Monday, November 30, 2009

Miscellany

Just thought all the EU lovers and socialist would like to comment on this!

http://captainranty.blogspot.com/



Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 2:20 PM
Posted by at

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Having read this, I am glad to live in America (with all its many, many faults) after 30 years in the UK. I think the difference between us is one of innate character. My forebears all left England in the 17th century determined to carve out a new society from the wilderness. My forebears fought to wrest Independence from the Crown and to become citizens (in the same way as the French) rather than Subjects. Before you start the 'you Americans are always late' comments etc. - my father joined the Canadian Air Force before Pearl Harbor in order to fight to save Britain when it was against the law for him to do so. He went to his death saddened by what had become of the 'British Lion'.

Americans are not perfect - far from it - nor are the British, but at least we have the balls to refuse to acknowledge or allow foreign intrusion into our laws and so-called international 'courts'. You have fallen into this trap; you criticize us for avoiding it; now you rant about what is happening to Britain.

Sorry - I am glad my family and I left Dorset to return to America several years ago, where at least there is a chance of protecting my family from this nonsense. My British-born children all consider themselves American, not British and certainly not European' - that was their choice to make. I can at least try to protect my children's freedom, but by bowing to Europe the British have given that birthright away. How emasculated a Lion you have become! How sad. I know many, many expat Brits in America who feel exactly the same way.

30/11/09 5:51 pm
Anonymous said...

Very amusing but it has the same relationship to historical events as tales of little green men have to Martian astronomy. Still, we had a good laugh at the howlers. Simon De Montford as a democrat is a complete hoot. Actually when you look into things like this you discover they are historical myths invented to prop up arguments being put forward centuries later than the events apparently descibed.

30/11/09 8:03 pm
Anonymous said...

Usual paranoid rubbish.

How many people do you know who say, 'what a great Gov't we've got, aren't they fantastic. Always looking out for you and me'.

In my 48 years, um, er, no-one.

This Country is only Great if you believe the version of history where, 'we have a thousand years of great and glorious history'.

No we don't, in 1066 Bill the Basher came over here to kill his ?nephew? who'd usurped his right to rule. This, and the next couple of hundred years was 'the family' sorting out who ruled what. England, France etc didn't exist. They were personal fiefdoms sorting out who owned what.

Pax Brittannica - when we had the biggest and best fleet in't world, then we controlled things - and had press gangs.

WW1 - 60,000 Allied deaths in one day - oh yeah, our Gov't have been superb.

Many thanks and tonnes of respect to all 'Commonwealth' troops who did so much for us in 2 WW's - and at other times.

If we were a true Democracy then why do only about 2/3rds of us vote which means of course that the Gov't is elected by 35 to 40% of the eligible voters.

Why do nearly all 'civilised' Countries elect a Gov't and then a President?

Why are both Houses in most civilised Countries elected?

Why do we still have a Second House based mainly on birth and Church?

Please let the scales drop from your eyes, we don't have to enact Euro Law, but both the Tories and Labour do.

Why? I wish I knew.

Please bear in mind, the Tories took us into Europe and signed all the big Treaties except fot this last one, that's called something or another ...

captainranty - the bloke just regurgitates stuff promoted by a certain type.

30/11/09 8:07 pm
Anonymous said...

8.03

well said, you were posting while I was composing.

I still think that we may be in a minority tho'.

30/11/09 8:10 pm
Anonymous said...

You raise excellent points, but the British prefer to follow government rather than have government follow their mandate. Who are the two biggest employers in the UK? Civil Service and the NHS. Both part of government. What is the largest non-government free enterprise employer? No idea - anybody know? I bet it is way down the list!

Blair got rid of the tradition of hereditary peers monopolising the House of Lords only to replace some of them with a form of cronyism. As far as I know, the only aspect of the British parliament others envy is Prime Minister's Question Time. Some of the most compelling entertainment on the telly!

Your new 'President' is in Europe, and I suspect that he has lots of nice surprises awaiting Britain.

30/11/09 8:23 pm
Anonymous said...

"....the British prefer to follow government...."

You're missing the point, we've never had anything else, that's why we're such a mockery - is there such a word?

Rememeber when the NHS was 'the envy of the world'. Of course it was, civilised countries couldn't beleive how little we Brits let our Gov't spend on Healthcare. Oh, sorry, we didn't have a choice, did we.

