You'll Never Drink Alone

George Best

1946-2006, 59% vol.

Apparantly Manchester United will let fans dictate the form that a memorial to Best will take. With the advent of 24 hour drinking, ISTBO suggests etching his face onto the bottom of every beer or spirit glass in every bar and pub in the country to remind people of the effects of heavy drinking: fun, attention, and the respect of your fellow drinker.

I'd Love To Say I Hate To Say I Told You So...

Joy To The World:

"It emerged during the hearing that Mrs Axon's daughter Joy, 16, is pregnant and plans to carry the baby to term, although she became pregnant after Mrs Axon launched her case more than a year ago."

You must be so proud, Sue.
I'm Over The Moon, really I am.

Hail To The Chief

IFlwdAyMyNclnacsn, ByVrtuOfMyCnclacsn.

Linguists have discovered that the 'dialect' of Text, as used in the text messages of the modern youth, is not as first thought an appalling butchery of the English language, but actually the renaissance of the language of one of Britain's greatest authors:

"Xpryns,ThoNnAthryty
WrNThsWrld, WrRtYnf2Me
2SpkOfWoThtIsNMrrg;
4,Lrdngs,SthI12YrWzOfAj,
ThnkdBGd, ThtIsYtrnOnLyv,
Hsbnds @ ChchDrIHvHd5-
4ISoOftHvYwddB-
NdAllWrWthyMnInHrDgrE.
BtMeWzTld, Cyrtn, NtLngAgoIs,
ThtSthThtCrstNeWntNvrBt1ns
2WdngInThCynFGylyly,
ThtByThSymExmpl,TghtHeMe,
ThtINeShdWddBBt1ns.
HrknEk,Lo,WchAShrpWrd4TheNns,
BsdAWlGsus, GdNMn,
SpkNRprvOfThSmrtn.
ThwHstHd5Hsbnds,
QdHe,
NThlkMnThWchThtHthNwThE
IsNtThynHsbnd. ThsSdHeCyrtn.
WhtThtHeMntThrBy, IKnNtSyn;
BtThtIAx, WyThtTh5thMn
WzNnHsbnd2ThSmrtn?
HwMnyMytSheHvNMrrg?
YtHrdINvrTllnNMynAge
UpnThsNmbrDfnnshn.
MenMADyvn,NGlsnUpNDwn,
BtWelIWt,Xprs,WthtLy,
GdBdUs42WxNMltply;
ThtGntlTxtCnIWelNdrstnd.
EkWelIWt,HeSd,MynHsbnd
ShdLtFdrNMdr.NTk2Me;
BtOf0NmbrMncnMdHe,
OfBgmy/OfOctgymy;
YShdMnSpkOfItVlynE?
Lo, HrThWyzKng, DnSlmn;
ITrwHeHdWyvsMoThn1-
AsWldGd, ItLvflWr2Me
2BRfrshd1/2SoFtAsHe!
WchYftOfGdHdHe, 4AllHsWyvs!
NoMnHthSchThtInThsWrldLyvIs.
GdWt, ThsNblKng, As2MyWit,
The1stNytHdAMryFit
WthYchOfThm, SoWelWzHmOnLyv!
YblsdBGd, ThtIHvWdd5;
(OfWchIHvPykdOutThBst,
BthOfHrNthrPrsNOfHrChst.
DvrsSclsMknPrfytCrks,
NDvrsPrktykInMnySndryWrks
MkthThWrkmnPrfytSkrly;
Of5HsbndsSklyng’mI.)
WlcmTh6th, WhnThtEvrHeShl.
4SthIWlNtKypMeChstInAl.
WhnMynHsbndIsFrThWrldGn,
SmCrstnMnShlWdMeAnon.
4ThnThPstlSythThtI’mFrE,
2Wd, AGdds1/2, WhrItLkthMe.
HeSyth, Tht2BWddIs0Sn,
BetIs2BWddThn2Brn."

Amen

Don't know when I'll next have regular internet access, so this is by way of a Gone Fishing...

ISTBO-Children In Need Of Better Parents

This is what someone's precious little angel did at school last week.
No, not with scissors, not that one. This is another sweet innocent light of someone's life. She managed to do this damage with just her hands and the rings on them. Of course Danielle here did deserve it; she won two school awards for academic achievement. How dare she?

