a prude, at all, but sometimes it's welcome to watch comedy that can be aired before 9pm.
Nevertheless it does seem fashionable at the moment to hate the programme, which I struggle to understand as there's far, far worse out there (I'm looking at you, "Big Top") and it's not really harmful in any way. However, maybe I'm about to understand why people hate it so. Because Catherine Gee has written, for The Torygraph, six points as to why she thinks it's rubbish. Let's have a look.
One: Canned laughter. Once upon a time, audience laughter was used to signal where the jokes were, when producers thought that viewers wouldn’t be able to figure it out for themselves. Now that comedies such as The Office and Peep Show have proved said viewers more than capable, it seems strange to still use it. Even stranger is the audience's apparent need to squeal with laughter at the most insignificantly small remarks.
Utter rubbish. To compare a sitcom like 'Miranda' with 'The Office' is absolutely insane, as they are two very different beasts. A laughter track/audience laughter would never have suited the 'The Office', just on the basis of it's "mockumentary" style. In Catherine's point here there is an assumption that a sitcom which has audience laughter recorded onto it is somehow bad. To my knowledge it never stopped Fawlty Towers, Frasier, Friends, Only Fools and Horses etc. from being successful.
Two: The jokes are about as original as a clown slipping on a banana skin. Yelling “my eyes” at the sight of something rude was reused countless times by Friends in the Nineties. As was, come to think of it, the overbearing mother who wished to marry off her daughter. And the overly sexually liberated parents. And the male friend who struggles to prove his masculinity
It's fucking difficult to write something that is original nowadays. Yes, some of the characters are clichéd (as we'll see in the next point). But again, that's not necessarily a BAD thing - it only would be if it was a direct rip-off from 'Friends', and I defy anyone to watch 'Miranda' and think "Oh yeah - this is just like 'Friends' innit?" The really hilarious thing about this point is that the relationship between the mother and the daughter is the best thing about the show. Clichéd? Yeah, sure, but it works. It really does.
Three: The role she’s written for herself is basically the socially inept sibling you’re embarrassed to introduce to people. Why voluntarily watch them at their most excruciating? Every week?
Alan Partridge. David Brent. Basil Fawlty. Blackadder. Private Godfrey. Father Dougal. PC Goody. Woody Boyd. Frank Spencer.
All of those characters come from brilliant sitcoms, and yet they all have severe character faults. Some are stupid, some are excruciatingly arrogant and smug, some are bad-tempered, some are nasty and spiteful. Yet as characters they work really really well, the majority of the time when they have someone to play off. This is the same in 'Miranda' - she may be slightly socially inept, but that's in direct contrast to her friends and her aspirational mother. Earlier on I stressed that the show is quite sedate and simple, so I don't want to think about these things too deeply, but to claim that the character is un-watchable because she's often awkward is a really rubbish point.
Four: It considers itself old-fashioned but seems to have only retained the worst aspects of the sitcoms of yesteryear– the cheap sets being just one. Vintage comedies such as Fawlty Towers and The Good Life may have been built out of reinforced cardboard, but at least they were backed up by likable characters and genuinely funny jokes.
Really? There's only one character in the show I don't like, and that mainly stems from the fact that every episode this character starts waving a picture of Heather Small's head around whilst singing badly.
Five: The humour relies purely on Hart’s attention-seeking oddball behaviour and rarely rises above the immature level of toilet humour and falling over gags. Or on the hope that breaking into song at inappropriate moments will remain amusing for an entire series.
Fawlty Towers is possibly the greatest thing of all time, and reflecting on it I realise how much physical comedy plays a part in it. Admittedly this is aided by John Cleese who is so wonderful at it, but think for a moment - the Hitler walk he does, the moose falling on his head, the abuse he dishes out to Manuel, when he implores Polly to hit him, when he accidentally gropes the girls breast, when the guests return back to find him lying on top of Manuel. I'm sure there's more but that's just off the top of my head, but my point is that if it's okay for the best thing evah~!, it's good enough for me. There's a lot of falling over in 'Miranda', yes. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No.
And of course let's not forget when Del Boy fell through the bar....and Trigger made a face.
Six: Miranda’s asides to the camera are completely unnecessary. In the episode in which she and her mother find themselves in a therapist’s office, Miranda asks the therapist (played by the woefully underused Mark Heap) if the fruit in his bowl was real. He responds by asking the old psychiatrist cliché: “How do you mean?” After she simply rephrases the question, she turns to camera and adds “I don’t know how to make it any clearer.” It’s a struggle to decide whether Hart considers her viewers to be so mentally challenged that they can’t see the joke implied, or if she genuinely thinks she's being funny.
This is such an unbelievably petty thing. So petty in fact that the cynical part of me ponders whether you were asked to write 6 points, but could only come up with 5 so had to cobble a load of shit together to pass off as the 6th one. You can't bullshit a bullshitter, Gee.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8215227/Miranda-love-her-or-hate-her.html is the link for the article, which also contains a brief defence of the show and lots of varied comments from readers.
Such fun!
Monday, 3 January 2011
Just for Men (Well, Ben)
2011 Bucket List entrants and their selections:
Ewar (Defending Champion)
1. Margaret Thatcher
2. Dick van Dyke
3. Jocky Wilson
4. Doris Day
5. Tony Benn
G
1. David Cameron
2. Louie Spence
3. Stacey Solomon
4. Will Ferrell
5. Freddie Highmore
Dan
1. Jake LaMotta
2. Zsa Zsa Gabor
3. Denis Norden
4. James Garner
5. Kim Jong Il
Cynical Ben
1. Hugh Hefner
2. James Best
3. Patrick Macnee
4. Helmut Schmidt
5. Yitzhak Shamir
No, I don't know either.
Cash
1. Margaret Thatcher
2. Elton John
3. Justin Bieber
4. Vernon Kay
5. Charlie Sheen
Hallstar74
1. Margaret Thatcher
2. Prince Philip
3. Angela Lansbury
4. Pope Benedict
5. Jimmy Saville
Good luck to all of you chaps. The Bucket List Game - making death fun!
Ewar (Defending Champion)
1. Margaret Thatcher
2. Dick van Dyke
3. Jocky Wilson
4. Doris Day
5. Tony Benn
G
1. David Cameron
2. Louie Spence
3. Stacey Solomon
4. Will Ferrell
5. Freddie Highmore
Dan
1. Jake LaMotta
2. Zsa Zsa Gabor
3. Denis Norden
4. James Garner
5. Kim Jong Il
Cynical Ben
1. Hugh Hefner
2. James Best
3. Patrick Macnee
4. Helmut Schmidt
5. Yitzhak Shamir
No, I don't know either.
Cash
1. Margaret Thatcher
2. Elton John
3. Justin Bieber
4. Vernon Kay
5. Charlie Sheen
Hallstar74
1. Margaret Thatcher
2. Prince Philip
3. Angela Lansbury
4. Pope Benedict
5. Jimmy Saville
Good luck to all of you chaps. The Bucket List Game - making death fun!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)