30/11/09 8:36 pm
Anonymous said...

You have to admit its fun stuff. The interesting thing is the way the Americans incorporated all these national foundation myths into their own. Its a bit worrying that anybody takes them seriously as history nowadays though. Best to look at them as a form of national creation myth loosely based on events. Unfortunately they get taught as fact.

Right wing libertarians can't have an easy time of it with all those authoritarians breathing down their necks. I wonder how the pro-parliamentarians get on in the face of all those imbecile monarchy worshipers. Looks very much like an impossible balancing act.

30/11/09 10:14 pm
Captain Ranty said...

Anon 5:51,

Your forebears wrested nothing from the Crown.

In 1776 King George bought 18,000 shares in the newly created United States. (25,000 shares were on offer). Our Monarch still owns those shares today.

I guess that means we own most of the USA.

Sorry to burst your bubble. You have never been free. To this day QEII determines your tax payments to the Crown.

Dig a little deeper.

CR.

30/11/09 10:45 pm
Captain Ranty said...

Anon 8:03,

The only point you make about de Montfort, is erroneous.

The rest is mince.

Try harder.

CR.

30/11/09 10:47 pm
Captain Ranty said...

Anon 8:07,

What is a "certain type", pray tell?

You haven't actually made an argument. You relied on an ad hominem attack.

Not too clever.

CR.

30/11/09 10:48 pm
Anonymous said...

"My forebears all left England in the 17th century determined to carve out a new society from the wilderness."

From this side of the pond it looks more like various brands of religious nutters going off to set up statelets where they could clobber anyone who did not share their own narrow beliefs. "freedom" and a new society meant being able to establish a local ideological monopoly. Its hard to think in a positive way about a "new society" in which you had slavery - looks more like an ancient society to me. Add the "robber baron" industrialists of the nineteenth century and you have the recipe for modern america. As for always getting there late, well yes, think abolition of slavery, civil rights, a comprehensive health system. Still at least you don't have the 11+, the house of lords, the monarchy, huge numbers of church schools and the constant unthinking deference the English display etc etc.

30/11/09 10:58 pm
Anonymous said...

"The only point you make about de Montfort, is erroneous."

I am happy to be corrected if you can point me to the facts. so far as I understand it what happened was this.

De Montford seized power at the head of an army on 14 May 1264. He took the king prisoner. He then called a parliament, despite having no legal authority to do this. Most of the nobility had taken exception to his antics and his problem was forming a body that would legitimise his position. His aim was to harness the support of the gentry. Calling for elections was more about getting their support than anything we would recognise as a democratic process. The innovation is more about adding a rising power group to parliament than democracy. As we all know this group in the fullness of time became dominant and liked to present their rise to power in positive terms, Since democracy was by then the "progressive" ideology they chose to present their story in terms of democracy. The reality behind this though is that calling for elections was an expedient to help De Montford play off King and his former baronial supporters.

What I don't know about is the level of popular participation in civic affairs at county or borough level in the C13th. I know we see our old friends the forty shilling freeholders in action here but it would be interesting to know how the word election was understood at the time. To give you an example there is a letter from a king at about this time commanding the monks of an abbey somewhere to elect a new abbot, the old one having popped his cassock, but adding a command telling them who to elect.

30/11/09 11:49 pm
Anonymous said...

Oh, captranty, you are a one aren't you!

We've answered your ridiculous and inaccurate rant in generalist terms. You respond by nitpicking.

Answer the big questions before you pick on stupendously minor points.

1/12/09 7:59 am
Anonymous said...

Just to pick on a minor point!

"In 1776 King George bought 18,000 shares in the newly created United States"

I assume your talking about the creation of the United States Bank in 1791 when the shares were issued.

Please get your facts right and remember this is an old saw quoted by people who feel that because they have to pay taxes that makes them slaves.

1/12/09 8:24 am
Anonymous said...

Obviously your clinically insane King George knew a good investment when he saw one! (Or was he truly 'mad'? After all, Prince Charles made a case for his sanity, and what better authority on sanity is your next King?)!

Unlike anyone who invested in Northern Rock, Lloyds/TSB etc etc.