I think we need to face facts here. This country is facing a crisis. In a decade or two's time this is going to be an appalling place to live. Not because of terrorism, or some violent twisted ideology that certain people are trying to pass off as a religion, or pollution, or traffic, no, nor even because of the government. It's going to be appalling because of children.
Those who are children now, this generation where girls commit GBH in schools, will be adults then. So if someone pushes in front of you in a supermarket queue in ten years, don't say "Excuse me, there is a queue." or you will probably get stabbed to death. These children think it you can stab someone repeatedly in the head in a school in front of dozens of witnesses. They must know that you get in trouble for using physical violence against someone in a school. They must know that stabbing someone is something you get arrested and (hopefully) put in prison for. So why do they do it?
Let me float a suggestion. Perhaps whenever they've done something wrong at school before, their parents haven't cared. Perhaps they've sat there happy with the school dealing with the kid so they don't have to waste valuable shite microwaving and soap watching time talking to their kids. Perhaps the one time they bothered saying "That's quite a lot of detentions recently, isn't it?" (if they ever bothered) the kid claimed the school was picking on them, and the mother henceforth responded to the school with all the rage of chav. Perhaps the reason these parents respond like this is, rather than the way your parents or mine would have responded (starting with "I'm really ashamed of you" and not stopping til we were near suicidal), is the same reason their kids not only bully other children, but think they can stab them and get away with it: they have failed utterly to teach their children respect of any kind for anyone.
It starts tiny small. When they can't be bothered to teach their children that you don't climb on the seats on the bus because other people have to sit on those seats and don't want the grub off the bottom of someone's shoes all over their behinds. When they've failed so utterly to teach their children to behave at home that when they start making a bloody annoying loud noise in a public place it's too much effort to try to stop them, so they just let them carry on. When they haven't even managed to instill any respect for them, the parents, in the child, so that child doesn't care if they're embarrassing or upsetting mummy.
But the point at which it's really really set in stone, this lack of respect, is the first time anyone tuts or complains about the unacceptable behavior of the child, and the parent says "Oh shut up, he's only a child." This tells the child it can do what it likes, and far from there being any negative consequences for that behavior, that its parents will actually defend it. It's a very short step from that knowledge to having at someone's face with a pair of scissors because you enjoy hurting people.
Teaching your child that there are no consequences for anything is a pretty good way of ensuring they'll smoke, drink, hang out with inappropriate people in inappropriate places, have unprotected sex, take drugs, vandalize property and intimidate the public. (And we all know where that sort of behavior leads, don't we? That's right- becoming a Tory leadership candidate. And you thought you were ashamed when they fucked the postman on the front lawn in broad daylight. Ohhhhhh the shame.) The government tends to describe these kids as "vulnerable", and "disadvantaged". It might sound hard to believe when a fourteen year old in enough Burberry check to buy an MRI scanner for the local hospital is holding a knife to your throat and demanding your wallet, but it's true. They are disadvantaged because they had deficient parents. They are vulnerable because they have none of the necessary skills to get through life, becuase their parents don't really care about them enough.
What describing the kids as vulnerable or disadvantaged is is the government not saying 'Lousy Parents'. And it needs saying.
Liberal Democrat Peer Baroness Tonge on Any Questions last week responded to the question of whether parents should be told if children under sixteen get sex-related advice at the doctors (oh yeah, Sue Axon wants to make it impossible for some people to even get advice without their parents knowing, not just abortions) by saying basically what I did: if a parent has failed their child badly enough that they get pregnant under sixteen, we should provide the child with somewhere else to turn for help. It was the first time I've ever heard a politician cut to the chase on a subject and be honest like that. That's the advantage of peers, they don't have to worry about re-election. In the vain hopes that this may be the very early stages of the renaissance of common sense, siblings, let us unite!

Disrespectful/violent children= BAD PARENTS
Underage pregnancy= BAD PARENTS
Fat children= BAD PARENTS

Let us have a quiet revolution of decency. I do not like children, mainly because of the way they behave. I do not, however, wish harm upon children in general. To say that children need to learn respect and appropriate behavior, and need not to be overweight, is in fact to wish the best for children. It is not restricting their freedom or the development of their personality to say that they should think about others before they act, or to say that little girls (that's 0-16, in case you were wondering) should not dress and make themselves up like Kat Slater, should not be allowed 'out' to go where ever with whoever. At sixteen children should still be getting dropped off and picked up by their parents.
It is not wishing harm upon children to say they should be punished for their misdeeds. If you bully someone what you're effectively doing is submitting another human being to a long campaign of mental abuse, intimidation, and in a lot of cases violence. If you were to do that as an adult, you would go to prison. So it should be for children. If you commit an adult act, for example stab someone or have sex, you should have to deal with adult consequences, and take those consequences yourself. As a parent, you need to make sure your child is well enough bought up and well enough educated to know this. As a citizen, you need to demand your government does something about this situation. They're prepared to tell you how to academically educate your child from birth. It's time they admitted that it's not education where we need more of the three Rs, it's behavior. Education, education education, Tony? No, it's the other 'agenda' I think needs work: Respect, Respect, Respect.

