Whose money is it anyhow?

As a man, it is obviously important for me to control all the finances. Women simply have no concept of money or saving and should not be left in control of fiscal matters. Therefore, imagine my horror when I learned one of my colleagues has rescinded all control of the finances and handed them over to the wife. Of course, the phrase ‘handed over’ is a little misused here as it appears he wasn’t man enough to stop her taking them. A shocking state of affairs.

Now, he is issued with pocket money each day. ‘Going to the gym dear? Here’s your £1.50’. She doesn’t even give him a weekly allowance. Not even trusted with that. The situation has got so bad, he can’t even afford to take his colleagues for a cuppa, let alone a beer. On the rare occasions he has control of a cash card, the maximum withdrawal is £10 to protect his hearing when he returns home.

Not content with his fiscal emasculation, he has recently expressed an interest in women’s clothes and other attire. Whilst proclaiming that being outfitted in a dress and high heeled shoes was simply stag night high jinx, his further comments about ‘quite liking it’ suggest a far darker side. His obvious latent desire to become a woman (clothes, money etc.) should be a warning to his wife.

I do, of course, use the word ‘wife’ reservedly. Whilst getting married in a nice location is clearly important, lying to your vicar about your place of abode will invalidate the banns and therefore your marriage. So, perhaps she should really be referred to as cohabite, or at best, common law wife. The phrase ‘anyone know of any lawful reason why they may not wed’ could well come back to haunt him, but only if the wife allows it.

So, perhaps he should act on his latent desires, take the plunge and simply have the operation. A quick nip and tuck and he can stop living a lie. His issues with the missus can easily be resolved with a quick civil ceremony. Do you Isabel (post op) take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife?

Phone Competitions

Today, the BBC has suspended all further phone competitions from it’s programs. I’m forever surprised by these appalling excuses for entertainment and even more appalled by the people why actually phone up.

What in gods name do these mindless degenerates think they are doing? When the question is ‘What’s 1+1’ and the answers are a) Infinity, b) 2 and c) 0, do the respondents really think they might be the only ones to know the answer? Or, do they think they are amongst the relatively small percentage who do? Do these feeble brained excuses for humanity not realise that ever other feeble brained moron will also be phoning up believing they are the only person clever enough to answer the question?

When the above happens, the television company is delighted. Most of the population of Newcastle, Liverpool and Moss Side have called, a tidy sum has been made in profit and all those who should be very angry are actually so dim, they don’t actually realise how stupid they are. One should really question whether these people can be classified as human beings. They can’t be self-aware as if they were, they wouldn’t fall for this.

Well, I’ve got a great solution. Let’s get all the phone numbers of those who call, get their addresses and then pay them a visit. A quick 9mm round into the brain and we can put them out of my misery. In a short time, nobody will be left to enter the competitions, which will then cease. As sideline benefits, most theft in the country will have ended due to the eradication of the population of Liverpool, an extremely annoying accent will have been erases (Newcastle done) and Manchester will become a safe city. Additionally, house prices will come under control as the spare houses hit the market.

Everyone’s a winner!!

Health and Safety

What is happening with some companies these days? Why is it that some companies seem to view your safety and general health as an integral part of their function, to the point of an overbearing nanny. It’s certainly true that government hasn’t helped with a raft of legislation that seeks to make anybody responsible for an accident other than the stupid oaf who had it. Of course, sometimes it genuinely isn’t the injured persons fault, but quite often it is as a result of some flaw in the person that should justly be punished by the resultant injury.

At a time when environmentally friendly policies are all the vogue, why are we stepping away from nature in this area. Accidents are nature’s way of removing the dead wood from society. Whilst accident prevention has reached a highpoint of absurdity now, it has its roots many decades ago. Take the humble mains plug and socket design. The earth pin is longer than the positive and neutral pins to activate a shutter mechanism that enables the positive and neutral to make contact only when safe to do so. Why? To prevent people shoving objects (fingers, screwdrivers etc.etc.) into the positive and neutral holes and getting a nice electric shock. Personally, I feel the main error here is limiting the electric shock to 30amps. Fry ‘em, that’s what I say. Anyone stupid enough to do this deserves to be removed from the gene pool without delay.

At one company, they even cover their stairs with posters informing people how to walk and use the stairs. Well, if you don’t know how to walk properly or use stairs, you really do need eradication. A quick fall down a couple of flights, the resultant head impact with concrete and hey presto, nature at work. Of course, one could argue the posters are actually an insidious plot to help nature on its way. Anyone stupid enough to pay attention and read them must be at enhanced risk of falling and therefore their stupidity is justly rewarded with a quick trip (pardon the pun) to the morgue.