Wonder whether the Queen still owns this land, if indeed this story is true? I bet it was in southern plantations, where slavery reigned.
Who brought slavery to America? Oh yes, the Brits!

After all, Queen Victoria sided with the Confederacy to preserve slavery so that your cotton mills and tobacco factories could prosper. Your economy went into a recession when the South lost. Fact, not myth.

Oh, by the way - I had two great-great-great-great grandfathers who participated in the Boston Tea Party. Want your tea back? You are welcome to it - it's polluting our River Charles!

The comments above are tongue-in-cheek. I write them to demonstrate the pathetic school playground name-calling that my British friends resort to all too quickly.

Britain's move towards Europe while still remaining militarily and, in some ways politically, tied to America creates a sort of schizophrenic relationship that is hard to sustain. Sometime soon Britain will have to (or be forced to) decide which side to commit to. I suggest Europe, as you so obviously prefer it to the US. America really doesn't need Britain anyway.

And we control the 'key' to your nuclear 'deterrent' anyway, and most of your military software. Or is this just a rumo(u)r??*

Ooops...there I go again!!

*(Oh - in case you ever wondered about the American's 'ignorance' over spelling, the 'u' in words such as favo(u)r, colo(u)r and so on is attributable to the French influence. Before 1700 it was as common in English literature to leave the 'u' out (from the Latin) - this is the spelling that was taken to America. Another reason why you should join France in Europe!

1/12/09 9:14 am
Anonymous said...

Queen Victoria was something of an all-purpose reactionary. Her letters were published in three rather small volumes after her death, small because her daughter burnt most of them. What is left has a few gems. Democracy was not a good thing since it led to ones relatives having to pack their bags and flee for example.

Whoever made George III's investment decisions presumably knew what they were doing. His mental health does not come in to it.

After that little problem with Charles I the English took care never to let their monarch have any real responsibility. When Charles' son was given the job by parliament, or rather the ruling clique, the Spanish ambassador wrote to his boss along the lines "make no mistake, this is a republic in all but name. He has no power" The deal was the king pretended to be the fount of all authority and enjoyed the shopping experience but knew he would be sent packing if he got seriously out of line, as duly happened in 1688 and 1936.

Returning for a moment to UK attitudes to the US civil war, the country was divided but the people who worked in the cotton industry were pro north and abolitionist despite this not being in their immediate interests. The better off tended to take the opposite view, with many exceptions of course. Arguably those who saw themselves as the heirs of those apparently invited into the parliamentary process in 1265 were less than keen on liberty being extended over-much by this time.

I go along with the UK integrating into the EU and the ambiguity of the present position. What we don't know is the true relationship at government level. If the various agreements under which this country obtained financial and military support from the US at various times did not contain secret provisions they would be pretty much unique in history. At the moment we have the Iraq war inquiry sifting through the diplomatic niceties but absolutely no mention of whatever obligations Blair, as PM, inherited from his predecessors. As Sherlock Holmes pointed out sometimes its the dog that did not bark that gives the game away. Thats a separate conspiracy theory of course.

Its hard to go from playing off the European powers against each other to working in a common structure. There is an isolationist tendency that runs from fruit-cake mps who will not eat French cheese to a vague distrust of foreigners.

1/12/09 10:27 am
Anonymous said...

Captain Ranty opined that the presumption of innocence is confined to these sceptered isles. A strange assertion. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

But who wants the facts to get in the way?

1/12/09 11:02 am
Anonymous said...

Andrew Johnson said something like 'Facts be damned' before he was impeached. Did him a lot of good.

The facts brought him down!

Regarding the presumption of innocence, I believe that since Napoleonic times the convention in French law was that an accused party was required to prove his/her innocence at trial - the opposite of 'presumption of innocence'. If so, the new European Treaties will greatly alter French law.

But in the UK, the presumption of innocence is under threat through stealth-like changes in the law. Take, for example, the new "Vetting and Barring Scheme'. Now, I am all for the protection of children and vulnerable adults (why stop there? Sometimes I feel vulnerable too!), but this scheme requires anybody who comes into contact with vulnerable people be first 'vetted' and if necessary 'barred' (I suppose not being 'barred' = 'approved until we get something on you'?). Anyone caught working or volunteering with these groups in the future could be charged as a criminal, even if he/she is as clean as the driven snow, just for not registering with the scheme. This scheme in effects brands us all as possible criminals if we work or volunteer with children or vulnerable adults and fail to be vetted and not-barred. At least that is how the scheme stands now, although I understand it will be modified as it is rolled out.