Bastards

Bastards made me cry, twice.

The Hex Factor

Why an X Factor Winner Will Never Be A Megastar

And why you should watch Strictly instead.

Which of the following reasons would make you want to buy someone's record?

a) They're what Simon Cowell thinks is a band worth signing.

b) Louis Walsh thinks they're cool.

c) Sharon Osboune feels all maternal about them.

The money you spend voting on the X Factor goes to the X Factor.
The money you spend voting on Strictly goes to charity.
VOTE DENNIS TAYLOR

This Year They're REALLY Gonna Spoil Christmas...

Poor, confused Nanna wanders into the Vic on Christmas day thinking she still lives there.

But who comes in after her and burns it down with her still inside?

Runners & Riders:

#1 Johnny Allen- It's Phil and Peggy's pub now that Ian's deal has fallen through on the technicality of Chrissie not actually owning it, and Sharon not wanting it. What with the business with Ruby, not getting control of the pub himself, and having to put up with the Mitchells back on form, Johnny wont be a happy guy...

#2 Jake Moon- Will just killing Nanna be enough for the joysuckers in the script department? An ironic chaser could be that in attempting revenge on the Mitchells, Jake accidentally kills his beloved Nanna. Filled with remorse he'll either hand him self in or top himself, ensuring that, when Alfie leaves, every last reason to go has a big tick beside it.

#3 Ian Beale- Having found out that due to giving a murderer money for a pub she never owned, he's without a pub and tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket, and having had to put up with months of Phil's special gloat/intimidate cocktail (and lets say losing the Arches to Phil for good measure), Squeal Beale finally flips and torches the place.

#4 Phil Mitchell- Either because by some convoluted scullduggery he and Peggy have managed to lose the Vic again by Xmas, to Johnny for example, who is leaving around then and might go feet first, or more likely for an insurance scam in order to re-launch the Mitchell Empire's Strike Back. Perhaps a little unlikely, as the spoiler about the fire has it set by 'an anonymous figure', and you're unlikely to confuse Phil with anyone but his brother or Minty.

#5 Chrissie- Having escaped or got off on a technicality, the Killer Poodle returns for revenge, hoping to be the last woman in the Vic as well. Due to Nanna's presence she not only fails, but gets busted for murder for the second time in a year.

#6 Tina - Loony with rage after being dumped by Johnny then erased with Stalinist thoroughness from his life, Tina goes on a month long stalking campaign, then sets fire to the Vic because she knows Ruby and/or Johnny is inside. Ruby dies, and the police when questioning him about the events of that night remark on the fact that the M.O. of the Vic fire exactly matches that of the fire that killed Scarlett and Tina's Mum. Because of this they suspect Johnny, but we know it was Tina. He may go down, he may just leave with his life in tatters.

#7 Ruby- This one depends on Johnny getting the Vic. Having become slowly more and more unhinged after her discovery of Daddy's secret life, Ruby totally loses it and burns down the Vic after finding out how he got it.

#8 Zoe - In an overdose of irony Zoe finds out that when she aborted Den's baby, what ahppened to Sharon happened to her, and now she can't have children. She goes mad and becomes convinced the Vic curses all those who sleep under its roof, and returns to Walford to stop the curse at all costs...

#9- Jake Moon, back to see Nanna one last time. He just likes to set fire to things.

ISTBO- Pointless Research Watch

Scientisits have revealed that women laugh more than men.

Yes, at men.

This message was bought to you by Mr. Peebles, the Official World's Smallest Cat.
ISTBO prefers this idea: Baby Quality Control!
Test them every six months from birth and discard the weakest 5%. Mr. Peebles is doing his bit to ease global overcrowding, the government should too.

