Frankie Boyle V's Jimmy Carr

Frankie Boyle has for some years now earned a reputation for telling some of the most offensive jokes around. Topics include incest, pedophilia, murder, the royals and other such taboos. One of his less offensive lines include

"I hear the reason we need to Olympics is to boost national pride, if that's what you want then for £18.9 million we could write 'Fuck off Germany' on the moon"

"I read in the news that Margaret Thatcher might be getting a state funeral, I'd say give everyone in Scotland a shovel and we can hand the bitch over to Satan personally"

"Recent surveys show 3 out of 10 men have a problem with premature ejaculation. The rest just didn't really think it was a problem!"

He recently got into trouble with these jokes

"Jordan and Peter Andre are still fighting each other over custody of Harvey - eventually one of them will lose and have to keep him. I have a theory about the reason Jordan married a cage fighter - she needed a man strong enough to stop Harvey from fucking her..."

This caused a stink from those involved with disabled kids for very obvious reasons.

My issue with this is two fold. Firstly, his act is based around the idea that he shocks, and he's not exactly an unknown anymore. The chances of someone watching one of shows and being surprised by what he says is very slim. Unfortunately he is in the position that he has to raise the bar constantly and as a result has said he will retire in a few years anyway, least he becomes a parody of himself.
The second issue is that he is far from the most offensive comic around today. Indeed, Jimmy Carr has crossed the line many times with lines like

"Say what you like about these servicemen amputees from Iraq and Afghanistan, but we’re going to have a fucking good Paralympic team in 2012."

"I'm not being condescending, I'm too busy thinking about far more important things you wouldn't understand.

"I saw a charity appeal in the Guardian the other day, and it read "Little Zuki has to walk 13 miles a day just to fetch water". And I couldn't help thinking, she should move.

"African child dies? I watched those, and couldn't help thinking, "well stop clicking your fingers!"

Just as bad as Frankie yet he never gets into too much trouble.

I did find it odd that after some years of taking the piss out of Jordon and her kids, Its only now, when jordons not been in the media spotlight for more ten minutes that she suddenly finds her outrage.

It all boils down to a few questions. Is it ok to tell offensive jokes, if not than who decides if its offensive or not, and if you are offended then why are you listening to it?

Personally there are many many religious, political and racial statements made that i find sickening and highly offensive. But would I every try to stop people from saying these things? Hell no! I just turn off the TV channel, close the book magazine, walk away from the guy on the soap box.

We need to remember that men like Roy chubby brown and Jim Davidson are no longer on TV, not because they are offensive but because not enough people find them funny.

99% of all that we find funny is based on one person laughing at another. A friend making an arse of themselves or an Irish joke. I tend to find those that complain the most about an "offensive" joke are the ones that will happily laugh at others but don't like it when the joke is on them or someone close to themselves

Classic example, Issac Hayes spent many years working on the show South Park, a comedy that has ridiculed every belief and religion going. This he was ok with. But when an episode aired questioning and openly mocking Scientology, Hayes's own belief, he quit the show in disgust and joined the moral band wagon.

wimmins lib?

Over the years we have seen the social standing of women in society changing. at the end of the 19th century we had women not being able to vote, hold office, divorce her husband on the same grounds that he could her and many many more inequalities. Those was clearly wrong and had to be address and from the suffragettes to the female eunuch we saw many movements to bring about this change*.

This change of law and society in general could not come about without a change in attitude. The days of women being seen as the weaker sex had to go. This in theory is a good thing but had some strange side effects that no-one could have predicted.

If we are to achieve full equality we must accept that there are no such things as "mans job" "women's role" etc. There must be nothing out of bounds for either sex. The 2012 Olympics will be the first to feature women's boxing, only a hundred years after women were first banned from running the marathon on the grounds that "their wombs might fall out" and other such nonsense. Indeed, women were banned right up until 1984!

When we look at the idea that there should be no activities that should be considered "male domain" or "not something a woman should do" we need to look at all activities, even the bad ones. In the late '90's we saw a rise of what was called laddette culture, personified by girls like DJ's Zoe Ball and Sara Cox. these were girls who would going clubbing, get drunk and behave like any normal bloke would on a Saturday night including getting argumentative, eating kebabs, random hook ups etc.

This was a sign that we had crossed the point at which women stopped wanting to "men" things because they were previously told they couldn't because of their gender and were now wanting to them simply because they wanted to do them. While this seems a very very minor semantically point it is actually an earth shatteringly important part of our cultural history. It meant that we now had the first generation of women that did not understand, let alone follow, this idea that as a woman, they had a set list of rules by which to live by that was different from the men.

