Who's Really Behind the Riots? An Alternative View

There have been a couple of riots lately, but you already know that. Us; average, non-rioting motley crew of stay-at-homes have had every type of daily medium we deal with taken over by the riots; TV, radio, Facebook, Twitter ... We’ve been absolutely bombarded with images, videos and stories of the riots, I think we’d have seen less rioting if we’d have actually been out rioting.

Of course, as always people are desperate to get to the bottom of what caused the riots? And they’re serving up the usual batch of shit. But don’t fear, because I don’t have a narrow minded view of the revolting classes that choose to revolt. I have no bias towards the police, or as I call them; “murderous, racist scum pigs”. I do hate Cameron, but that goes without saying. People are too restricted with their views on what is causing the riots; I’m here to suggest some alternative views.

The Kaiser Chiefs
Firstly let me say; I’ve even seen Hip Hop mentioned as a cause... yet I didn’t realise that the riots had a soundtrack. I think instead of initially suspecting that ‘urban types’ only listen to Hip Hop, we as a public should acknowledge that Hip Hop is fair superior to any other type of music as it’s subject matter spans the widest range of topics and it captivates every single emotion humanly possible, and that, at the end of the day we are all Hip Hop fans, so it should no longer by dragged into the spotlight and labelled as a causation of crime. The next time some buffoon decides to falsely acknowledge that a genre of music is a causation of violent or criminal behaviour, I’mma pop a cap in ass! Word to his crack-smokin’ momma!

In 2004 the Kaiser Chiefs predicted a riot. Yep, seven years ago these guys knew it was coming and they did nothing to try and stop it. In my opinion that is completely shameful. Why aren’t the media turning on them? I’ve seen a rapper on Newsnight condemning the actions of these rioters, but where the fuck are the Kaiser Chiefs? They aren’t condemning what they predicted, they aren’t apologising for not working more closely with the police to put together a plan to halt or even curb the rage we’ve seen lately. I think there should be a national campaign against the band until they are demoted to Kaiser Constables.

Out-of-Work Builders
For a change we need to take into account who’s really profiteering off of these riots. Yes, maybe a looter has got a new flat-screen TV or brand new pair of Nikes, but it is out-of-work builders that are going to see an increase of cash flow over the coming days, weeks and months. For this reason we must suspect that they could be the ones inciting these riots.

Let’s face it; the economy isn’t at its strongest these days and companies aren’t splashing out money on rebuilding stores, so builders must create business for themselves. How would they go about doing that? By burning buildings down! It’s the fucking out-of-work builders, people, think about it!

JD Sport/Currys
Two of the most looted stores in the riots have been JD Sport and Currys. Is this a coincidence? No, of course not.

As I have already mentioned we are currently in an economical downturn and in the world of capitalism flagging companies will do anything to stay afloat. Let’s face it, out of all of the chav attire supplying, discount sports shops JD has to be one of the weakest. Also; not too long ago there was a Currys in Derby’s Westfield Centre (a big mall/shopping centre) until it relocated because the company could no longer afford the rent! This is a national supplier of electrical goods that can’t afford to pay rent, I’m constantly broke and even I can afford to pay rent, which means, I, as an individual, am currently more successful than Currys. These two companies probably aren’t turning over money like they used to. So the riots and looting have almost certainly given them the chance to cash in on some major insurance claims. These companies will more than likely make more money from insurance claims over the next few days than they would have made all year.

Rupert Murdoch
It’s become a struggle to remember what the news was reporting on before the riots, some people are even suggesting news coverage never existed before the riots, well it did people! And the biggest news story was the phone hacking scandal. Do you remember now?

I wouldn’t put it past Mr. Murdoch and his vile excreting media outlets to create a national ruckus to defer attention away from himself and the News of the World story. Both The Sun and The Times [both owned by Murdoch’s NewsCorp] have been reporting on the riots, this only acts as further proof, surely! Now with the riots in full swing people’s minds have been overloaded and actions of Murdoch’s minions have been cast to the never regions of our collective memory bank. I’m willing to bet those investigating the scandal have forgot about it, leaving everyone involved to get off scot-free.

So there it is people. Instead of blaming a couple of youths that like setting buildings alight and looting clothes and electrical goods, maybe we should start casting doubt over the individuals and companies that are really making financial and personal gain over what has been taking place. Then, perhaps, we will see who is really to blame [hint; it’s those people I’ve just mentioned] ... and the Kaiser Chiefs, don’t forget about the fucking Kaiser Chiefs.

