Am I hearing this right?

The little girl that has gone missing, probably kidnapped, in Portugal was 3 nearly 4, and had been left alone in a room with her twin brothers aged 2.

WTF? The parents had gone out to a “nearby” restaurant, and say they were drunkenly lurching back every 30 minutes or so (yeah, like a drunk knows when 30 minutes are up!) to check on their kids. Yeah right.

Even if it’s true, 30 minutes is a frighteningly long time for a distressed 2 or 3 year old waking up suddenly in need of help or comfort. It’s certainly long enough for a choking 2 year old to have died and be beyond help. And, I’d have thought, it was completely illegal to leave 3 young children alone and out of ear shot in such a way.

Look, I know I’m supposed to feel sorry for them and everything, but what the heck is wrong with these people?

If they ever find the young child then, apart from hanging the kidnapper, they also need to take the little girl and her brothers into immediate care.

So, the latest victim of a gang is on my home patch, and the first thing I hear is the liberal elite wankers going on about the parents and how it’s all their fault.

It has very little to do with the parents. I wish it was that simple.

A lot of these boys do have ‘good’ parents who are struggling to control them, however the kids know they have freedoms and rights to just walk away and do their own thing, regardless of what a parent says. Most parents are running scared and are ignored by their children. A parent has very limited powers of control without ’society’ actually punishing them (the parents) for trying to rein-in their feral children. The kids know this.

There’s a multi-pronged set of reasons why WE (the people) have grown these children to be like this. I’ve watched it with horror, unable to do anything to stop it, and, I suppose, knowing that it was realistically unstoppable until the ‘do-gooders’ and over-liberal elite that run things see what they are actually doing to our kids. Most of them are too blind too see – hence why they still blame ‘parents’ and yet remove all powers from ‘parents’.

So, what about the kids?

Firstly, we give them no hope for the future. We tell them the world is going to end – not enough jobs – global warming – over population – religious wars – whatever – and so they have no future. This is something constantly re-inforced and fed to them until they believe they can only live for the here and now and instant gratification. WE teach them that.

Secondly, we constantly tell them that ‘authority’ actually has no real authority over them – that ‘authority’ can be a parent, their school teachers, the police, or society as a whole. Indeed, WE teach them this from a very early age in school! They know their ‘rights’ and how to use the system against others, including their parents and schools.

Thirdly, WE do nothing to stop them using skunk – which, similar to the cannabis the older elite generations have now liberalised and all but legitimised – causes paranoid psychosis and bi-polar reactions, but a thousand times worse than the ‘bit of puff’ the elite were used to. So, the kids minds are pretty fucked-up with no real grasp on reality and what’s morally right and wrong. Fantasy merges into reality, and extremes of anger and paranoia rule and become their norm. Ok, not all members of a gang are heavily on skunk. As long as some of them are, that’s all that’s needed.

Fourthly, they are desensitised to acts of extreme violence through games like Vice City and those that came after. These games include the ability to randomly go up to strangers and beat them to a bloody pulp despite their screams and the graphic accuracy of what happens when you do that to a person. And you get no extra points for doing these random acts, you can just do them for fun in these games. So, the moral bounds that stop people doing this for real are deconstructed at this very early age.

Well, there’s a lot more than just these four points, of course, and anybody with a gram of sense can deconstruct them with ease. Well, except the liberal elite, of course.

For those who don’t know, the lads were stabbed ‘defending’ their patch. The big gang is the ‘Cathall estate’ gang, and ‘Hellrazor’ (the lad who died) and ‘Decoy’ (the lad who’s critical) are ‘Thatch boys’ and they were defending their territory.

It all works like this: You attack other people’s territory firstly by ’spitting’ (rapping) lyrics slagging them off, and they do the same about your territory.

Most of this war and tension is played out via the internet, typically Youtube and My Space, with one-on-one aggression via MSN Messenger.

