Austria Austrian police have staged a series of raids on bakeries across the country acting on information that their doughnuts do not contain enough jam. link now defunct

And quite right too!

It is absolutely outrageous that the good folk of Austria should arrive home after a hard day's shopping only to find when they have poured the tea and settled themselves in front of the TV that their doughnuts are acutely and heinously jam deficient.

What is the world coming to?

The European Union in its infinite and incontestable wisdom has made it abundantly clear that jam doughnuts must contain at least 15% of jam, and that there should be a perfectly reasonable three-year prison sentence in store for those who have the audacity to think otherwise, or who have the nerve to suggest that doughnuts should not really need to be defined by a percentagewise determination of their constituents.

Which, of course, they must.

In the UK, however, in a clear demonstration of just how feeble and lacking are politicians when it comes to the defence of those liberties considered most precious by citizens, the government seems to have willfully defied this most reasonable and scientific of nutritional dictats. 

No Sirree. Jam doughnuts in the UK do not need to have any jam in them at all! 

The only requirement appears to be that there must be a whopping great hole in the centre of the dough with sufficient volume to accommodate a tennis ball. 

And should, perchance, some paltry and highly suspect and circumstantial filling of any sort be discovered therein by one's roving and unsuspecting tongue, it is nowadays considered best to regard the entire episode as a particularly fortuitous occasion worthy of some celebration. And perhaps later it is wise also to send a grovelling letter of undying gratitude to the manufacturers lest they never allow it to happen again.

A fabulous idea.

No more stupid people; i.e. no more political correctoids or women gullible enough to support those hateful feminists would ever again be born!

Also ... "Watson, no stranger to controversy, also suggests that genes influencing beauty could also be engineered. "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."

Another fabulous idea!

Women should be granted an inalienable right not to be ugly.

And the UN should pass an urgent resolution to this effect forthwith.

Yo!

Now, talking of ugly women, let AH let his younger readers into a little secret.

Bar the extremes of ugliness, which is actually pretty rare these days, the desirability of womenfolk when based upon their prettiness is akin to that of little children comparing the taste of sweet and fruity juices to that of beer or whisky.

Figure out that one if you can!

The success of this pill would be a significant step forward in the liberation of men who, currently, for complete safety from unwanted pregnancies, have to rely - foolishly - on the competence, the honesty and the integrity of the females with whom they are conjugating - qualities which are clearly so lacking in many females these days that unwanted pregnancies in the UK exceed those of any other European nation.

Too often have men been defrauded of their futures because they have been hoodwinked into trusting their female partners.

And remember that there are some 180,000 abortions per year in the UK. These, too, are 'unwanted pregnancies'.

I recently saw a report showing that one of the main reasons that young teenage women became pregnant even though they were taking the contraceptive pill was because they did not understand the instructions! 

For example, some of these hapless females thought that they only needed to take the pill ONCE in order for it to be effective for the next 24 hours. Others had actually inserted the damn things into their vaginas believing that this is how the pill is supposed to be administered. 

And, as we know, many others, preferring free accommodation, 'liberation' from their parents, and welfare cheques - as well as money from the luckless semen donors - to a forty-hour week working in Woolworths, manage to get themselves pregnant by deception.

Indeed, a male contraceptive pill could have saved Boris Becker £3 million - a sum which he paid to the woman who had sex with him just ONCE inside a dank but roomy broom cupboard! 

But, of course, he shouldn't have had to pay a penny! (e.g. Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to have a Baby?)

Whatever the circumstances that prevail whereby men are essentially deceived into creating babies, an effective male contraceptive pill would afford them a great deal of protection, and it would give them far more control over their own reproductive capacities.

And it is about time that this happened!

And, of course, not only is it in the area of unwanted pregnancies and abortions that such a pill would save many men from the failures of some womenfolk. There is also the huge question of paternity fraud, in which large numbers of men - currently estimated at about 10% - are bamboozled into believing that they have fathered children when they have not. 

And a male contraceptive pill would clearly protect many men from such a circumstance because any pregnancy while using it would be highly suspicious and decidedly worthy of further investigation.

The article then goes on to describe her roaring success without once giving any evidence for all the prejudice that she allegedly had to fight against.

Indeed, by the time she was 23, she already had her own TV show! - i.e. she couldn't have had to fight any prejudice for very long.

Compared to most black men this queen of bullsh*t probably doesn't even know the meaning of the word prejudice.