Ben on Bin

Osama bin Laden from Al-Jazeera’s popular ratings grabber; “Jihad Hour” television show has been shot in the face Call of Duty style. America has finally nabbed the Worst’s Most Wanted Man, although it’s kind of a hollow victory to say that, as they are the ones that bestowed that accolade on him in the first place.

Everyone has an opinion on the death of Osama bin Laden and the way it [/he] was executed by the American dudes [can’t remember what they were; Navy Seals I think], so you’ve read theirs, so here is mine;

Should They Have Killed Him?
I have never killed a man, check my non-existent police file if you don’t believe me. I’m not sure what it takes to kill another man, although weapons and ammo would logically be the best place to start. I think, please remember my education on military action comes from watching Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan, taking him alive would have been better, yet I was not invited to take part in the raid of his lair [you have to call the house he was staying in a lair – it drives home the impression he was a criminal mastermind, the sort of villain James Bond would fight in one of his terribly predictable films], probably because my armed forces knowledge is based around TV and film. I would say taking him alive would have likely provided more information on al-Qaida via waterboarding which is very different from wakeboarding, yet I always think they’re the same thing. If they were able to capture him maybe eventually we’d [the public] would have got to see a photo of him in his underwear just like Saddam Hussein – remember that? How funny was that?

Was it Right to Shoot an Unarmed Man?
When I first saw the headline, I thought it read; “Bin Laden Unharmed”, I instantly thought he was some super human, or some kind of deity, that he really was chosen by Allah and that it was time to convert to Islam. Thankfully, I’d just misread the word, he was unarmed, as in he had no weapons. One newspaper [The Sun, I think] went with the headline; “Bin Laden Unarmed like his victims on 9/11 and 7/7”, which I’m not sure about, guns are very popular and easy to come by in the States, I’m willing to bet a couple of people that died that day were packing heat, but that’s besides the point.

It has been stressed that Bin Laden could have been wearing a suicide vest, which is true, he could have been, yet that makes me think if this is likely he’d have to wear a suicide vest constantly. I know the man was dedicated to the fall of the West and global Islam, but wearing a suicide vest all the time? It’s a lot to ask, especially when you’re living in a ‘safe house’.
But was it right? Face it, if anyone deserves to be shot unarmed it is Osama Bin Laden [from a Westerners point of view anyway]. Of course from the other point of view this action is easy to propagate into terrorism by America.

Should They Have Buried Him at Sea?
This topic is causing problems. Some are saying that it wasn’t fitting with Islamic tradition; others are saying he doesn’t deserve any right to have a traditional burial. As I keep saying I have never killed a man, yet if I did I would be in quite a rush to dispose of the body, it’s like Murder 101. Maybe this is what happened with the Osama’s corpse, plus who’d want a decomposing body on their ship? Not me, that’s for sure. How can you enjoy a good game of shuffleboard with a fucking cadaver stinking up the fresh sea breeze? The argument for burying him at sea was that his grave could become a shrine for extremists. I don’t know if American intelligence [and I use that term loosely] know this but; you can create a shrine for someone anywhere, not just of their graves. I’ve created numerous shrines to the girls/women I’ve been stalking over the years. Those shrines made up of locks of hair, toe nail cuttings, blurry photos and used tampons were always constructed in my wardrobe, not once was it on their shrine made on their grave, even after they all died under strange circumstances … like I’ve said; I have never killed a man. The American’s apparently tried to pawn off his body to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, yet shockingly they didn’t want it. America’s relationship with these two countries isn’t exactly great, trying to shift off his body to these is like calling in a favour from a Facebook friend [you accept yet have no contact with, they’re just there to bunk up your friend count] to help dispose of the body of that Jennifer girl you’ve been stalking.

Did Pakistan Know He Was There?
I have no idea. Next question.

Should America Release the Photos?
Not the ones of Pippa Middleton in a bikini – because we all want to see those, but the ones of a dead Osama. It is believed that releasing the photos would cause outrage in the Arab would, you know, like killing him DIDN’T! It would be nice to see some proof, as conspiracy theorists are always going to deny it was Osama, now they have good reason too. I don’t think it should stop at the photos, I want to see the video feed captured on one of the troops head-cam, that apparently Obama was watching [not sure if it was the President, at first it was then apparently it was someone else watching it, relaying to the Head of State – the story changes so much, spurring on conspiracy theorists]. We got to see Saddam die, why not Osama too? America has released some DVDs/Videos captured from Osama’s ‘mansion’ today, but they’ve removed the audio as the speeches may rally extremists because as we all know Arab people can’t lip-read! The videos released apparently feature bloopers too – which I joked about via Facebook the day of his death.