So in this case the presumption is that you are guilty (or unfit) until you clear yourself. Apparently 200 people will do the vetting (no doubt mostly done by computer) for 14 million applications over the first year. It has not been made clear which offenses or other information will bar someone (there are the obvious ones, of course, but will a shoplifting charge 30 years ago bar someone? What about a drink/driving charge? Or civil cases? Hearsay? Rumour? Malicious gossip?)

I predict that when ID cards are required (and they will) that all our criminal, medical, employment, and other information will be embedded on it. Want a job? Prove your innocence by swiping your card. Volunteer for Scouts? Same. Babysit? Same. And our Government has proven itself to be so good at protecting our personal data. Criminals are salivating at the thought of this information on a single card or hackable computer database.

Let's just hope that those who maintain our databases are ethical, accurate and fair. In particular, the fact that 'hearsay' (such as a previous employer's written or verbal reference) can be used against one in the Vetting and Barring scheme without the individual's knowledge of its contents or ability to challenge it.

I think we will see a number of cases in the European Court of Human Rights challenging this. I am sure the motive is correct, but I suspect it infringes our legal and human rights under UK and European laws.

1/12/09 12:51 pm
Anthony Esposito said...

Optimism, pessimism; good times, bad times: we all need to keep our center, which is another word for the soul, and we must all communicate. "Resolve what stands between you and your loved one." Start a conversation with AJEMediation.com.

1/12/09 4:45 pm
Anonymous said...

"Resolve what stands between you and your loved one."

OK, OK, own up who loves who?

I bet it'a anon 5:51 and anon 8:10!

Still, at least Swanageview has become Worldview.

Nice to now that they've realised where the seat of wisdom is.

Just where are all our red-necks?

1/12/09 5:55 pm
Anonymous said...

I know, but I'm not telling...they're a dangerous lot!

But they do share one of only a few surnames.............

1/12/09 6:04 pm
Anonymous said...

There is a view that the French are better at protecting the unconvicted than the UK and USA. Take a gander at "The Presumption of Innocence in the French and Anglo-American Legal Traditions (American Journal of Comparative Law, forthcoming January 2010)" at http://works.bepress.com/francois_quintard_morenas/1/

Here is the abstract:

Despite evidence that the presumption of innocence was something more than an instrument of proof, common law scholars in the nineteenth century reduced the doctrine to an evidentiary rule without acknowledging the role of the principle as a shield against punishment before conviction in both the civil and common law traditions. The resulting narrow conception of the presumption of innocence has since pervaded the legal and public discourse in the United States, where suspects are increasingly treated as guilty before trial. Using the French Declaration of Rights of 1789 and the English Prison Act of 1877 as points of reference, this Article retraces the origins and subsequent development of a fundamental principle of justice whose dual dimension–rule of proof and shield against premature punishment–has yet to be formally recognized in modern Anglo-American jurisprudence.

A somewhat different perspective to some of the stuff above.

1/12/09 7:26 pm
Anonymous said...

Bless their little hearts the anti-europeans have a wonderful ability to believe two contradictory things at the same time.

1 We have better rights than they do

2 The european convention on this gives us rights we should not have and should not be part of our law as we don't need all these rights.

How to have your cake and eat it.

1/12/09 7:40 pm
Anonymous said...

England has never had a Bill of Rights. Subjects' right are allowed by the grace of the Monarch - for the English are Subjects, not Citizens.

Here's one for the Europhobes:

By Daniel Hannan - Daily Telegraph (where else?)

We woke up in a different country today. Alright, it doesn’t look very different. The trees still seem black against the winter sun; the motorways continue to jam inexplicably; commuters carry on avoiding eye contact. But Britain is no longer a sovereign nation. At midnight last night, we ceased to be an independent state, bound by international treaties to other independent states, and became instead a subordinate unit within a European state.