And quite right too!

How can politicians possibly discuss serious national issues if their voices are being crowded out by the ghastly racket being generated by Ms Marshall's most recent of uterine evacuations as it sucks and slurps furiously at her plump moist teats?

Was this inconsiderate woman also expecting to remove her neonate's sticky and malodorous nappies while her highly distinguished parliamentary colleagues struggled to engage in both instructive and forceful debate?

Is there anything else that this woman would require of her country?

Are there no ends to the demands of western womenfolk?

Hi Jack

Let me point out just three things.

1. About 20 years ago, for some reason which I cannot quite remember, I read some in-depth research about the effects of an advertising campaign promoting Pan Yan Pickle - a sandwich spread. The advert was being displayed in different months in various TV regions in different parts of the UK, and the resulting change in sales in those regions was being very closely scrutinised by the manufacturing company - Rowntrees, I think.

Anyway.

Most of the advert consisted basically of a middle-aged man sitting peacefully by the river eating his sandwiches and watching his fishing line - with a monologue to do with how nice and peaceful fishing was. 

Only toward the very end of the advert was some association made with Pan Yan Pickle i.e. the product was hardly mentioned at all throughout the advert.

The findings were that product sales more than doubled in those regions where the advert was shown - which, to the company, represented MILLIONS of pounds.

I was astonished. Not only because the product was hardly mentioned in the advert, but because it also didn't have anything directly to do with fishing!

And my point is this.

The 'plots' of adverts are almost inconsequential. Provided that they produce a good feeling, they can succeed wonderfully well.

And so the male-bashing found in so many adverts these days often arises simply because the advertisers want to connect their product with a storyline - any storyline - that has a 'good feeling' to it.

Humour often produces a good feeling. But, in today's climate, while humour is permitted at the expense of men, it is not permitted at the expense of women.

This a major problem for the advertisers.

2. My guess is that, for the most part, advertisers are not particularly setting out to bash males, but they have to come up with something! However, they wouldn't dare poke fun at women, because the feminists would be after them - which means, basically, that they can only poke fun at men.

AH

Ten year sentence - for yapping at an American woman

A large pizza feeds a family of four!

Well, what a surprise!

As I keep saying, unless they change the teaching methods, these amazingly incompetent politically-corrected educationalists will achieve very little.

Having said this, the bottom 5% of 'normal' children (i.e. those without recognised specific learning disabilities such as 'dyslexia') have amazing difficulties when it comes to their ability to deal with symbolic information - letters, numbers, words, formulae etc.

And these 'normal' children are mostly not very bright in other ways too!

However, many teachers have been trained over the years to believe that children do not vary in terms of their cognitive abilities - a clear demonstration of how almost unbelievable is the stupidity and/or deceitfulness of many educationalists in the universities - but, the truth of the matter is that children differ enormously in terms of their abilities.

Their differences emulate those between a Pentium III and a 486!

And some of them, of course, are actually brain damaged in some way, despite the fact that this might not be very obvious - particularly to those professionals who believe that differences between children are merely caused by their environmental circumstances.

And now here is one of my anecdotes! 

Some 12 years ago I came across a woman teacher with some 8 years of professional experience who was explaining why the following clue in a junior crossword for 7 year-olds was sexist and should not be allowed.

"A girl may wear this to a party. dr..."

The reason was, she argued, that the question implied that only a girl would wear a dress and, further, that it would encourage girls to wear dresses.

It was eye-rolling stuff!

Anyway.

It also transpired that her firm belief was that the only reason that children differed in terms of their academic performance was related to their economic circumstance, and that the concept of intelligence was nothing more than hot air. 

And no amount of argument would change her mind on this.

But an opportunity arose to relieve her of this ridiculous notion.

It happened by chance that two boys, aged 10, arrived in her classroom having been transferred from other schools.

Boy D was transferred for being too Disruptive and aggressive in his last school - a normal primary state school.

Boy P had been in a Private school with a significant reputation but he was just unable to cope academically and so he was withdrawn.

Needless to say, Boy D's academic performance was not as good as was Boy P's, by a long way!

And here is the interesting thing. Both boys had been investigated by Educational Psychologists to understand the reasons for their 'failures', and as part of their investigations, the IQs of the boys had been assessed.

Now, these IQ tests suggested that Boy D, the Disruptive boy, was, in fact, much brighter, by a long way, than Boy P, the one who had been to a good Private school..