Reverse parking is another such example. Do you really care if you’re hit by someone driving forwards or backwards? No. Personally, I would rather be hit forwards so I can recognise the bastard and know who to get back or haunt. However, my injuries would be my own fault as anyone walking in a car park should be looking for moving cars at all times. Therefore, reverse parking is impacting the perfectly natural right to mow down anyone not paying sufficient attention to leap out of the way.

As most people have realised by now, nature knows best and will always win in the end. So, let’s stop fighting it. Sharp knives for cutting baguettes should be made freely available. Senior management had better watch out!! Smoking should be positively encouraged. Not only does it provide a great source of taxation, but it also helps increase pensions for non-smokers by eradicating part of the population before they can receive them. Imagine what your pensions payments would be like if everyone lived to 80!!

In short, nature should be embraced in the area of health and safety. Accidents are perfectly natural, nobodies fault and a fine method for thinning the population and eradicating the weak. Everybody should embrace and encourage this. Not only is it in their best interests (pensions etc.), but it also ensures the human race does not stagnate or go backwards by keeping these unfortunates alive. When you next see someone doing something stupid, turn away. You don’t have to watch nature at work, but neither do you have to interfere either.

Smoking

I’m really sick and tired of the self-righteous people going on about a smoking ban all the time. These are the people who are more than willing to lecture everyone on what should be done, but are not willing to do it themselves. There is absolutely no need for a ban on smoking anywhere there is choice, pubs being one.

Each pub etc. can take a decision as to whether they allow smoking, have a smoking area, or ban smoking altogether. Then, as a customer, you either give them your business of not as you find the conditions. If you choose to frequent a pub that allows smoking, that is your choice. You do so in the full knowledge of that fact and therefore should take the consequences. If you don’t like the smoke, go to another pub that has conditions more to your liking. If enough people object to smoking and do this, there will be plenty of choice. Of course, the reality is that most non-smoking pubs that open are closed within a short time as they don’t get enough trade. So, presumably people don’t object enough to use their legs and more a few yards down the road.

Another common excuse is that people feel pressurised by friends to go to a smoking pub. Well, the answer is simple; get a backbone. When your friend suggests this, say no. Say you will go to a non-smoking pub only. Of course, people won’t do this as they tend to be spineless whinging plankton, incapable of standing up for themselves. So, what do they do? They ask the government to do it for them. Their cowardice and inability to stand up for themselves, forces us into more and more, unnecessary legislation and red tape.

Another common answer is that it is to protect the workers. Well, once again, the workers have a choice. As with all jobs, whether you take it or not is your decision and nobody is forced to take a job in a smoky atmosphere. When weighing up the pro’s and con’s of a job, you should include the smoking conditions. Again, employers can decide on their policies and may loose the best candidates if it isn’t to their liking. That is their choice.

So, a message for all of you campaigning for a total, or even partial ban. Get a spine and act according to your beliefs rather than folding at the first opportunity. Spend your money only in pubs, restaurants etc. that have conditions you like and very quickly more and more non-smoking etc. establishments will occur. Stop asking the government to wipe your arse for you and do it yourself. Freedom of choice is for everyone, not just non-smokers.

Lardies

Bradford has earned the title ‘Lard capital of Britain’. Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow makes up the remainder of the top 5 for lard arses. From the publicity, it would appear this is viewed as a negative thing. However, I would like to point out all the positive aspects of this finding.

Firstly, as pointed out in a previous missive, these people are actually helping everyone else. As lardy people tend to die earlier than others, this move will help raise annuity rates and should be encouraged by the government as one component of their pension plans. If you can’t afford to give everyone a decent pension, simply reduce the number of people you have to pay. Simple and effective. Bar mandatory termination at a given age (as in Logans Run), which whilst a good idea is probably lacking in public acceptance, encouraging people to be unhealthy is the best option.

Secondly, these people should have additional crash resistance. With a ring of blubber all round, considerable additional cushioning is available in the event of an accident. This really applies to all scenarios. If in a car, the combination of fat and air bags should ensure optimal survival prospects, whilst if a pedestrian, the fat will again cushion and make a satisfying dent in the impacting car. If the lard is around you arse, it also means you won’t fall over, but bob upright again in the style of a weeble. However, if the lard is around your waist, other pedestrians might be crushed as you roll away. This is particularly useful for Glaswegians, as being Scottish, they are pissed all the time and therefore more susceptible to accidents.

Thirdly, accepting your lard arse nature means you can eat what you like. No more calorie counting for you. See a bucket of animal fat, dive straight in and gorge away.