In my own life this has manifested itself in my wife leaving me with the kids and my sister leaving my brother-in-law in the same way. It seems anyone over the age of 45 see's this as very strange that a woman would leave her children to go back to the single life and yet they are perfectly accepting of a man doing it. Those under 45 on the whole see this a couple splitting up and the kids, for the sake of a stable environment stays with ONE of the parents and doesn't see any problem in it being a man (except that its quite rare)

I wonder if Mary Shelly Wollstonecraft would have done anything different if she had known that the movement she started all those years ago would have lead to this?

I don't think so and I would have to agree with her. After all, life is not a Disney movie full of happy endings.

Letter to the times

Dear Sir,

I listened with interest when Harriet Harman, Deputy leader of the Labour party, questioned Nick Clegg on his apparently U-turn on tuition fees at PMQs today.
Would this be the same Labour party that gained massive student support in 1997 by promising not to bring in tuition fees?
Mr Clegg is in a coalition in which two partys have had to go through both their manifestos and agree to put forward ideas that they would not have pursued if they had won the election out right.
Given the landslide that Labour had in '97 they had no such excuse when they brought in the very fees they are now complaining about.
Also, is this the same Ms Harman that demanded all-woman shortlist for safe seats, (unless her husband stood), that everyone should be free from discrimination and insults (unless they are ginger), and that everyone are innocent until proven guilty and given the chance to appeal, (unless they are Phil Woolas).

Partys going back on election promises? people being two-faced? I remember an old saying that had something to do with stones and greenhouses, can anyone help me with that?

I remain Sir, your obedient servant

Dean Temple

Witney
Oxon

From the mouth of babes,

Just been watching QI on BBC1 with the lovely Stephen Fry.
Three very cleaver people discussed the concept of "if a tree falls in forest and there is no-one to hear it, does it make a sound?"

The old points of what we define as sound i.e. a sound it the vibration in the ear and thus no ear, no sound and other such very cleaver points.

Then Jonny Vegas leaned forward and said "you's lot are bangin' on about sound waves an' stuff. By the same token, you see from light an' stuff, so if no-one see's it fall, is the bugger still stood up then?"

Gotta love the genius of a simple mind!

History in a way a bloke can understand

If World War One was a bar Fight...Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of a pub when Serbia bumps into Austria and spills Austria's pint. Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit because there are splashes on its trouser leg. Germany expresses its support for Austria's point of view. Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit. Serbia points out that it can't afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for the cleaning of Austria's trousers. Russia and Serbia look at Austria. Austria asks Serbia who it's looking at. Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone. Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so. Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene. Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it? Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action. Britain and France ask Germany whether it's looking at Belgium. Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone. Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium. France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other. Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it's on Britain's side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria. Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings because Britain made Australia do it. France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change. Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting. America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself. By now all the chairs are broken and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany's fault . While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends.

from the http://www.tentimesone.com/ website.

Obamacare, An Englishmans view

I've looked at the terms set out in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and really cannot see why everyone is using the British NHS as a reason not to support it.
The new "Obamacare" system seems to be nothing like the NHS and just a tweaking of what is all ready there. Let me explain,

In Britain we have a simple-ish system. The employee pays nothing on the first £110, 11% of any earnings between £110 and £844 with a further 1% on any earnings overs £844, Per week. In addition the employer pays an additional amount equal to 12.8% of the said employees weekly earnings after the first £110.
That's the maths bit over with!
This then pays for GPs surgeries, hospitals, ambulances, and other associated costs in the NHS.
We also have a private health service called BUPA, (there are others but bupa is the main one.) as well as private clinics for specific medical needs.
The American system Seems to be based on Bupa and every one has health care insurance. There are many charitable or free hospitals that don't charge but in the main the medical service most Americans receive is paid for and the cost is covered by insurance pay outs.
For those unable to afford this insurance or over over 65 there is Medicare. Signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B Johnson it was a form of insurance that covered basic health care but is capped at a certain level, leaving some with out cover for the most serious of conditions.
Add to this the way most insurance firms will do anything to get out of not paying, health care in States for the vulnerable became a major issue that President Obama sort to address.

The act itself is so long with so many add ons its hard to get a good handle on it but in summery we have

-cheaper drugs
-health care for native Americans
-insurance for people with pre-existing complaints
-children staying on their parents health plans till they are 26
-medicare extended to those earning 133% of the poverty line.
-10% tax on indoor tanning salons! (WTF?)
-those earning $200k will pay and extra 0.5% in tax (kinda like our national insurance?)
-no cap on what medicare can pay out for

Etc etc, with some happening right away but others coming in over the next 4 years.

