The news is all you're good for

I haven't had a good rant for a while, so here it is. The Daily Mail. And more specifically, Allison Pearson. Whilst she is the least poisonous of the Plattell/Moir coven, she really does come across as being almost criminally thick as shit, which is just as offensive in it's own way.
Here's the link to her thoughts on the Prince Harry racism video. The only good thing about the online version is at least her photograph is a little more truthful; she's about 15 years younger and 3 stone lighter in the actual paper. It;s like going on a blind date and finding out the other person has gone through the menopause whilst you weren't looking.
Anyway, let's unpick it together.
'Sorry, did I fall asleep and miss the moment when Prince Harry became Alf Garnett?' SORRRWWWWWEEEEE! What a shit start to a column. She's meant to be a professional, she sounds like a 12 year old member of the BNP doing her first ever blog.
'Last time I looked, the young officer was giving out awards at the Children of Courage ceremony with a tact, humour and gentleness that would have made his late mother proud.' What, with a camera in his face? What a saint. I'm sure his mother, who died alongside her Egyptian boyfriend would be thrilled to bits to discover what a liberal, intelligent young man he's turned out to be.
'Now, suddenly, Harry is a wicked racist - make that a thick, ginger-haired Royal racist - who must 'learn a painful lesson' and go on TV to make a public apology for his crime. Have we all gone barking mad?' Yes, SUDDENLY he's a racist. Like SUDDENLY YOU'D be a racist if you went up to your colleague Baz Bambigoyne and called him a n*****. That's how it works. You say something racist; THAT MAKES YOU A RACIST. Have we all gone barking mad? No, just you, love.
'It would seem so, judging by the buckets of vitriol poured over Harry for using the words 'Paki' and 'raghead' in a video made in 2006. While filming fellow cadets, Harry zoomed in on Captain Ahmed Raza Khan saying: 'Ah, our little Paki friend... Ahmed.'
Out of context, his words may shock. But in context, Harry was simply indulging in equal-opportunities Army banter - that's equally offensive to everyone, be they Taff, Paddy, Jock or simply some poor sod saddled with a fat girlfriend.' Yes, lets all be offensive to everyone! You've got a fat girlfriend? URGH!
'Yes, for people of my generation and older, the word Paki is utterly toxic. It stirs up memories of an ugly and contemptible period in race relations, of skinheads and terrified families with dog mess pushed through the letterbox.
Whether we like it or not, Harry's age group are far less likely to find such jibes offensive. They are also far less likely to be prejudiced. Their sense of humour is edgier. Race is no longer significant to the vast majority of young Britons. These days, it's 'chavs' who have become the hated sub-group.' Not only is this utter bullshit, it's DANGEROUS bullshit. It's YOUR generation who says 'paki' NOT ours. How DARE you? How dare you say young people fling that word around so casually? That's an outright LIE. I wouldn't say that in a million years; the fact Harry did it ON CAMERA shows not just racism, but utter stupidity. He also used the words 'raghead' (but 'only to describe the Taliban'- as if we can pick and choose what groups to be racist about dependent on their behaviour). I WILL NOT let you SAY THESE THINGS. It is not 'edgy' to be racist. It's appalling. God, the hoo-ha that was made about Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross you'd think they'd gang-raped Baby P, but Harry is allowed to call people 'pakis', 'ragheads' and 'queers' (although the queer comment has been conveniently dropped by the Mail because they care less about gay rights than fucking LIGHTBULBS) and bless him, he's just trying to fit in, just having a gas. NO. IT'S WRONG. I'd like to see this dominating the front pages for weeks like Sachs-gate. But it won't.
She continues; 'If this country were not so self-hating, perhaps we could take a minute to congratulate ourselves on having produced youngsters who are far more colour blind than any previous generation. Harry Wales is among them.' Harry Wales? Is that his name now? Is that a typo? Fucking hell, my blog is more well turned out that this dogshit. Yes, Allison. Prince Harry is so colourblind, he points out people's differences in offensive and unnaceptable language. How proud I am of this country. I must take a second to wonder how Allison would write about some council estate 'yobbos', some 'hoodie chavs', calling some innocent person a 'paki' or a 'raghead'. Oh, aren't they all so inclusive! Look at the comradere! She would beam with joy at this spectacle, obviously. You stupid fucking idiot.
This is my favourite bit; 'He doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body,' says Commando Ben McBean, who lost an arm and a leg fighting the Taliban and shared a flight home with Harry. Ben also happens to be black. Oh, well if a black person who lost an arm and a leg said it, I take it ALL BACK!!!
It goes on and on, but anyway, you get the general idea; she's a thick bitch (and I don't use that word lightly to describe other women) and Harry is an idiotic waste of oxygen, three years ago or ten minutes ago, I don't really give two shits.
I'll leave you with Allison's reason for defending Harry so resolutely:
'Personally, I always had grave doubts about the pampered ginger princeling who swigged cocktails that cost half a nurse's monthly wage. I changed my mind when I saw him at that Children of Courage ceremony.
Harry got down on his knees to greet some profoundly disabled kids so they wouldn't be daunted and so he could make them laugh. There was only one other royal capable of stooping to conquer like that.' Awww. He stooped down to make some disabled kids laugh. So. Fucking. What.
Allison Pearson; you sicken me. Well done, you actually made my blood boil. And as for Peter McKay who declared earlier in the week 'everyone uses this sort of language behind closed doors in their own home.' I don't. You can be a sick, bigoted fuckhead but don't drag ME into it.
Scum, one and all. This country is self-hating because there's very little to be proud of. That's about it.