Lyrics typically suggest killing members of the rivals in graphic torturous detail and then raping their mothers and sisters (also in graphic torturous detail). All of this is ’spat’ in an extremely menacing way and designed to get a reaction. No reaction means you are a ‘pussy’ and lose the respect of other gangs and lads within your own.

It then becomes physical with ‘gangs’ visiting each other’s territory to disrespect it – that might include picking on locals (from the local gang) and mugging them or hurting them as a message – but commonly includes shouting obscenities about the area and being aggressive and ‘anti-social’ towards anybody who lives there.

This is then of course reciprocated after a small period of time of posturing via lyrics on the ‘net. Acts of aggression are nearly always video-recorded on mobile phones, and then appear on websites mocking the gang (or area) that was targeted. This sometimes includes showing a kid being mugged or beaten, or even stabbed. I would imagine a video
record of the killing we are reacting to will soon appear on the net. (It hasn’t as yet, but rumours say it will.)

Some ‘gangs’ will affiliate with each other, and some ‘gangs’ get weaker as estates are pulled down, people move or go to prison. Unfortunately the Cathall gang is very strong right now, despite a lot of them now not actually living there, and the ‘Thatch boys’ are quite small, yet pretty hot when it comes to aggressive lyrics.

The tension has played out via Youtube for some while, and the fact that the Cathall gang was going to invade and ’shank-up’ Thatch has been openly discussed for a good week or so.

However, gangs do not involve the police in this sort of thing. Mainly, because they realise the police are powerless and don’t even bother responding to anything until there’s an actual death. So, upholding justice is down to the gang ‘olders’ who are protecting the ‘youngers’ because the police (and ‘our’ society which has excluded most of these gangs) can’t or won’t.

I’m afraid I find the whole thing extremely upsetting, and the reality is that the whole of the gang culture is there because it’s a fairly natural instinctive reaction to being abandoned and ignored and no longer protected by US, all of us. That’s what we’ve effectively done to the youth over the last 10 years.

So, don’t blame the parents. Blame those that empower the youth with a wrong emphasis on their ‘rights’, blame the lack of ‘intelligence’ about what’s going on, blame the ineffective policing, blame the middle class liberal elite who don’t actually live in these areas, blame Blair, but certainly don’t blame the parents.

Moan moan moan. I’ve written before about women and their obsession with the toilet seat being up or down, as if they are the only of the sexes with rights over its position.

Some women are so obsessed with men and their use (or supposed mis-use) of toilets that in a work environment I’m aware of, the woman have banned men from what should be a unisex loo.

It’s taken me a good number of years to realise that in addition to their obsession with taking control over the loo, they have a misunderstanding of why men sometimes sprinkle when they tinkle.

Indeed, women don’t even realise that they themselves suffer from the same problem, such is their ignorance of how their wee comes out!

See, commonly women will say, “Can’t you aim straight?” unaware that the aim is completely irrelevant to the path the wee decides to take once leaving the body. As I said, this is true for both ladies and gentlemen. Ladies don’t realise this happens because they don’t watch themselves wee. Yet, their wee sprinkles out into the gap between the seat and the rim of the porcelain of the loo.

Ladies wee-sprinkle leaves this ’strange moisture’ on the underneath of the very seat they expect us men to put our fingers onto in order to lift up out of the way when it’s our turn to wee. Stale lady-wee under the finger-nails is not the nicest thing to have to walk around with, I can tell you.

Anyway, here are the facts that women don’t realise: The urethral orifice moves about and doesn’t always have a clean and circular nozzle to it to direct the wee straight forward. Likewise, there can be obstructions within the urethra itself which cause a swirl which means the wee doesn’t come out straight forward.

When this happens to a sitting woman she just sprinkles all over the place but it’s contained within the bowl and the lower part of her body (apart from the bits that get under the seat ready for a man to put his hand onto), some of it on her thighs and other parts of her ‘under-carriage’.