Fourthly, given the population centres involved, the additional difficulty in copulation is to be welcomed. This makes it difficult for these people to propagate the species and therefore stops crime waves and general unpleasantness for the remainder of us. As with the first advantage, mandatory neutering would obviously be better, but would undoubtedly be fought by wishy washy liberals.

And finally. Bearing in mind the cities mentioned in the report, why should anyone really care. Fat scousers and geordies aren’t fast enough or nimble enough to steal effectively. Let’s face it; a 20stone mugger is going to get caught. No more getaways, just slowaways. Given the populations of these five cities, lardies dying early would rapidly reduce the population of the country and give more space for the rest of us. The government wouldn’t need to build 2million more homes, especially in the south, as properties become available in the north. Granted, this is a long term plan, as properties wouldn’t be suitable for human habitation until all neighbours had been removed as well, but we should look long term.

Health MOTs

Well, Patricia Hewitt is at it again. Not long after playing down the importance of a £1billion deficit for British hospitals, the NHS is going to spend large sums of money giving everyone in Britain a ‘MOT’. The whole logic behind this is to reduce expenditure for the NHS by catching illnesses earlier. They will be offered at up to five times in your life.

Anything that improves people’s health is to be welcomed, but I think the logic behind this is somewhat awry. If the NHS manages to detect health problems in people as a result of these ‘MOT’s, it will then be forced to treat them at great cost. Whereas, the alternative, is to not find the ailments and therefore let the people die of them, without cost to the NHS. On the one hand, a heart disease is detected and after much expensive surgery etc., they live a long and glorious life to 90. On the other hand, the heart disease is not detected and they drop dead suddenly at 45. The latter is obviously far cheaper for the NHS and has the secondary benefit of helping pension annuity rates as the average life expectancy drops.

Now, whilst the above is a very black and white case, plenty of grey exists. What if the condition isn’t immediately terminal when symptoms occur? In the long run it becomes a cost comparison between reactive and preventative medicine. However, with the way ambulance response times are going, presumably fewer people will survive the onset of symptoms. I really can’t see how all the additional work these ‘MOT’s will cause can possibly cost less than the savings made on reactive treatment.

The other aspect of this that really annoys is the condescending requirement to link a concept with something the average pleb can understand. Why call it an ‘MOT’? It really is insulting when they think people can only understand what it is by using a comparison to a car. Is everything going to be compared to a car? What next? Will Jeremy Clarkson start bed testing the latest supermodel as part of her ‘MOT’? Good taught handling and great acceleration into the straight. Good speed, but thirsty as hell, leading to a rapidly emptying tank? Get her on the rollers and test braking etc. before the all importance emissions tests.

Perhaps the government could combine the two concepts and use Jeremy in the advertising campaign that will undoubtedly accompany the launch. I can just see him eyeing up the patient and complaining about the styling before complementing the driving experience. Sort of ‘pig to look at, but goes like the clappers’.

"Real men don't cook"

How many times have you heard that before? Recently, a colleague of mine stated this in response to a request from a member of the fairer sex for a home made cake. Even after much cajoling and jokes about giving her “a good muffin’”, he still wouldn’t do it. Now, whilst I have some sympathy with his position, I feel a small correction is required. The correct statement is “Men shouldn’t need to cook.” After all, what’s the point in keeping a dog and barking yourself? We all know men are the best chefs. Just look at all the best chefs in the world and the truth of that statement is apparent. However, men who have a female partner (just in case) shouldn’t need to cook. It is clearly women’s work, but this doesn’t mean that for special occasions, a man can’t cook.

Having said all the above, we must also investigate other character traits of said person. Listening to Craig David is a poor sign. I know Craig comes from the same locality and therefore is a “local boy”, but that shouldn’t require you to undergo purgatory every day.

Excessive spending on high-tech equipment is also worrying. This applies to most areas, but especially music playing devices and telephones. This shows a worrying ability to ‘shop for England’, which accompanied by a propensity to spend hours and hours on your mobile phone is worryingly feminine.

Finally, and potentially the clincher, is all the fuss being made about baking a cake. Rather than maintain this position in the face of such pressure, surely any sensible person who just comply and finish it. In the long run, much easier. A person refusing to comply against all reason normally suggests they are trying to hide something. Perhaps in this case, the person in question is actually very good at baking cakes, but wouldn’t want to admit it.

So, what does all the above evidence indicate? All the above behavioural traits are indicative of a strongly developed feminine side. So, perhaps his new saying should be:-

“I’m a lady, don’t you know’.

And, he should be baking the cakes?