GOD DAMN YOU DOMINO'S

"Hello, Domino's Pizza."

"Hi there. I live in Lingfield, where the only food delivery we have is a guy selling chickens. But this morning a Domino's menu came through the door, tantalising my taste-buds with promises of pepperoni and mozzarella-laden goodness."

"Excuse me??"

"I'd like to order some lunch."

"I'm sorry sir, we don't deliver to Lingfield."

SILENCE.

"Why do you hate me?"

"I beg your pardon?"

"You're telling me you've posted a leaflet through my door showing me all the food I can't order?? Why would you do this?? It's just cruel."

"You can still order for collection sir."

"Ah... so the mountain must come to Mohammed eh? How do you know I'm not a cripple? How do you know I even have legs? I might be housebound and miserable, wittering away my days dreaming of a pizza to dispel the painstaking monotony and anguish of day-to-day living."

"Do you have legs sir?"

"Yes. But that's neither here nor there. You could have just dangled salvation to a dying man, only to carelessly whip it away?? Teased him with promises of Elysium, only to then condemn him to Hades. What sort of customer service is that??"

"Erm... I'm sorry."

"Sorry won't cut it my friend. I demand justice!"

"Would you like to speak to a manager?"

"No, it's alright. I'll just have some toast."

THERESA MAYBE: THE ART OF ANSWERING A DIFFERENT QUESTION

I can't stand it. Theresa Maybe's everywhere, feigning concern at a mental health crisis, talking about how it needs addressing etc.

Which would be fine, were it not for the fact that Britain under the Tories is what's causing so much of it. And that she's using it to distract from the other NHS crisis... that pesky little inconvenience everyone's calling her to account for? Hows about answering the questions you're actually being asked, Mrs May?

"So Mrs May, what do you think we need to do about the growing healthcare crisis?"

"Brexit means Brexit."

"Erm... ok. What do you think about Donald Trump's comments concerning women?"

"The special relationship is important. I like French fries."

"Yes Mrs May, but they're French."

"Jeremy Corbyn is a disgrace."

"Pardon? We were talking about Trump?"

"I also like jam."

"Good to know."

"That is my manifesto."

"THOUGH I DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY, I DEFEND TO THE DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT".

Some of the Left-wing political groups I frequent on social media are becoming quite toxic places nowadays.

Jim Davidson, an admittedly odious and offensive comedian, whom I personally can't stand, made a joke that he wishes 2016 had taken Jeremy Corbyn as well. Not particularly funny I grant you, and of course many will disagree (myself included). But neither was it gratuitous, and the venom/outrage I've seen poured out on social media, perpetuated by The Mirror's article on the subject, is just crazy. His previous crimes have nothing to do with this instance, and many just don't seem to get the hypocrisy of them calling out bigoted people in a similarly prejudiced and OTT offensive manner.

Pertinent criticism, analysis, debate, and lighthearted/satirical comments are NOT the same as just slagging off someone simply for disagreeing. I really wish more people saw the distinction. I personally have said far worse about the likes of Kanye West, Justin Bieber, Gary Barlow, Katie Hopkins, not to mention countless Tory politicians. Does that make me similar "scum"? Or am I merely expressing my opposition in a deliberately exaggerated/comic way? Should I not be allowed to? 

I for one do not want to live in a society where we're not free to make jokes. Even offensive ones. Coarse and depraved ones. Distasteful and controversial jokes, even if I personally don't like them or want to encourage them. We should not fear words, or demonise humour: it's this killjoy "politically correct" attitude of the Left that has alienated so many from our cause. It's actively contributed to this massive backlash of Right-wing sentiment we're experiencing today. You can't tell people what they can or can't find funny, and if you do, it's a step towards something far more sinister. There is a very big difference between laughing at a joke, and genuinely advocating the subject matter or harbouring malign intent towards another. It's actions and alignments that matter, not what we can or don't laugh at.

Why do so many people not see that? Freedom of speech is so, so important. Why do we see everything as black or white/right or wrong? It seems to me that's half the problem. Far too few are even prepared to try and see things from another's perspective. And though I for one undoubtedly believe Left-wing and Centre-ground politics are more decent, egalitarian and forward-thinking than those on the Right, that's not to say the Right don't occasionally make a good point too.

Seems to me we all need to start listening to one another again. Arguing back against ethics we conceive to be wrong, yes, but at least we keep the discussion going, and we keep it civil. Some things are worth fighting about, and some are not. I'm not saying don't argue back, for all your might, but let's ditch the 'tribal' warfare and crying people should be silenced when they simply say something we don't like. It's when you don't allow people a say, and argue they should be silenced that they become angry. 

And here we are today.

PS: Jim Davidson is a complete wank-goblin.

SOME THOUGHTS ON SYRIA: DECIPHERING WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON

(All opinions my own.)

Don't be fooled.

Our UK headlines are currently deluged with stories concerning the break of the siege in Aleppo. And the media are sending some very mixed messages. It's no wonder many don't have a clue what's really going on. On one hand, the media are describing it as "defeat of the rebels", which on a rudimentary level, sounds like a good thing. "Rebellion = bad". Rebels cannot be seen to emerge victorious. (If they were winning, I absolutely guarantee you they'd be called something else.)