So, is this moving towards the dreaded NHS that scares Americans so? Nah, no where near. Fear not America all that you fear about the nasty NHS will be kept away from you.

As an accountant i can see that those with decent incomes will be paying more to benefit those without and insurance firms will look for any excuse to raise premiums. But apart from that I'd say don't worry about it. As Benjamin Franklin said, In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.

child benifit

Why are the Tories backing down on the idea of taking child benefit away from the rich? And what the hell are Labour doing questioning this?

To pay the higher rate of income tax a British subject needs to earn over £850 A WEEK! I'm sure they really need the extra £26 that child benefit brings.

In this difficult time we need to make massive cuts and we need to make sure the poor don't suffer. Taking benefits away from those that don't need it and will hardly miss it ticks both these boxes.

Whats the problem?

poacher turned gamekeeper?

I awake today to the news that the Tory party conference will attended by one M Mcguiness. For those too young or not from the UK, Martin McGuiness is the leader of Sinn Fein in the Stormont parliament and spent many years as a Commanding officer in the IRA. He was in a senior position there when the IRA bombed the Tory conference back in 1984 killing 5 and injuring 34. In this age of peace and reconciliation we have many conflicts across the world that are now over and those involved need to admit what they did, apologize for the hurt they cause and move on. The IRA/Sinn Fein have never shown any remorse for the thousands of innocent civilians caught up in the war and for McGuiness to attend the conference is a bitter pill to swallow.

In accountancy, there are two types of expenditure, Capital and Revenue.
Capital expenditure is the purchase of an expensive item, normally with borrowed money, for some thing the business will hold onto for at least 12 months. These are seen as investments in the future. The repayment of the money borrowed is then spread over a period of time, normally the life of the usefulness of the purchase, and these repayments and any interest on them are then are classed as Revenue expenses.
Revenue expenses are costs that occur on a regular period. They can take the form of staff wages, utility bills and other day to day expenses, including of course, debt repayment. This must always be paid for from the income of the business. The reason for this will become clear later but first let us explore another basic concept.
The basic business model is that when income and expenditure are compared we have the equation:-
INCOME –EXPENDITURE = PROFIT or LOSS
If a business, charity, school, individual or even a government, regularly makes a loss it needs to either raise revenue/income, lower costs/expenditure or both. Success in doing this means the equation shows a profit. Failure to do this means the business; individual etc will fail and be forced by its creditors to file for bankruptcy.
A common error spotted in the wreckage of such bankrupts is that credit is used to pay off revenue expenses. A small businessman may use his/her company credit card to pay the electricity bill or take a loan to cover this quarters VAT bill. The error lies in simple maths. The businessman considers the debt paid when it is not, it is simply owed to someone else. He/she also fails to understand that not only is the debt still there but is now increasing and will continue to increase.
Consider which of these two are worse,
Owing British Gas £200 plus £15 late payment fee, or £220 to Visa going up by 2.75% a month until the debt is settled.
If credit is continually used to as a method to cover overspends over a long period of time then there is a risk of what is known as a spiral of debt, i.e.:-
Month one income £10,000 expenses £10,500
So £500 is borrowed to cover the short fall to paid off at £50 a month so,
Month two income £10,000 expenses £10,550 (including £50 a month debt repayment)
So another £550 is borrowed to cover the short fall at £55 a month on top of the £50 a month already being paid so,
Month three income £10,000 expenses £10,605(including £50 from the first months debt and £55 from the next)
Meaning another £650 is borrowed to................. well, we get the picture.
When we apply this to home, it becomes very clear. When I was a child, the money from all wages was handed to my mother. At the start of her financial week, normally Friday night when my father returned home from work with his wage packet, she would plan ahead and set a budget for each bill, meal and foreseen event. If, on the rare occasion that we run out of money before Friday night then no more purchases could be made. If there was no bread for toast in the morning you’d have to have cereal. If there was no milk for the cereal, use the tap. If something had to be paid then she would borrow the money from a friend, paying it back on the Friday night. This was only used on exceptional cases. But if she did borrow it, then come Friday night, when setting her budget for the following week, she would have less to work with, due to the over spend the week prior. For this reason we were taught never to have an overdraft or credit cards. (How I wish I’d have stuck with that) As my father got better jobs over the years, my mother was able to buy better food and clothing for us and our lifestyle improved. But it always stayed in line with the income. If we could not afford it then we did without.
The basic rule of the household was, and still is, the same. When you know how much income you have you budget accordingly. If day to day expenses are higher than expected income then you change your income, expenses or both. You give up smoking, shop at Asda rather than Waitrose, etc. If your income cannot cover the expense of an activity then clearly you must stop doing that activity.
When we come to looking at the national budget using the same accounting methods we spot something rather strange.
Bearing in mind the number of people in work did not change more than a few percentage points per annum. The treasury could get a decent estimate on the amount of tax due in to HMRC. Similarly, the numbers on benefits and the type of benefits claimed by them did not fluctuate to any great extent and so the welfare figures are also elementary. Because these two sections of the budget are pretty much fixed, the only variable is what to spend on government departments. Any over spend comes as a result the government budgeting for more than it had in the coffers. To cover this, the government would need to borrow to make up the short fall.
Unlike the global recession, this overspend had been happening since 1997. Some argue that a lot of the borrowing was down to badly needed redevelopment. This argument fails on the grounds that the bulk of the budgets since 2003 have been spent on day to day expenses with increases in benefits and public services costs and repayment of the deficit and not any large scale redevelopment. Whilst this is commendable that we have a government that wishes to help those less fortunate than our selves we must bear in mind that continued overspending that is funded by debt is, as we have seen, not sustainable. The more a country borrows the more it owes and has to pay back. Indeed, we now have deficit so large that it will top 11% of our GDP by the end of this year. To put that in perspective, the UK went bust in 1976 running a budget deficit of 6% of GDP. This means an increasingly larger portion of the income is spent on repayment of debt year on year. To take this to its logical conclusion, we would eventually reach a point at which the repayments are larger than our income. At some point a government needs to step in to reduce the deficit to avoid this happening. Sadly though, this means stripping back on what we are over spending on and the people who suffer most from this are those the original over spend was meant to help, i.e. the poor.
By using the basic laws of accountancy we can draw only two conclusions from the actions of the Labour party over the last 13 years.
Either they did not understand that continued borrowing would be a problem and so cannot be trusted in the future or that it was a deliberate attempt to curry favour with the public knowing that who ever came in to reduce the deficit would be seen as “the bad guys”. I’m not sure which is worse.
In future I believe that the country needs to follow what I call the handbag principle. That is that the economy must always be run the same way as a household. Yes it’s nice to have better things and have a better way of life. But if you cannot afford it now and can see no way to increase your incomes to allow for it then do without!