But, when this happens to a man, it can, to his horror, come out at any angle up to 90 degrees for a few moments. This can be the entire stream or a small sprinkley second stream. Obviously, as he’s standing, this can mean the wee flies off towards any part of the room apart from the toilet receptacle he is standing in front of. Yes, this can mean anywhere. However, it’s most noticed by whinging women when it ends up on the floor in front of the loo, or over the seat or other parts of the toilet. Lordy, they moan about putting their bare feet in our wee, don’t they? Sigh.

Yet, us men are far too polite to make a fuss about the salty fingernail problem they cause us, aren’t we?

Why can’t I find any porn aimed at me? I mean, right, I’m a bloke, right, and so I’m not interested in men’s willies, am I? Yet, what’s porn? Yep, it’s men’s willies.

What’s that I hear you say? It’s not? You’ve seen some that wasn’t about men’s willies? I bet you haven’t.

Look, most heterosexual porn is what exactly? Yep, it’s a man and a woman having sex. And what is centre stage? A man’s willy. Think about it: You watch a man’s willy, and things happening to it.

If it’s a lady ‘being kind and friendly’ with her mouth, you are still really just looking at a man’s willy. If it’s one of those extraordinary shots where the couple has to engage in intercourse in a position they’d never normally attempt because they are not comfortable or stimulating positions, but positions that look good on camera then you are still looking at a man’s willy.

The fact is that ladies bits, mouth, ‘front bottom’, or whatever, are tiny compared to a man’s willy when it comes to framing them up for a porn video. So, like I’m wailing, they are lost as the screen is filled and dominated by the man’s willy and not the lady bits.

Now, I’m not against watching a man’s willy, but it just doesn’t turn me on. I get turned on by a lady’s bits. Not a man’s bits. So, I don’t want to be watching a man’s willy, ok?

As if watching a man’s willy isn’t bad enough, on a lot of the famous American porn-star porn, the men have willies that look 2 or 3 metres longer than mine! You want me to watch a big monster willy and get a complex now? Nope, certainly not a turn on in this man’s private room!

Don’t get me started on the horrors of having to watch a girl being shared by two or three (or more) men. Yep, a screen full of willies. Loads of them. Nothing but bloody willies. How’s that going to turn me on?

So, what does turn me on? Well, lady bits. I’m not turned on by the only really acceptable lady bit allowed on TV – the breast. I’m sorry, but a lady holding her breasts and making a fuss of them just doesn’t do it for me. I guess I want to see things a little lower down. But, ladies fiddling with their breasts that’s what greets me from the Babestation type TV channels. A lot of those breasts are fake – you can even see the place where the plastic bag full of squishy liquid has been inserted – so, in truth you are watching a lady making a fuss of a couple of plastic bags full of salty water inside a recently closed flesh wound. Excuse me? I want to be turned on! How does fondling a plastic bag full of salty water ever get sexual? Let alone scars from operations? Not one of my fetishes, I can tell you.

Look, we really do have to get lower down, ok? And, since I don’t want willies dominating my view, I’m guessing that leaves ladies playing with ladies, ladies playing with objects, or even just playing with themselves.

Aha, maybe this will do! But, wait a minute, I just happen to know that most of what ladies do with ladies on film is not what ladies do with ladies in real life (Don’t ask me how I know, I just know, ok). That means I’ve got to watch something that’s not real but has been made to the somewhat non-exacting expectations of the average male porn consumer who has no real idea what hot lady on lady action really looks like. Damnit. That’s no good to me then, I want something real.

Real? Hold on yet another minute. Even the lady playing with herself alone is probably only pretending she’s getting to the height of excitement when she starts thrashing herself about. And worse still. She’s doing this clinically in front of a full camera team and a director. There are a dozen people in that room they are pretending is this gorgeous, shapely and sexually alluring young ho’s private bedroom. It’s a stage set. And those moans and noises are dubbed on afterwards by some 80 year old ugly fat bird in a voice recording studio. None of this is real porn!

Sigh. What am I to do? There’s no real porn out there for me is there? No wonder I’m so frustrated!