But here's the kicker. Those Wahhabist "rebels" include ISIS, among others. The same groups WE oppose and condemn. It's strange how we don't hear their name any more. At one time, you couldn't go a day without reading about something awful they'd done. In actuality, the West has been manipulating/supporting ISIS and other Wahhabist/Shia groups to bring down the "evil" Sunni regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Russia simply stepped in to defend their ally, the democratically elected government, against those we too would consider "terrorists" if they started overthrowing areas of our country, claiming dominion. To many people of Syria, al-Assad and Putin are viewed as saviours.

It's also strange, and to be honest quite sickening, how the media is only now flooding us with images of the death and destruction in Aleppo. It's all I've seen on TV all day. All of a sudden, our press are outraged by these unacceptable casualties, determined to paint the horror of it all. Well... I recall the UK parliament voted to start bombing the sh*t out of Syria before the Russians ramped up their presence. Only now, now Russia and the Syrian government have essentially emerged victorious is the violence so reviled. Because that is what's happened, if you disregard all the spin. Russia and Syria have beaten the West; effectively ended their coup. So when our media describe it as the "darkest day" for Aleppo, what they actually mean is it's the darkest day for them, and their schemes. For the average person fleeing/dying in the conflict, they're ALL dark days. Not just the ones where the West lose.

But it goes some way to explaining why it's only now being painted as a humanitarian disaster. And why the West now stir as much outrage as possible. My fear is this "outrage" might subsequently be skewed as "requiring a response", eg: further escalation with Russia. Or a re-invasion of Syria, who knows? The West went to so much trouble to gain control of the oil... sorry, I mean to "protect" the citizens of Syria. All I can say is the headlines definitely smack to me of a losing side, bitterly tugging at heart-strings to garner support for a renewed military campaign in the pipeline. (Pardon the pun.)

I've attached an interview with al-Assad. It's strange how the UK never gets to hear his voice, or hear his interviews. Or to get some measure of the man. Maybe it's hard to label someone as a one dimensional bloodthirsty tyrant when you discover they're friendly, measured, and a family man. That's not to say family men don't do awful things, or that atrocities haven't been committed in his name. But so have they in Obama's, and David Cameron's. Those same leaders we hypocritically conceive to be "good".

All I'm saying, is don't be too quick to assume everything we're told on the TV is "gospel" truth.

What's that I hear you say? Britain would never support such a dastardly scheme? What, the same country that's just been accused of war crimes in Yemen? The same country that supports the brutal Saudi regime? The same country that's been accused by the European court of human rights of abusing its OWN people, let alone anywhere else? Really?

YES I KNOW I APPOINTED BORIS TO SPEAK FOR US, BUT HE BLOODY DOESN'T... ALRIGHT???

"He said whaaaaaaat???"

Screeched Theresa May, clawing the face of a passing intern, simultaneously kicking him in the groin.

The Prime Minister's man-servant and personal gynaecologist, D'arcy McSavage, paced alongside her nervously, unsure how to reply:

"I'm sorry ma'am, it appears Boris went off script. Some kind of madcap rant. Spooling some rubbish about honest leaders, decency, an end to proxy wars... that kind of clap-trap. Horrifying stuff."

May stepped over the sobbing intern, gleefully pouring hot Earl Grey in his face.

"God damn that f*cking imbecile. Doesn't he realise we're up shit-creek right now?? It's absolutely paramount we profit from as much war and conflict, as much death and mayhem as we can physically get our grubby little mitts on right now. I've told him a million times!"

"Preaching to the choir ma'am. We perpetuate the conflicts, we don't solve them."

"Quite right."

"Shall I get MI6 on the phone? Dispatch the hounds? How about a car crash in a tunnel? We haven't done that since Prince Phill..."

"... No, no D'arcy. There's no need. I'll spank the little albino prick myself. I've been looking for an excuse to try out the new clamp."

"Very good, ma'am."

The Prime Minister of Great Britain poured herself another cup of hot Earl Grey, stirring in the sugar and bat's blood.

"How bad was it? Did the Saudis kick up a right stink?"

"Well, I'm sorry to say they only sent ten sacks of gold, instead of the usual thirty. Along with what seems to be a severed hand."

"Great, just great. Boris-motherf*cking-Johnson. That sanctimonious little prick. Just wait 'til I get my hands on him. He's gonna pay for that."

"Might I make a suggestion, Prime Minister? In retrospect, perhaps Boris wasn't the safest bet for Foreign Secretary. I did try to warn you. Many minions warned you..."

"We refer to them as 'the Cabinet' now, D'arcy."

"Apologies. Many of your 'Cabinet' warned you, ma'am. None of us quite understood what was going on in your head that day. We thought it was a joke. Or you were back on the crystal meth."

"No, no. I appointed Boris because the plebs find him entertaining. They love a good show. Watching him is a bit like watching 'You've Been Framed'. Considering Boris led us into this shit-storm in the first place, he seemed the perfect distraction of wispy blonde hair and waffle, leaving me to my evil schemes. I didn't expect him to grow some balls. Or a conscience."