Wait Till Your Father Gets Home

It's a tense day in parliament today. Despite needing 34 Labour MPs to rebel if every single non-Labour politician votes against the government for it to happen, Tony is SO afraid he might lose the 90 day vote that he's had to get the Prime Minister to come home early from Israel. Backbenchers please note: Arm twisting will be actual.
And so it should be. It appears the government are prepared to deal with terrorism by either
a) Going to war with someone because someone there once met a guy who bombed something, or
b) Beefing up the power of the police.
So give the police anything they want. Guns, money, surveillance equipment, and if they say they need a maximum of ninety days with weekly judicial review, give it to them.
You could also give them the opportunity to use phone tap evidence in court. I tried to look up what the objections to phone tap evidence are and who objects. All I could find was Sir Swinton Thomas, Interception of Communications Commissioner (Tap Czar) saying that using such evidence in open court would risk revealing surveillance techniques, and that the level or errors in warrant applications (such as getting a warrant for the wrong number) was "unacceptably high".
Now, I know that someone who thinks he'll change the world by blowing himself up can't be that bright, but I'd say it was fairly obvious that phone tap evidence is gained by either tapping the line, intercepting calls if it's a mobile, and by occasional use of bugs. I don't think we'd be giving much away. I can't imagine why you'd even mention in court which of the above methods you used to get the evidence, especially as it could all be referred to as 'intercepted telecommunications'. If there was any cause for that to be known, it needn't be in "open court". Once a judge had looked at whatever parts constituted technical information about how the police/security services obtained the evidence, and ruled it fair to admit it, the content of the taps could be presented to the jury. We'd need a new set of rules to make tap evidence admissible at all, so any necessary safeguards could be written into those rules. You also need only make it admissible for terror cases. As to the level of errors, as I read that sometimes the mistakes are down to people copying the correct number incorrectly on to the warrant application, I say to thee: just saying we're not good enough isn't good enough. You need better staff? We should make the government pay for better staff for you.
Meanwhile, in Belgium, a big terror trial has just opened, and the court has heard one of the suspects "talking by phone with the suspected architect of the Madrid attacks, rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed, discussing "friends" who planted the bombs". Alex Salmond, writing in The Scotsman, suggests the government objects to the use of phone tap evidence "because it opens them up to judicial scrutiny". In other words, we'd find out how extreme you have to be before you're considered a threat, and just how many degrees of separation there'd have to be between you and a supposed extremist for your phone to get tapped too. To my mind, it wouldn't be a bad thing to see a dozen of some would-be bomber's mates get busted for incitement to or glorification of terrorism, pour discourager les autres, as it were.
Now, I know it goes against the grain to hope for an outcome that doesn't see Tony with egg on his face, so consider this: Tony has so little sway with his own party any more that Gordon's had to come home to play Phil&Grant to his Billy.
All he has to do know is get that tape of Sadie confessing all off Johnny Howard, and sister David will be free!

ISTBO- Bring Me A Knitting Needle

This is Sue Axon. Sue thinks the law needs to be changed so parents must be told if their under 16 year old daughter has an abortion. Sue had an abortion once, and later regretted it. She wants to know if her teenage daughters ever want an abortion, presumably in the light of what she's said so that she can persuade them not to. Sue for some reason thinks she has a right to tell another female whether or not to have a child that person has already expressed a wish not to have. Sue doesn't care about the consequences of her campaign for the people who actually matter in this situation: young scared girls who need help and for whatever reason can't turn to their parents for it.
Sue doesn't care about the daughters of abusive, controlling, or simply strictly religious parents, disowning, beating or killing their daughters. (Don't think it couldn't happen, "honour" killings are on the rise.) She doesn't care about the daughters of parents who disapprove of abortion and would prevent their daughter having an abortion the law says she has a right to. She doesn't care that they may prevent their daughters from having these abortions by a selection of mental and/or emotional blackmail/pressure amounting to abuse, physically preventing them from leaving the house, or use of physical violence. And should doctors tell one parent or both? Sue doesn't care that in litigation Britain, doctors may feel they have to inform both parents if they inform one, thus giving information to some parents who have been kept apart from that daughter for very important reasons. She doesn't seem to think that sometimes there are very very good reasons why a girl would not tell a parent she was sexually active, let alone pregnant.
She doesn't care about the girls who will be so terrified of the consequences from their parents that they will have riskier backstreet abortions. She doesn't care that a girl who can't tell anyone she's pregnant or get an abortion under the law of patient confidentiality may end up staying pregnant and giving birth without any of the appropriate medical assistance pre- and post-natal. She doesn't care about the babies of the girls who give birth secretly then abandon their baby. She doesn't care that her desired law change is the thin end of the wedge that ends with girls not being able to get contraception without their parents knowledge (ie permission) and causing even more teenage pregnancies.
Sue doesn't seem to think that if you have a daughter who is under sixteen, who has managed to go out, have sex and get pregnant entirely without your knowledge, you are A BAD PARENT. You have failed to teach your daughter morality, failed to teach your daughter how to stay safe and healthy, failed to establish and maintain a relationship with her where you can communicate honestly about things, and needn't go pretending you're all concerned when the shit hits the fan. There is no 'right to know' about your child's emotional or sexual development, you cannot force anyone to reveal this part of themselves. If you were a halfway decent parent, you wouldn't need to talk about your 'right to know', becuase you'd know, or there'd be nothing to know. These are very young girls, and they should damn well know better than to have sex at their age, because you should have taught them that. If they do have sex, they put themselves into the category of 'old enough to take the consequences'.
Whether Sue wins or loses, if one of her teenage girls does ever get pregnant, she'll know that she can't tell her mother, because her mother will want her to keep the baby. If her mother has won this little campaign of hers, she'll know she has no way out. She'll know that if it ever gets out that Sue Axon's daughter had either an abortion or a baby underage, it'll be all over the papers.
I hope Sue's daughters have someone other than their mother to talk to.
I hope the court tell Sue where to stick it.