Was it Worth it?
Well American’s were celebrating in the streets, which I can understand to a certain degree. The man has become to the face of terrorism and now he’s gone. Now we have to wait and see what will transpire next. A warning has already been put out that terrorists could respond to the death of their leader – so the world is no safer without him. America is now attempting to hunt down Bin Laden’s number two; al-Zawahiri, so it’s clear that the War on Terrorism is far from over – plus Americans will always need someone to hunt down so they can withhold their positions in the Middle-East. Of course it is likely that just because you’ve removed the head of al-Qaida there’s nothing from it growing another one, like Jeebs the pawn shop owner from Men in Black.

Obama has received a rise in popularity in the polls due to Osama’s death. Which is good for him, I suppose. Nick Clegg could have single-handedly captured Osama, bought him back to England in a headlock and still wouldn’t have seen his popularity rises in the local elections.

Whatever your opinion on Bin Laden, keep it to yourself, because all this talk of it is getting old, at least when the Royal Wedding was in the news I could check out pictures of Pippa Middleton’s lovely bottom.

An in Depth Look into the Governments Decision to Remove Cigarette Displays – by a Twat

Be gone free choice, we pitiful human beings can longer be trusted with you. We’ve had you and look at what some of us have gone and done; we’ve chosen to smoke. Yes, we’ve decided to take up a habit the increases our chances of getting a long, long list of diseases. We’ve picked an addiction that now leaves us castrated from the rest of society and their non-black lungs – but do you know what, we still don’t give a fuck because we still look cool.

So after adding written warnings to cigarette packets, an advertisement ban, adding graphic [warning] images to cigarette packets and introducing a smoking ban – it seems like the war against smoking has stepped it up a gear again; cigarette displays will soon be removed from shops. [I would have put an emoticon sad face here, but I’m not a twelve year old girl – unless I’m in chat room ;-) lolz XxX]

Don’t get me wrong, I understand that stopping people smoking seems like a good thing. I suppose we’ll get a healthier nation; people will live longer and be able to pay more tax. Plus less people will be ill, that means there’ll be less of a burden for the NHS – just in time as it looks like plenty of staff will be out of a job soon.

I see a lot of people saying that this is all for the youth of today, they’re too easily grasped by the evil hands of nicotine. Kids will be kids. Some will smoke, some won’t. People act like this is a new craze, it’s been happening for years. My great-grandmother started smoking around her mid-teens and carried on for the rest of life until it was cut short in her 90s – imagine how long she would have lived if she never picked up the habit.

The thing I can’t understand is the logic behind removing cigarette displays. All the previous laws introduced do have at least some sense behind them, but this is completely lost on me. As for forcing tobacco companies to package their product in plain packaging – what the fuck is that about? No, honestly. Can someone tell me? I understand that the designs on cigarette packets is all cool and stuff [apart from the pictures of tumours and shit] – but if cigarettes are to be kept under the counter soon, why on earth would you need to put them in plain packages? It’s like gouging a blind man’s eyes out. Is it in case someone catches a glimpse of them before the customer puts them in their pocket or handbag? Does the sight of cigarettes offend people that much, or is it that if a young impressionable child gets a sight of the shiny packet they’ll instantly want to start smoking?

Let kids smoke is what I say - they’re all little, ungrateful, idiotic cunts anyway [according to most media outlets] – they don’t deserve to live a long and fruitful life.

Yeah, I’ve reached a point in which I don’t know how to finish things off, as this was just a quick exercise, so here’s a list of other ways [that one day may be introduced by government] to stop people from smoking;

- Sowing people’s mouths closed, making all food in liquid form and have the entire population communicate by sign-language.
- Ban lighters and matches so smokers have to light cigarettes by bashing bits of flint together or rubbing a stick on another stick.
- Fitting designated smoking areas will sprinkler systems that go off over five seconds.
- Whenever a customer purchases some cigarettes a loud alarm goes off alerting everyone in the shop – much to the embarrassment of the customer.
- Breaking the fingers of smokers and would-be-smokers so they can’t spark up.
- Douse individuals in petrol so they can’t spark up – although the way petrol prices are rocketing this is doubtful.
- Nuke us. Just set off a nuclear bomb that kills us all. Then the only smoking we’ll be doing is that of our charred remains.

Until next time – when I’ll spend time and attention towards something good.