"What do you plan to do?"

"Don't panic. We do what we always do. Tell the public exactly what they need to hear. That it's nothing to do with us. Tell them... I dunno... tell them: 'Yes, OK. I appointed Boris to speak for us. But he doesn't ACTUALLY speak for us, alright? And we send the Saudis one of those bumper Dunkin' Donuts gift boxes. The ludicrously expensive ones."

"Very good."

"Dear God, even Nigel Farage might be worth a punt after all this. At least he has his reptilian tongue firmly up Trump's arse."

TRUMP VS CLINTON - THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS?

I'm gonna air a question that is incredibly difficult, and risky, to discuss - but I think someone should. (Please don't judge me a loon.)

Part of me wonders whether Trump actually would be a better option than Clinton. I simply pose the question.

I do not say this out of any notion whatsoever of approval, agreement, or belief in his policies. At all. He is a f**king monster. However, it is also my sincere belief that America have been offered two monsters: one of them is simply better and more practised with deceit and subversion.

Anyone who's followed me will know I was predicting literally years ago that Hillary Clinton would be the next US president; and that all else around it was virtually distraction. That's because I believe she IS the establishment. She IS the existing system that's brought the world to where it is, and these people don't make a single move without thinking at least ten ahead. No-one in this world knows better how to manipulate the little people than the existing powers-that-be, make no mistake.

Here is a woman who in the last few days, before even becoming president, has vowed to remove Assad from Syria at all costs. Even since the UK became actively involved, Russia has joined the fray - firmly defending their ally (which is why the focus has shifted to ISIS). If the new US president insists on pursuing this meddling with the Syrian government, an active ally of Russia, she will very possibly be forcing us all into World War III. Seriously. And if you think it's far fetched, you might want to read into NATO's manoeuvres recently in Poland, a little operation called "Anakonda".

Would Trump's presidency be a cataclysmic disaster? Yes, most likely. If he did half of what he's mouthed off, would it be traumatic, and make life incredibly difficult for some (as it questionably has with the Brexit vote, but probably worse)? Undoubtedly. It's an utterly deplorable and terrifying proposition.

But as terrifying as World War III? I'm not entirely convinced. Whereas one of Trump's supposed "things" is he's had enough of the US meddling abroad, even cites admiration and "respect" for Putin. If that avoids mankind stumbling into an even worse disaster, is his idiocy worth the cost? Or will it just lead to war with someone else, or a complete breakdown of relations with the Islamic world? Is a calculating maniac better than one with the temperament of a toddler? I really don't know any more. It's like choosing whether to be battered to death with a kitchen iron, or a mallet.

As if these arguments alone were not worthy of consideration, Hillary Clinton has a whole heap of skeletons in her closet, and far darker ones than even "the Donald". Which aside from political scandals, and seemingly paltry issues concerning emails, include things like what's addressed in this video.

A video which made my jaw "hit the deck".

I admit, the footage is a bit wannabe "cinematic", and has the flavour of a bulls**t conspiracy video. I have not had time to fully fact-check every account, or to confirm all of the accusations made, so I'll reserve some judgement. But it provoked a reaction. Enough to make me look into the matter more. And here is an account which tells a more two-sided version, for sake of balance.

Either way, Hillary DID get this child rapist off with a plea bargain, and it is another very ugly looking side to a very ugly looking dice. I'm sure many of us could not do that, no matter our vocation.

If the "conspiracy" video is accurate, or even close, I really need say no more.

What a choice. Can the rest of the world not elect Bernie Sanders??

(All opinions my own.)

Image via Wikipedia Creative Commons.

NATION THAT RULED WAVES, CONFOUNDED BY SHIPS ON WATER

A nation of people that once prided themselves as "rulers of the waves" now sit scratching their heads - utterly confused by the sight of ships floating on water.

The British Royal Navy had merely stopped for a collective day-out on Portsmouth Pier, to sample the local cuisine and attend a biannual convention on dogging etiquette. After taking the time to compliment local residents for their alcoholism, and their ability to breathe underwater via genetically evolved gills, servicemen and women returned only a few hours later to find the entire nation losing their minds.

Local "hoodie" Steve, was literally confounded:

When I gets in the bath yeah, I sink to the bottom, innit? It's like science and sh*t. But these mahoosive floating things, they didn't sink. It was f**kin' freaky mate.

Other passers-by stood glued to the spot, transfixed by the sight of the boats bobbing around in the water.

19 year old mother of three, Sally commented:

It's flamin' witchcraft I tell ya, like somethin' out of a film.

Those across Britain who understood "it's just what ships do", were instead utterly petrified by the idea we might not be able to nuke any given country at a moment's notice.

The UK has never reduced another country to cockroaches and sawdust before - but many Brits apparently remain keen to "give it a go".

Simon, an outraged Daily Mail reader, demanded to know of his audience at the local Wetherspoons:

Is this what they call protecting us from ISIS? What about North Korea? This is exactly why I voted for Brexit!

Militant right-wing warmongers were pleased to know, Britain resumed its position threatening the rest of the world with apocalypse the very next morning.