crap ex

Well looks like i'm off to the court house soon. Ex wife was being a dick about her access to the kids and so i just told her to go, leave them alone. Just got a letter from her lawer claiming all sort of crap. threatening orders, injunctions etc.

so let me get this right. A couple split up. one goes off and partys and see's the kids when ever it suits her and pays nothing in maintanance. the other gives up work to raise the kids and provide for them on what little he can raise and has to mop up the tears when mummy doesn't bother to call for months and doesn't show up to see the kids.

yeah, so that make me the bad guy right?

other posts

Just had a brief look around the site and have some bad news for a lot of you.

Yes I have religious and political beliefs but I refuse to shove them down anyones throat and tell them they are wrong.

The police and government of any country are made up of human beings and as such are falible. however, this does not mean i'll be claiming they are all bad/wonderful and the grounds of the behavior of a few heros/arseholes.

My kids are important to me but they are not my whole life so I refuse to bored the crap out of anyone by saying how wonderful they are.

If, and it's a big if, I post my opinion about anything then it is just that: MY OPINION. It is not fact, law, or statement of intent. if you disagree and wish to have a chat about it, then I would love that. its only through asking questions that we learn.
However, If you just want to rant and rave about what a bad person I am or how I'm gonna go strait to hell than be warned, I'm not as dumb as I let on. I will take down any bigoted, redneck, fascist, lefty who's brain cannot hold more than one concept at any time. ALL theories and beliefs can be destroyed by asking too many questions about them and examining them to the Nth degree.

I'm happy to chat but please forgive me if I don't reply as fast as you would wish. I'm only human and have a life that exists outside the interweb!

Saying that, it might be that no-one reads this so then no-one gets offended so that's all good.

same shit, different day

Kids at school, I'm still out of work. Ex-wife still not playing ball with the maintenance and the even the chickens in the yard are getting more nocturnal company than me.

saying that, united have signed a new striker and looking good for their first season in leauge for years. chickens are still laying eggs. cat is keeping the mice from the door. And we have the torys back at number 10.

Supper party last Friday was a good night, neighbours have moved so even though the party went on till 6am no-one said a thing.

must remember to put less topping on the tiramisu next time :-(