Kylie Minogue in Secret Teddy Sex Romp Shame

I recently added a picture to my Facebook page. I found it mildly amusing and thought others might enjoy it.

As you can see, the picture shows Kylie Minogue holding a teddy with, what I assume to be, a microphone between its legs.

I know not if this pose was struck deliberately or by accident. I prefer to think it's unintentional, as that's funnier.

I was surprised a few hours later to see that the image had disappeared from my page. I was even more surprised, the next day, to receive an email from Facebook telling me I'd uploaded an image that had violated their user policy.

"Facebook does not allow photos that attack an individual or group, or that contain nudity, drug use, violence or other violations of the Terms of Use."

Perhaps the censor thought I was actually suggesting Kylie wanked off a real bear and the image was of his real engorged member throbbing in Kylie's expert grip? Seems unlikely, so I'm not sure what violation I am guilty of. I wasn't attacking anyone, the bear isn't real and even if it was I don't think it would count as nudity (although bestiality is probably frowned upon as well), there's no violence or drug taking featured (unless you choose to imagine that the bear has been drugged with Rohypnol), so what's the problem?

The only other thing may be that a follower (or friend as Facebook calls them; which doesn't quite provide the same Messiah like feeling as Twitter's followers does, so I refuse to use it), may have complained.

If that's the case, the poor sod who was in charge of reviewing reported abuse on Facebook that night would have been more reasonable if he'd filed the complaint in the over sensitive kill joy file (which is also the bin).

To be honest, it wouldn't have bothered me if it hadn't been for the fact that, on the same day, Facebook had refused to take down a page dedicated to the 'legend' Raoul Moat following a request from 10 Downing St. A page that, apart from aggrandising the callous, rapist, kid beating, murderer, apparently attracted a lot of unsavoury comments about the police and his victims. The owner of the group finally took it down after realising it was exposing her as a massive fuckwit.

My own personal opinion is that both my silly little post and the Moat group should not have been taken down. Not that I equate the offensiveness of my post with that vile group, but the principle should be the same. We all have the right to express our opinions and humour (or in this case share a picture that made me chuckle), even if that means we make cocks of ourselves. The Moat group exposed its creator, and members, as half wits and opened them up to ridicule. My post may have offended one or two teddy bear rights activists but they can be protected from my evil teddy bear abuse pictures by simply unfriending me, sorted, everyone is happy (apart from the poor East European teddy bears being systematically abused by celebrities... but that's another story).

Not Really Apples With Apples

I read that Gordon Brown compares himself to Barack Obama in his first interview since he finally gave the British people a chance to decide if they wanted him or not. As we know (and knew long before the day) they didn't and Labour's vote slumped to sub Michael Foot 1983 election levels.

There's one big difference between Brown and Obama... well there's lots... but there is one major difference that I think Brown can't ever bring himself to admit to. And it's not that he's not black; he came to terms with that after that awful YouTube gurning incident. No, it's that he was never elected Prime Minister. He really shouldn't be comparing himself with genuine, elected leaders.

Meanwhile, during his speech earlier, Mr Brown had made light of losing the British general election in May.

He said he was someone who "spent some time as a politician before becoming a community organiser".

Mr Brown contrasted himself with President Barack Obama "who spent some time as a community organiser before becoming a politician".

Interesting that he can only bring himself to surface in public abroad. He clearly feels more comfortable in Africa than at home. I imagine Zimbabwe will need a new unelected dictator soon. Even Gordon couldn't fuck up that economy any more than it already is... or could he?

Blair Faced Cheek!

Is see Labour just keep on costing us...






It's being reported that our last (elected) PM's bodyguards alone are costing the tax payer £250,000 a year, in expenses.

Tony Blair really does have some bare faced, (orangey) cheek. Don't get me wrong, I fully accept the need to protect ex-PMs. And I understand that a relatively young and still active one, like Blair, is going to cost a substantial amount of dosh to protect. But it seems some of the cost is down to the numerous holidays the Blair's take. I can only hope it was the Labour Party that met the cost of Tony's visit during the General Election. But the point is that in this new age of austerity, it really isn't on to be spending thousands of pounds protecting a very well paid individual while he, and his also very well paid wife, sun themselves on exclusive beaches.

My suggestion would be to offer a generous maximum amount of paid protection to ex-PMs and then expect them to pay any additional costs incurred on top of that by their swanning around the world, unless their activities were directly in the interests of Britain. The days of issuing blank cheques at the public's expense are over and that should extend to the likes of the Blairs as much as everyone else.

Luckily, Gordon is all but unemployable following his disastrous premiership. So he won't be jetting hither and dither at anyones expense.

However, as the people of Britain begin to pay the price for his profligacy with higher taxes and lower public spending, I suspect the cost of protecting him will be a lot less if he's abroad than if he's at home. In fact, perhaps he's already worked this out and has fled the country. That would explain the little that's been seen of him (doing what he's paid for) in Parliament recently.