Topical Sketch #1: Beckham's Hot Spa

I thought it's about time I try my hand at writing topical sketches as it's something that (particularly) radio shows are after. I've written a couple of sketches so far, but they're ideas that have been given time to ferment and I've gone back and changed them – adding and removing parts in an attempt to get them just right. Whereas with topical sketches, I feel like you've just got to bang them out quite fast, you can't sit around waiting or by the time you've got it perfect the subject matter is no longer topical – which makes your sketch dated and therefore pointless.

So here's the first. It's about David Beckham playing for Tottenham Hotspurs.

Beckham's Hot Spa (Sketch)

5 Reasons for Mrs. Cameron to Have an Abortion

Yesterday I read a news article (get me!) that proclaimed that the wife of David Cameron is pregnant. So, due to the fact I want to seem as if I’m on the pulse of current news topics and give the overall impression that I can be topical on this Blog, I decided to put together a list of reasons of why Samantha Cameron should abort that little bundle of joy promptly. For those that don’t know ‘SamCam’ (as some newspapers deem her, although to me SamCam sounds likes a porno-star’s website that features a live sex show broadcast via their webcam) and the evil one (David Cameron) have had three children already; Ivan Reginald Ian, Nancy Gwen and Arthur Elwen. Three children that have the combination of seven names! Although Ivan Reginald Ian died, so now they have two children that have the combination of four names.

1 – No Father Figure
Although sick slowly creeps up my throat as I write this; it is extremely possible that David Cameron will win the next election. This is going to make him an extremely busy man, the NHS isn’t just going to privatise itself you know! Therefore he’s not going to be around to help raise this child. If a child doesn’t have a father figure then it grows up unguided, into being a cynical bastard that writes hateful Blogs about people he/she doesn’t know, just for attention … so I heard somewhere.

2 – One Less Tory
I think we all can agree that The Conservatives are cunts. Yet, in a little over 18 years this foetus that is currently growing in SamCam will have the ability to vote, and who do you think it will vote for? Daddies group of friends, of course. It is important to stop people voting Tory early on in life, and what is possibly earlier than abortion? Stopping the conception of a Tory-baby is the only action that can be taken earlier than abortion, but that is extremely difficult. So one abortion = one less vote for The Conservatives, its simple maths.

3 – The Photo-Op Tot
Lets face facts here, if this little bugger is born it will receive the best education money has to offer, the kind of education that is so far beyond what any of us received we can’t even imagine the intricate details discussed as it would blow our minds right open and brain matter would ooze down our backs. The thing is, one day this child is going to put two and two together and realise that the only reason it was conceived was as a ploy to get votes. Of course growing up to become Tory scum it is likely that the child will come to this conclusion and say; “Father, I have been deep in thought about my conception and have come to the conclusion that the only legitimate reason for my existence to come about was for you to garner more votes at the 2010 election. I must say this was an excellent idea on your part, old chap. What a brilliant way to deceit the voters into selecting The Conservative Party. Heil Thatcher!” Although the opposite is also possible, if the child grows up and is able to keep in touch with its emotions (rare for most Conservatives I know, but it’s probable) and then comes to this conclusion, the child could become so distraught by this fact that it could commit suicide, as it’s life means nothing and it was simply a pawn on the chessboard of political one-up-man-ship. That’s no life for a child! Best to end it now with an abortion, before this horror unfolds.

4 – Over-Population
This kind of connects to something I’ve been thinking about for a while. Basically to get us out of this economic gloom I believe that couples (and slutty girls) should be limited to the amount of children they have in order for the country to get back on track. [This will be discussed at further length in an upcoming Blog … so I’ll convince you then]

5 – This Child could be the Anti-Christ
I firmly believe that when/if the Anti-Christ is conceived it will be by the seed of a Tory. Now I’m not too hot on my Biblical scripture but I do believe the Apocalypse reads like this;

“The world shall come to its end when the tides begin to rise. The Anti-Christ will be conceived on the Eve of an Election by a loyal servant of the Devil. The loyal servant will be congratulated for his role with a position of power, with this he will bring about a reign of terror across the lands. Blood will run through the streets, house prices will go up, the poor shall be slaughtered as offering to Satan. Then the Anti-Christ shall be born, slicing its carrier in two, the Anti-Christ will then feed upon the body of its mother. The loyal servant will pass down the power to the Anti-Christ, upon this happening the Anti-Christ will proclaim; ‘The End is nign, it’s time to motherfuckin’ die!’ And the world shall be engulfed by hell.”

… or something like that. It’s best not to take a chance and abort it now if you ask me.