The Daily Mail: 'Go soft on the wives who kill in cold blood'

Today's Headline: 'Women who kill their abusive partners in cold blood could escape a murder conviction if they prove they feared more violence. In cases where the husband kills, the existing 'partial defence' of provocation if a wife was having an affair was scrapped altogether.'
Just look at that language and marvel. 'In cold blood'. Do battered women EVER kill in cold blood? Do they plot, plan, premeditate? Or do they, in extremely rare cases, after years and years of abuse, one day, quite understandably, say enough is enough?
Look at Charlize Theron's mother. She got off, and quite rightly, it wasn't cold blood, it was an answer back, a fucking full stop. You can tell by the way Charlize talks about her mother exactly how they both suffered. It was no loss for that man to be off the planet. Let's face it, the full stop is normally the wife getting killed (two a week), not the abusive husband, so forgive me if I don't shed a tear for any of those bastards.
The second part is also curious, as if women are being let loose to kill men, whilst men won't even have the right to kill their cheating harpie wives anymore. As if it's some sort of trade off, as if the two scenarios are even fit to share the same page.
These are GOOD LAWS, not bad, you stupid wankers. I wish these women could walk away but so often they can't. And I'd rather the men died than they did. And that's that.

Newsflash: God Vs The Daily Mail

Two stories caught my eye in the Daily Hate recently, Yesterday the story of a mother who gave birth to twins and needed a simple blood transfusion, but the family denied it because she was a Jehovah's witness. The doctors begged them five times to let her live. Her mother said, 'At least she died faithful to God'. If her mother had said that in front of me, I would have fucking knocked her out. That's not a mother. Mothers would do ANYTHING to protect their child. How could they have stood by? The thought of my mum standing by and letting that happen... well, it just wouldn't happen. If I'm a heathen because of that, good. If I'm going to hell, good, cos I wouldn't want to go to any heaven with fuck-ups like that in it*. If I'd been a doctor or nurse working there, I don't think I could have gone into work ever again. It's murder, as far as I'm concerned, simple as that. Straight to hell for that family, do not pass go, do not collect 200. I would love to hear them explain that one to her babies.
*Of course, it's all bollocks anyway.
The other story that enraged me was 'Barred from fostering because we admitted smacking our daughter as a last resort' (and isn't that a snappy headline?) This is typical Mail stuff- look at the poor christian folk who won't tell their kids about gays but will smack them one. People hit kids because they are too stupid to say 'NO'. The opening paragraph is a treat though; 'Their local council was so desperate for foster parents that it said even single mothers and criminals would be considered.' Just re-read that. Single mothers! On a par with criminals! And EVEN criminals might be alright parents, dependent on the crime. It might just be a spot of fraud or something. I'm only surprised homosexuals weren't mentioned and decried, like they normally are.
I got a little sickly cat last week, and I could not touch a strand of it's fur. No matter how naughty it was, it would never cross my mind to raise my hand to it. I can only imagine you'd want to protect your children about a thousand million times more. I was never hit as a child, there's no reason to hit a child, ever, except the fact you're too thick to realise there's another way. Just face it, you like hitting kids, and therefore you're a bad parent and not fit to adopt. So good! I'm glad they didn't let you.
Result- God- nil. The Mail- nil. Looks like the dark side wins this time! And every time. Woo!

Should men be present at the birth of their babies?

It's that Daily Mail/ Richard and Judy double whammy again of sexist debate. They had this journalist Tom Sykes on who after witnessing the birth of his first child decided not to be present at the second. Charming. She has to be there still, though, right? You know, for twelve, or twenty hours or so. Bad luck, love.
Firstly, I have no intention of having children. Secondly, if I did, I certainly would not let the man look at that side of the action. I've heard horror stories of people never having sex again as a result, so best not to tempt fate. But can't the man even be in the same room? You know, holding your hand, giving you moral support? Well? What century is this?
This guy said 'oh it's squishy and gory'. Oh, poor thing. Women have to have their fannies RIPPED OPEN. No shit it's gory. You only looked, you weren't on the receiving end, mate!
The idea that then man was there for the fun bit so should be there for the screamy bit was met with ridicule. Judy actually said a few words of sense then took them back. This guy was like, 'you want him to share the pain'. Too fucking right I do! I'd want him to hurt like hell. Why not?
The poor men are traumatised! Poor things. Honestly. It's bloody sickening. Thank God I never have to even contemplate this crap. People literally deserve all they get.