Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Dead People Paid £57 Million in Benefits

It's official, dead people are financially better off than living people. The Government paid out £57 million in benefits to dead people last year. That included £34.4m on dead peoples pensions, £13.3m in income support for dead people, £1.6m on incapacity benefit and £0.1m on job seekers allowance.
Many living people are planning a demonstration to protest that some dead people are finding it easier than living people to claim benefit. A government spokesman has released a statement pointing out that dead people are finding it difficult to find work, and need just as much help and support as the living.
Marcus Magnesbottom, who speaks to the departed, claims that the dead are happy with the benefits they receive, and will plan a demonstration themselves if their benefits are cut. Although no one is quite sure what form the demonstration will take.
There is also a claim from Richard Salmonbottom, the MP for Dagenham, that the dead people receiving benefits are all related to senior Labour politicians or are relatives of big money lenders to the Labour party. The Government have denied this claim, which means it's probably true.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Rail Points "Are Safe" - Says "The Sun" Newspaper.

Rail Points "Are Safe." This was a headline for a story in The Sun newspaper today (26/2/07). It's referring to the recent rail crash involving a Virgin train, which killed one person and injured many more. At the end of the story, The Sun asks the question, "Who do you blame for the rail crash? Virgin or Network Rail?"
The Sun printed this story before the investigation was completed. The headline implies that the points are OK, therefore the only conclusion left is that the train or the driver were at fault. Yet the investigation has since concluded that the points were in fact faulty, and that the Virgin train or the driver were in no way responsible for the accident. It's quite possible that the train driver and the train itself actually saved lives.
Therefore, I think the question The Sun asks shouldn't be "Who do you blame for the rail crash?" but instead should be, "Is it a coincidence that Rupert Murdoch who owns The Sun and owns Sky and is currently having a dispute with Virgin Media, should print a story implying that Virgin are responsible for the rail crash?"
Or perhaps the question should be, "How low will The Sun go?"
Or even better, "Do people actually believe the shit they print in this crappy newspaper?"
I for one, sincerely hope not.
Of course, tomorrow The Sun will rectify this by printing a tiny story hidden among a mass of adverts saying that actually the points were faulty.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

What's the Difference Between George Bush and Osama Bin Laden?

Osama Bin Laden caused the deaths of 2973 Americans.
George Bush has caused the deaths of over 3100 Americans.
Looks like George Bush is winning the war on terror, he is now ahead of Osama Bin Laden by over 100 deaths. Well done George, you should be proud of yourself.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Woman Takes BA To Court Over Cross

A woman employed at British Airways is taking court action against her employer for religious discrimination. The lady in question, Nadia Maseefbottom, has been ordered to remove the cross she has been wearing because it contravenes BA's dress code.
Mrs. Maseefbottom claims that other religions are allowed to express their beliefs, and says she should also be free to express her religious beliefs whilst at work.
BA have said that wearing a 6 foot by 4 foot wooden cross that weighs 82 kilos on her back is extreme, impractical and a potential health hazard. They claim it takes Mrs. Maseefbottom three hours to walk to the emergency exit.
The court case was due to start at 10 o'clock this morning, but was adjourned because Mrs. Maseefbottom couldn't fit into a taxi and had to walk to court. She should arrive there sometime next week.

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Bush, Hitler, Lenin, and Bin Laden

In a speech recently, George Idiot Bush, compared Bin Laden to Hitler and Lenin. Firstly there is no comparison between Hitler and Lenin, let alone Bin Laden.
Here's why.
Lenin was the leader of the Communist Revolution in Russia. He had no plans, reasons or need to commit genocide, and never did commit genocide. He had no plans to invade other countries, Lenin was in favour of negotiating peace with Germany in the first world war. He did have plans to support communist parties in other countries, but certainly no more than the USA has supported governments and parties that they would prefer to see in power in other countries.
Hitler was the leader of the Nazi party in Germany, a far right fascist party, virtually the opposite of Lenin's ideals. He did commit genocide. He planned and almost succeeded in over running Europe and Russia.
Where's the comparison?
George Bush, being the idiot that he is, has no idea what he is talking about. Lenin was not Hitler.
Then there's the comparison to Bin Laden. I can't even think of a comparison between Lenin, Hitler and Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden is a rogue terrorist who has no country. He effectively has no power, only influence. The reason he has influence is because idiots like George Bush keep giving him excuses to spread his influence.
One final point. George Bush has declared war on two countries since being in power, Lenin declared war on none. Who then is more like Hitler, as far as foreign policy goes? Bush or Lenin?

Sunday, September 03, 2006

14 Deaths Will "Distress Whole Country" Says Blair

After the deaths of 14 soldiers in a plane accident in Afghanistan, Tony Blair said it would "distress the whole country."
Perhaps, but what really distressed the whole country happened years ago, when Tony Blair agreed to support George Bush's idiotic plan to re-mold the Middle East into a shape he found more acceptable, by declaring war on two countries for reasons that as yet haven't been realized and never will be realized. And what of the distress of the people of these two countries Bush and Blair so carelessly invaded? The hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed. Has Tony Blair ever mentioned them?
20 Iraqis die here, 50 die there, what does it it matter to Blair and Bush? They both finish their political careers soon, and British soldiers, American Soldiers, Iraqis and Afghans will continue dying long after Blair and Bush settle down to a nice retirement with their families.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Blair Calls For Ceasefire Before setting Off To Caribbean

Tony Blair calls for a cessation of hostilities weeks after the rest of the world called for an immediate ceasefire. Blair is heading off for his much needed holiday in the Caribbean, after a stressful month of doing nothing while innocent people continue to be slaughtered in the Lebanese/Israeli conflict.
Tony Blair and George Bush have not called for an immediate ceasefire and seem quite content to let the carnage continue, as long as most of it is in Lebanon and not Israel. Now that Lebanon has been reduced to a sufficient mess and years of reconstruction have been destroyed, Blair is calling for an end to hostilities.
But this comes from a man that has no problems sleeping at night when it comes to the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Certainly the deaths caused by his decisions in Iraq and Afghanistan have not caused him to have sleepless nights.
But then psychopath's dont have sleepless nights.

View My Stats