Yes, a European state. Take a quick dekko at the definition set out in Article One of the1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

Until yesterday, the EU qualified on grounds (a), (b) and (c). Now it has ticked the final box. Under the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force today, it acquires “legal personality”, which gives it the right to sign accords and treat with other states. Nor is this right simply theoretical: the EU now has a foreign minister, a diplomatic corps (the European External Action Service) and 160 overseas embassies.

Until yesterday, the EU could not annex additional policy areas without a new treaty, which needed to be ratified by all its constituent nations. Now, it has the so-called “passerelle” clause, or self-amending mechanism. Parliament, in other words, no longer has the final say on extensions of EU jurisdiction. The EU derives its authority, not from its 27 members, but from its own foundational texts.

Until yesterday, Britain could simply walk out of the EU by abrogating the Treaty of Rome and repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. Henceforth, it will have to go through the secession procedure laid down in Lisbon. In other words – in the minds of Euro-lawyers, at any rate, if not of British constitutionalists – the EU gets to settle the terms on which its members are allowed to leave. Formal sovereignty has been shifted from the national capitals to Brussels.

It is appalling, demeaning, disgraceful that such a thing should have been done without popular consent, and in the absence of the referendum that all three parties had promised. “There’s no point in crying over spilt milk,” you might say. True. But there is every point in mopping it up.

......................

Game. Set. Match. Better get with the program, boys and girls!

1/12/09 8:07 pm
Anonymous said...

"Andrew Johnson said something like 'Facts be damned' before he was impeached. Did him a lot of good."

But the impeachment proceedings failed, admittedly by one vote. His defence, that the law he had allegedly broken was was unconstitutional was eventually endorsed by the Supreme Court in 1925. The central argument, which will be novel to UK readers, was over whether the president could sack members of his cabinet when he saw fit. If the impeachment had succeeded what would have been left of the separation of power I wonder. I can't imagine any recent presidents being told who had to be in their cabinets.

1/12/09 9:07 pm
Anonymous said...

Why worry, we've made a mess of our Country, let's see if someone else can do better.

German stds of living, Belgian 'niceness', Dutch attitudes; ignoring the extremes! - Italian chic, French benefits and pensions, Spanish weather, Portugese, um, er, Port - what else!

Yep, bring it on.

1/12/09 9:09 pm
Anonymous said...

Is what the telegraph says really true? I can scarcely believe it. Hurrah! Europe no longer a ragbag of competing states and their clients. Wonderful. And we are part of it! The mirage of national independence finally ditched. About time, about bloody time.

1/12/09 9:22 pm
Anonymous said...

Yeah, it's great isn't it, the Telegraphs et al greatest fear.

Aaaaah, wonderful.

And with a wonderful sense of irony;

"Billionaire brothers lose Sark reform challenge.

.... hoping to successfully argue that the tiny Channel Island’s new constitution did not live up to the electoral standards expected of European and UK human rights law".

Joy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/billionaire-brothers-lose-sark-reform-challenge-1831997.html

1/12/09 9:33 pm
Anonymous said...

How strange. You might almost think the Bros Barclay worked on the principle that the best thing about elections is that you can buy the result, like Mr Ashton is trying to do for his favoured party here, but came unstuck.

1/12/09 9:47 pm
Captain Ranty said...

At least I had the imagination to invent a name. It is nigh impossible trying to have a reasoned debate with 29 "anons". That kind of tells me where your collective heads are at...

I am an ex-professional soldier, which is why I chose a rank, and I originally created my blog in order to rant, hence the name. I have no delusions of grandeur and I am no better or worse than anyone else here.

But for the anon who "assumes that I meant 1791", no, I did not. Like I said, dig deeper. The truth you think you know is a lie.

And to the anon who gave us an interesting history lesson, I have to say, my point was simply that I never claimed de Montfort was a democrat. I merely pointed out that he was there when the first parliament was created.

To the other anons that automatically assume that someone who has discovered a different truth wears a tinfoil hat, I assure you that I do not. I am well grounded, I hold a responsible position in middle-management and I have visited almost every country in the union.

I just happened on the grand deception before any of you did. I carry out thorough research and I do not moderate comments. If any of you wish to engage me in debate on anything I have written since April, you are most welcome.

Be well,

CR.

1/12/09 10:28 pm
Anonymous said...

I was ...
I am ...
Your wrong ...
Visit my blog .... please.