Veggies and Vegans. Loonies we should help or cruel bullies we should lock up?

These people seem to have some mighty skewed ideas when it comes to treating ‘life’.

I’m not just referring to their concept that digging up dead and decayed grandmothers from graves is acceptable fun, nor their idea that tending to an animal is far more important than saving the life of a child. I’m pointing to their whole philosophy of deciding which type of life should be held in reverence and which can be subjected to abuse, massacre or indeed consumption.

A lot of the lifestyle-choice type of veggies and vegans have usually shot most of their brain and logical thinking ability to pieces through an over use of drugs. We know that even smoking a bit of puff, especially skunk, on a regular basis causes paranoia and neurosis, so it’s fair to say that it must also be linked to some of this veggie and vegan illogical thinking.

What they can’t see is that all life should be treated the same, yet they demand it be treated differently. The more that life looks like a human then the more they want to idolise it and treat it differently. Ah, unless it actually is a human. Humans they love to firebomb and terrorise instead, of course.

Yet logically all life on this planet, despite what it looks like should be treated equally. In that respect, for food we should be happy to eat humans and human meat, just as we are happy to eat a carrot. Is there any real difference? Anything that isn’t poisonous should be eaten, surely?

We have these mad junkies ranting all this completely misunderstood bullshit about climate change, and seriously thinking that ‘recycling’ in some way saves the planet, yet none of them mention recycling humans once they are dead as food. You’d think that veggies and vegans with their hatred of their own species would be well into that. Indeed, instead of digging up decayed people, possibly their guerilla groups could be out their digging up dead people that are still edible. See how they’ve not thought this through?

If we are going to treat life the same and give all of it the same and fair treatment then we have to appreciate that we are all in the food chain somewhere. Our predators include microscopic life as well as the lions and tigers that can pick us off and eat us. Our dead bodies are soon consumed by maggots and worms. So humans are there, as the food for other life forms. No problem.

Meanwhile, back at the first generation of veggie and vegan activists – weren’t they the ones who believed in flower power and all that shit? Yep. That’s right, the same folk that shout how meat is murder or how fur is worn by beautiful animals and ugly women. They are happy to kill and mutilate and dismember plants in order to wear parts of them in their hair. In a world of equality, it’s time these nutters realised that flowers are murder too and stopped the meaningless slaughter of these beautiful plants. Will they? Nope, they’re too busy getting high to stop and think about it!

Yes, Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobiacs. They confuse me. Yep, they have a fear. A fear of numbers. Well, a fear of the number 666 to be more precise.

What’s that about? Surely it’s a mental condition. We see it more commonly with the fear of the number 13. People will pretend that the 13th floor of the building is not actually the 13th. They’ll call it “12A” or flip straight to calling it “14″, despite it still actually being the 13th floor.

Hey, how confusing this must be for Americans and Brits swapping locations and trying to avoid the 13th floor. Over here we call the Ground floor the Ground floor, and the floor above it is the 1st Floor, and so on. Americans more logically call the Ground Floor the 1st Floor, and the floor above it is the 2nd Floor, and so on.

So, which is the real 13th floor. Our equivalent of the 13th floor is called the 14th in America. They call our equivalent of the 12th floor the 13th, or avoid the 13 and call it the 14th. Does a traveller fearing the number 13 have to avoid the 12th, 13th, and 14th floors to make sure whatever evil it is doesn’t get him? It must be confusing for the poor devils.

Speaking of devils, let’s move on to the number 666. Middle Eastern originated religions seem to have a lot of fears of numbers. Actually, in fairness it’s not just the Middle Eastern religions. The number 666 appears to be the scariest number for Christians. Indeed, a radio station allocated 666 kilohertz as a frequency to broadcast via in Northern Ireland asked for a different frequency because people were too frightened to listen to it in case the number 666 got them. How loony is that?

