An Early Day Motion? For *that*?

February 1st, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink






The Sun: Gagging for it

March 3rd, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

The Sun is a little bit peeved today because it’s freedom of speech is being restricted again and can’t report on someones sex life (istyosty link). I can certainly see why.

A SENIOR executive at a British bank bailed out by the taxpayer has gagged The Sun from revealing an affair with a colleague.

High Court judge Mr Justice Richard Henriques leapt to his defence in a ruling that delivered another blow to free speech in the UK.

Why shouldn’t the Sun be able to report on someones carnal activities? This person worked at a bank that received taxpayer money. We should be able to know everything about them. Doesn’t that judge know who we are? We’re bloody taxpayers, don’tcha know?

The married banker, paid a substantial six figure sum, began the illicit affair before the credit crunch erupted and plunged the country into recession.

Look! He’s paid not just a six figure sum, but a ‘substantial’ six figure sum. What is the judge playing at? Doesn’t he know the bigger the salary the more right we have to know about who he is sticking is knob in?

He was present when the Government was forced to spend almost £1trillion to prop up the banks. Ministers are axing thousands of civil servants to pay for bankers’ mistakes and more than 50,000 workers in the sector have lost their job in the past two years.

This is outragous! He was there when the government gave the banks all of *our* money. Where ‘there’ is, is irrelevant. Was he present at the bank, present in government, in his girlfriend at the time the government handed over the whopping big cheque? It doesn’t matter. He was ‘there’. We demand to know. He is connected to the government, however remotely so he must’ve been telling us not to cheat on our spouses. He must be hypocrite. How can we tell unless we know who he is?

If he’s not connected to the government or not, he gets paid a big fat wodge of dough so he must be a role model for the kids. Either way the public must know who he’s been shagging, where, when, how often and in what positions. It’s in the public interest. This information being kept from us could be a game changer in the way we live our lives.

These people cannot get away with dicking about on their poor, poor wifes without retribution. And I want the Sun to deal it.

One bank insider told the Sun: “Given what was going on at the time they got together, I’m surprised either of them had the time or the energy.”

Jesus snapping arseholes! There’s more! He got paid a big bundle by a bank and he still had free time away from the bank. What were they paying him for? Surely he must’ve been skiving, or bonking on company time. It’s the only explanation. As for having the energy to for all this horizontal excercise? Well, there’s only one explanation. Drugs.

Yeah, ok. Drugs might not be the *only* explanation for someone having enough energy to bonk their girlfriend, but how do we, the public, know unless this man is exposed to public scrutiny?

I don’t know about you but I won’t be able to sleep at night thinking about how this man that worked at a bank was shagging someone that wasn’t his wife… er, without reaping the vengeance of the public.

I demand to know!

Warning: Contents may offend

January 21st, 2009 § 4 comments § permalink

The Advertising Standards Agency has decided on whether the ‘Athiest Bus’ has broken any rules.

And I would like to paraphrase here…

Fuck off you witless god-bothering cocks.

Oh, alright. Here’s what they really said

But the body concluded the adverts were unlikely to mislead or cause widespread offence and closed the case.


[ASA] said it assessed 326 complaints. Some claimed the wording was offensive to people who followed a religion.

326 people are offended by someone asking them if they’ve ever thought that there might not be a god. That’s what that line is saying

While some of the complaints claimed the adverts were offensive and denigrated people of faith, others challenged whether they were misleading because the advertiser would not be able to substantiate its claim that God “probably” did not exist.

What about all the ads and posters about god and church and stuff? According to their logic, they would have to substantiate the claim that there is probably a god. Which is just as hard.

And if one person can satisfactorily prove to me that there is a god beyond doubt, I will eat my blog.


The truth? You can’t handle the truth!

January 14th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink






Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with freedom of speech at Sim-O.