Self validation and self promotion

Yours

Anon, living his own truth.

2/12/09 6:46 am
Purbeckandproud said...

6.46 am Typical comment on here as the Cpt says a lot of you dont like the truth, and still hold the beleif that this rancid Govt: knows what they are doing or even care what they are doing. According to your theory everyone but you are wrong about the LISBON TREATY. One further point about it, I do beleive that the "Death penalty" has been resurected within it, for being an enemy of the EU. now if that is true, then that is frightening. Thankyou Gordon Brown!

2/12/09 8:01 am
Anonymous said...

"I never claimed de Montfort was a democrat. I merely pointed out that he was there when the first parliament was created."

Au contraire Black Adder, Parliaments had been called for a long time by 1265. De Montford's novelty was to involve the growing urban centres and use the term "elect". In this context this is a word that has to be read cautiously. Think of the bigwigs being asked to "choose" rather than imagining a returning officer in Robin Hood tights dusting off a vellum electoral register and telling the town carpenter to make some boxes with slots in the top...

Arguably Iceland has a much older parliamentary tradition than England in any case.

You do seem to possess a remarkable ability to uncritically accept a hotch-potch of pseudo history as a true record. Is it the military mind? Whatever the cause your remark "The truth you think you know is a lie" certainly applies rather closer to home than you thought.

I tried to read the blog but got a bit bogged down somewhere between King John and the Crown Agents activities in Bosnia. Its great stuff though. Full marks for your attempt to replace the (Karl) Marxist view of history with the (Groucho) Marxist verion.

2/12/09 10:14 am
Anonymous said...

By the way, are the Illunimati, who run everything according to the gallant gentleman's blog, the guys who can turn themselves into reptiles? That must take skill as well as restraint. Just think, a couple of glasses too many sherry before a dinner party, you forget yourself and pop - you're a croc with nothing more pressing than going for a swim in the consommé. How embarrassing. Ruling the world must be quite easy compared with remembering which shape to adopt for particular occasions. Can these polymorphs do other tricks I wonder. Why stop at the reptile house? Anyone fancy being a penguin? We can all think of various elderly ladies who roost hanging upside down dreaming of former glory.

I had better stop, I am enjoying this far too much and its probably as incorrect as turning up at Bedlam and paying your shilling to poke the inmates with a stick.

2/12/09 12:00 pm
Anonymous said...

Previous post : FANNED! Brilliant!

2/12/09 12:34 pm
Lost said...

Oh My.

Some very blinkered views of history here.

And far too many anon's. You may want to swing by the hospital for an x ray, ya know, just to check you still have a spine.

Lost

2/12/09 6:05 pm
Anonymous said...

Apt name.

2/12/09 6:23 pm
Anonymous said...

I quite agree. The gallant captain said in his blog "the first democratically elected parliament was De Montforts in England in 1265."

Apart from the fact that this is pure bunk it is an example, taken to extreme, of the whig view of history, a particularly slanted and blinkered interpretation, which presents the past as an inevitable progression towards ever greater liberty and enlightenment, culminating in modern forms of liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy. Its the way history was taught, particularly in private schools, half a century ago.

2/12/09 8:37 pm
Anonymous said...

Thats a bit unsporting. Captain Ranty is entitled to promulgate alternative histories rather than get bogged down in what really happened. Here are some suggestions for a totally unblinkered history.

Marilyn Monroe was married to Henry VIII

Columbus discovered Australia. Having sailed westward to China he inadvertently turned left instead of right at the Philippines. America simply does not exist.

Popes are reincarnations of St Peter but will not admit it as that would involve acknowledging the Buddhists were right all along.

Queen Victoria was also a well known music hall performer but was banned because of the smuttiness of her jokes.

Contributions to this genre would be gratefully received.

3/12/09 12:42 pm
Anonymous said...

I would like to have responded in a similarly humourous manner, but having a few hrs spare I thought that I'd look into C(insert R)aptainranty and his buddies.

Semantics - that's what matters - and a good dose of paranoia.

Do you realise that the latest anti-terrorist scanners look under your clothes and see you naked!

It was said with no humour and I guess that too much exposure to X-rays etc was too much to consider.

By the way, Bin Laden is still blending into the background on the Isle of Wight.

6/12/09 7:34 pm

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)