I guess I can understand that up to a hundred years ago we were very undeveloped and didn’t have the scientific research, instant communication or logic that we have today. In those days people’s minds would wonder and wander, making up odd rituals and methods of fore-telling events or trying to keep safe. It’s very odd to find people caught up in this sort of mumbo jumbo in 2007, though.

Deeply religious people will fear the number 666 so much that they’ll throw themselves on fires rather than face it. Isn’t it time we either locked these people up or neutered them so they don’t pass it on to their children?

How are we going to get people to shut the fuck up in cinemas?

I’m not being old here, ok? I go to a cinema, right, and I sit there because I want to watch the film. I don’t want to hear people chattering away on the phone, do I?

I don’t get it. I mean, I realise that kids will keep their phones texting away during lessons at school, but that’s ‘cos they are forced to be there and are bored. As they get older and get jobs – and yep, I agree, work is boring as well and nobody would seriously go to work if there was another way of getting the money! – they still never switch off.

But, surely, you go to a cinema to enjoy the experience of becoming absorbed by the actual film. You are there not because it’s compulsory, but because it’s exciting, and you want to sit back and watch and listen to the experience. How can you do that and sit there chatting on your phone about stuff not related to the film.

Indeed, if it’s not the phone it’s a nice chatter with the person accompanying them. I could forgive hushed whispers about the film like “Who’s he?” “Is she the same girl that killed the guy earlier?” if a little help is needed in getting back into the plot if a person’s blipped out. However, it’s not is it? It’s long and loud conversations nothing to do with the film.

Ask them to shut the fuck up and what happens? They look at you as if it’s you who’s doing wrong by wanting to actually hear the film.

Something needs to be done to silence these people who use cinemas like some kind of social club or pub where they meet for a chat rather than watch the film. Can we have them killed please?

The excellent Channel 4 in the UK is not backward with coming forward with ‘anti’ stuff about Jesus Christ. There were loads over the Christmas period last year. In fact, every few months there’s yet another documentary. Indeed, thinking about it there are similar documentaries on BBC Four, and doing the rounds on some of the Discovery type channels.

So, there’s a constant reminder of the oddness that surrounds this one of the religions that sprouted up in the Middle East and then spread out to try to interest the rest of the world. Of course, in the early days the happy natives of the non-Middle Eastern countries that had just spent many millennia simply getting on with stuff, were given life-saving food in exchange for accepting this Christianity thing, or had their life spared from the ducking chair or painful spear-through-the-heart that was on offer as an alternative to worshipping this new god. And so Christianity flourished.

In recent times so much has come to light that completely destroys all but the name ‘Christianity’. It started with the Da Vinci Code, and ended recently with the discovery of Jesus’s tomb alongside that of his wife and children. Or maybe not.

Anyway, the biggest swindle of modern day Christianity is Christ’s actual family were written out of the stories of Jesus. That means his brothers were removed. His wife was removed. His children were removed.

History is re-written to make out they didn’t exist, and Mary moves from being his devoted wife, to suddenly being some prostitute he was trying to guide on the right route.

Indeed, so we are told, Christ’s brother was continuing the preaching about love that Jesus had started, but this was rejected by Paul who decided there should be a far more important role for a church of Christianity.

Yep, Christ’s own brother was written out of Paul’s version of Christianity.
Amazing.

There were loads of gospels written around the time of early Christianity, including that of Mary. Yet, it didn’t fit Paul’s purposes to include her gospel in what later became collectively known as the Bible. He chucked it out alongside around 20 others that didn’t fit in with his concept of what he wanted the masses to read and believe. He even asked for yet another gospel to be written summarising some of the other gospels but putting an anti-Mary spin on the story.

So, why is this religion still holding on? Surely the followers must object to the way the structured ‘church’ treated the family of Jesus?

Apparently not.

I have a very open mind. Yet it’s also quite closed. I mean, I ‘accept’ a lot of things whilst also having my own way, my own opinion, my own views, my own values.