And our feminist teacher was made fully aware of this when she looked at the reports on them. The IQ results, she dismissed completely.

And, of course, the 'proof' of her position was in front of her!

After all, Boy D was economically poor - living on a council estate. He was of mixed race and lived in a single-mother household. And his academic standard was low.

Conversely, Boy P, whose parents were well-off, middle class, white, and willing to spend a fortune on their son's education, was far more advanced than Boy D.

Case proved!

Until, that was, our feminist friend actually had to teach the pair of them.

Well, to cut a long story short, Boy D was very soon sitting near the top of the class with hardly any effort, while Boy P had barely progressed at all. In fact, according to our feminist friend, he seemed to have gone backward - which was probably the case.

And so the IQ scores meant something!

However! To give this feminist woman her due, the evidence before her completely changed her attitude toward IQ tests and toward claims about the nature of intelligence, and she began to see - and admit -  that she had once been taught, and believed, a lot of politically-correct nonsense.

She had seen the light!

But Angry Harry! Did she change her views about the dress question in the crossword? 

Did she? Did she? Did she? 

Well, the truth is that I don't know.

But, probably not!

But he failed in his attempt!

Still. No matter how much you hate your lawyer - or, even more likely, her lawyer - murder will achieve nothing. It will do the exact opposite of what you really desire.

If on occasion you feel like murdering a lawyer or two - and don't we all!? - then do it with words on the internet.

Kill the lawyers with your grammar, your punctuation, your vocabulary and your stocks of verbal weaponry!

"Hurry up Woman! It's freezing out here."

But the very notion reminds me of an off-the-cuff remark that I once made many years ago and which did not go down too well with those who heard it.

Whilst having afternoon tea with a few others in the sunny garden of a friend whose daughter was celebrating something or other - her first experience of domestic violence probably - a rather large dog with big teeth in the adjacent garden - safely ensconced behind a wooden fence - perchance started to bark and snarl at me rather viciously for no apparent reason.

The hostess smiled at me sympathetically. "She doesn't like men," she said, offering me a sandwich.

"A feminist bitch then!?" I retorted most cleverly - expecting rapturous applause from all those around me. (female dog, bitch, get it?)

But nobody even even smiled.

And so shortly thereafter I skulked off to the living room and spent the remainder of the afternoon in the company of a pair of old grandmothers who kept busily dipping biscuits in their tea and talking about their families while the laughter from a TV game show playing out in the background oftentimes attracted their attention.

But there was a ray of light that cheered him up.

After about half an hour, one of the old dears suddenly looked away from the TV and peered over at me with added scrutiny.

"Are you the one who dislikes feminists?" she asked sternly - out of the blue.

"Er. Yes. Sort of," I replied, completely thrown off guard.

"Good for you," she said, nodding approvingly while turning back toward the TV. "I don't like them either." 

And, fortunately or otherwise, the conversation never went any further.

But it was enough!

The Future is Female

Yeah, right.

Eight wives! And every one of them turns out to be a harlot and a hustler!?

This just goes to show what scurrilous schemers and cunning connivers are these Brazilian womenfolk.

The proof is now in.

Women the world over are nowadays nothing more than heartless hussies and heinous hos!

Hmm. Sounds good!

But, reducing the voting age to 16? Hmm. I don't think so. 

At the age of 16 people are far too young to understand the ins and outs of life. They're butt-full of emotions and crazy ideals.

And the politicians will end up pandering to them!

Free food for everybody! Yeeeesssss!

No more schools! Yeeeesssss!

No tax on alcohol. Free transport. Join Europe. Join the world. No borders. No immigration rules! 

Yeeeesssss!

Giving 16 year olds the vote is a ridiculous idea.

They will have the effect of pushing us in the wrong directions.

They should be listened to, of course. 

But only people over 25 should have the vote.

And people over 50 should get two votes! 

And people over 75 should get three votes! 

And people over 100 should get four votes!

V = int(a/25) 

The power of Maths!

In my most expert opinion, the votes should be weighted in the direction of greater experience and general wisdom.

But Angry Harry, there are four times as many women as men over the age of 75. The male vote would be completely swamped!

Hmm.

And therein lies the flaw.

But there are many solutions that come to mind!

A good solution to such a diabolical and heinous form of sex-discrimination against men would be to take back the vote from women altogether.