Because I have no problem talking about sex and sexuality, I was asked today if I was bisexual or had had any non-heterosexual experiences. And the honest truth is that my only sexual experiences have been heterosexual.

But does this in itself make me a non-homosexual?

I don’t think in all the years I’ve been alive (and let’s face it I’m nearer the end than I am the beginning) that I’ve ever been attracted to a man. Meanwhile, almost everything female that passes me in the street, the corridor, the bus, the, well – anywhere – I analyse for potentially being sexually active with me. Ok, that’s not completely true on two counts.

Firstly, I don’t think I do this with female cats or dogs, although when faced with a whore of a cat on heat doing all the stuff they do in front of a potential mate I found the vision strangely lingering some days later. But, no, I’m fairly sure it’s only female humans I look at sexually.

Secondly, and probably a lot before I start undressing them with my eyes, I think I analyse them for food potential. As in, can I eat (in a non-sexual way) this female, is it food? No, hang on, before their edibility I think it’s ‘are they going to stab me?’.

Yes, that’s the one. The potential danger. Is this person a nutter? That sort of thing. Anyway, anyway, anyway, at some point we get to the ‘Do I wish to have sex with this female?’ question. If they are aged between 19 and 29 then the answer before even looking is always yes. Sadly, in contrast, they see me leering at them, but think I’m just some cross-eyed old fat granddad who must be suffering from some mental condition.

Sweetly they smile back, completely unaware how I’ve just plotted their sexual conquest. I’m sure they’d be horrified if they knew the truth. Jeez, let’s hope nobody female that knows me ever reads this.

Anyway, I’ve digressed from the major point I was trying to make. That’s quite simply that I’ve never felt myself analysing males sexually. As I say, having got to this late stage in life without ever having done it, I’m assuming it will never happen. In contrast to my desire to sleep with anything female (I meant human female, forget the cat incident, ok? I’m over it.) I’ve never had an attraction to a man and thought I should sleep with him.

So, whilst I wouldn’t say I’m against the idea or bang my fist on a table and talk about beer and football to re-assert my masculinity, within me there is no attraction to a sexual act with a man. So, it appears that nature has me as a hetero, although I’d never stand up and say I’m not a homo.

Around and about radio enthusiast sites and mass debating pits I notice there continues this horror and fear of mono.

Why are (radio anorak type) people so scared of mono?

Just because you can broadcast in stereo on FM it doesn’t mean you have to, does it? If your programme content doesn’t actually need to be in stereo because it’s just voices, mainly on the phone or ‘down the line’, then what’s wrong with broadcasting in mono?

Nothing.

And yet, there’s a mass suicide and panic by foaming anoraks herding themselves up to the top of multi-storey car-parks ready to throw themselves off because a station has dared to switch to mono. Case in point: LBC 97.3 in London.

The owners of LBC are talking about providing similar stations in other areas (such as Manchester) and only broadcasting in mono on FM. Again, there are anoraks acting like rabid dogs over this announcement. I don’t get it. Why does this upset anoraks so much? Foaming at the mouth they are.

I remember decades ago anoraks calling a London pirate I was on berating the fact that we were in mono whilst most other pirates of the day were in stereo. This annoyed the engineer so much that he fitted a tone generator in line to light the stereo lights in the whinging anoraks’ receivers. We were still actually and completely in mono, nothing had changed, but the foaming anoraks were suddenly happy and stopped whinging because their stereo light was on. Indeed, one said we were much clearer and a far better listen. Pathetic.

I don’t get this need to waste bandwidth unnecessarily. If the programme content doesn’t need stereo, then don’t be in stereo. If the programme content is designed to be consumed in places where it doesn’t need to be high quality, then let it be low quality.

Yet, all the time, these foaming anoraks are giving themselves coronaries because stations aren’t wasting bandwidth just to please them and their obscure unnecessary quality demands.

Shouldn’t they actually listen to and try to enjoy the content of the radio stations instead of worrying about matters technical that no ordinary listener cares two hoots about?