After all, what have they done with it, except to create the most unwholesome mess?

Anyway. What was the point of giving women the vote?

Whom did it benefit?

Not me!

That's for sure!

Men should just take it back and say, "OK. OK. You've had your fun now. You've had a fair chance to prove that you are worthy of such a privilege. But you failed the test. It's time to get your arse back into the kitchen to make the tea."

You see. Women will never do anything worthwhile with the vote.

It's like giving a typewriter to a female chimpanzee and expecting her to write like Shakespeare.

It's like giving candy to a five year old girl and saying, "Share it with your friends."

It's like giving an adolescent female a mirror and telling her not to spend all day looking at it.

Giving the vote to women was the cultural equivalent of giving the population the Black Plague.

It has caused no end of hardship and misery.

And a good solution is for men to take it back!

That would put an end to all this sex-discrimination!

Ah yes. Here in the UK, where we spend eight times more on women's health issues than on men's, and where people even with cancer have to wait some considerable time before they are seen or treated, and in a country which has one of the poorest results in Europe when it comes to cancer treatment, we manage to find the money to pay for women to enlarge their breasts despite the fact that the health service workers are constantly complaining that they are short of resources.

In one English county demand has risen to such an extent that psychologists are now asked to vet the women with small breasts and decide who will benefit from breast enlargement surgery. 

Sounds like a job for me!

"Hmm. Let's have a look at these liitle things. Get them out. Hmm. Not bad. Turn to the side a little. Hmm. A little on the flat side. They feel quite firm though. And they rub quite well. Hmm. Put your hands on your head. Hmm. Jiggle them up and down a bit. Hmm. No, I don't think so. Come back and see me next week and I'll see how they are progressing. That'll be fifty pounds."

There are real fortunes being made in this ever-growing breast industry.

And I would like a piece of the action!

The future is female.

AH always does his morning exercise before breakfast.

Trisha, the one whose TV chat programme has, in my view, probably done more to damage UK men than any other e.g. see AH's Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to have a Baby? 

How many times have I told my magnificent readers that the women who continually fuel the hate-stirring propaganda against men are, well, let's just say, not normal?

Hundreds of times.

And from this article it would appear that "Trisha" fits the bill rather well.

Who's the common denominator when it comes to all the disharmony and 'abuse', eh?

She is.

Only 2%?

What do they mean by 'only' 2%?

How on earth are women in their 80s and 90s managing to have any sex at all?

And what kind of sex are they actually having without breaking anything? This is what I would like to know.

And where are the luckless men who are undoubtedly being ruthlessly and rudely forced into giving these feeble old skinbags some sex actually coming from?

Ah yes. Perhaps from the planet Krypton.

Yes, that must be it!

When the lights are out and Doris has finally set her teeth fizzing away in the glass, through the doorway appears a handsome rugged-jaw hunk with the pectorals of a polar bear dressed in leotards.

What other explanation is there?

Human men are mostly dead and gone by then, surely?

And the few remaining men who do survive to such an old age can barely walk and talk, never mind hump and pump.

Men who manage to survive into their 80s and 90s have heart disease, brittle bones, arthritis and mental problems. How can they possibly be having sex?

It simply cannot be.

Is it really possible that the tiny number of men who have actually managed to remain breathing at this age are actually doing all the rounds sexually fulfilling the 2%? You know - perhaps sneaking themselves into all the rooms at the nursing homes.

And how do we know that this 2% of ancient women were actually telling the truth in this telephone survey?

Maybe they were lying or misunderstood the questions.

"Have you had any recently?"

"Whaaat?"

"Have you had any recently?"

""Whaaat?"

"Sex!?"

"Yes."

"You've had sex!?"

"Whaaat?"

"Sex!?"

"Did you say, Sex?"

"Yes. I said Sex!"

"Whaaat?"

Well, you see the point!

Nevertheless, some of these old codgers clearly never give up trying! ...

The notion that rape is worse than many other things that happen to prisoners of war is politically correct feminist bullsh*t. Even the feminist Germaine Greer has claimed that she would rather be raped (which she claims she already has been) than have her little finger chopped off or be beaten up.

Indeed, a TV advertisement for British Telecom currently doing the rounds throughout the UK suggests that rape is actually something to have a good laugh about - the rape of a male, that is.

"Well, I would have reported it sooner Sergeant, but I didn't know I'd been raped until the cheque bounced."