ISTBO- Bridget Jones' Dairy

Today we're loving Gordon Ramsey. I haven't always approved of him as such, because to the untrained eye he looks a lot like a loudmouthed twat, but as time has worn on, the effect has worn off, and it turns out in fact that he is a bloody genius. My interest was piqued in the first place when Deep Shine had a hand in the refurbishment of the Connaught Dining Room. Apparently Gordon bitched and ranted and raved about the work of every trade that passed through the place except Deep Shine's. Shame, really, I would have given actual money for CCTV footage of that little tete a tete. And probably received lots more money for the sale of it. But you can't knock the man for knowing quality work when he sees it. Having watched 'Kitchen Nightmares', I have to say he's a wise, fair and utterly effective chap.

ISTBO would therefore like to offer the marvelous Mr. Gordon Ramsey the job of ISTBO Minister For Things Which Needed Saying. In fact we'd make him actual Prime Minister if such was in any way possible. Just imagine George Bush (or anyone really) trying to get him to do, well, anything he didn't want to. Imagine him versus whichever of Tweedleold and Tweedleyoung wins the Tory leadership contest. Ah, such a lovely dream... For the meanwhile, however, we shall just insist everybody listen to him and does as he says.
We applaud and back utterly his campaign to get women back into the kitchen. A short while ago I had my mother in law, henceforth known as Mil, and my brother in law (Bil1) round for dinner. They are vegetarian, the vast majority of vegetarian dishes seem to contain peppers, to which I am allergic, and I have no proper oven, so I was very concerned not to feed them totally boring food, so I went with mixed root vegetable chips, a salad, and little olive oil and garlic toasts with goats cheese and caramelised onions. It'll have to do, I thought. Mil was totally impressed. I was bloody gobsmacked. "You're so clever!" she said. "I've never cooked food like this." I smile sweetly and offer third helpings, but inside I'm screaming FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WOMAN YOU'RE FORTY YEARS OLD, PULL YOUR SOCKS UP AND STOP LETTING THE SIDE DOWN. Yes, I am a natural talent, and can fly free of recipe books most of the time, but I know for a fact the woman can read, dammit, so there's no excuse. With four sons there is also no shortage of galley slaveage, she need not peel or chop a thing. I should be being entrusted with ancient family recipies by this woman, not explaining to her what a caramelised onion is.
Let this be rightly understood: You Should Be Able To Cook. It is SO important. You absolutely cannot live a healthy life on pre-packed processed food. It is bad for you. Look at the labels, f'rcryin'outloud! Fancy some Canthaxanthin? Thiabendazole? Do these sound like things you should eat? No, they sound like hazardous chemicals or cancer drugs. E513, should you happen to see it on the packet, is Sulphuric Acid. And an old chemistry teacher at my school told us he used to work at the Walker's crisps flavoring factory, and the staff had the same cancer incidence as a nuclear power station. Only eat ACTUAL FOOD. Commonfuckin'sense. Being able to cook gives you almost total control over what goes into your body. It also gives you tasty meals to your own specifications every night, a sense of satisfaction, and the ability to entertain lavishly for less money, and more kudos. More mmmmmm and ahhhh than Your M&S.
So everybody please watch Gordon, listen to him, do like he does. Season with profanity according to taste.
For women it is important to be able to cook because we should under no circumstances allow men to be better at anything than we are, with the exceptions of growing body hair and anything we can't be bothered with because it's too stupid, like football. Gordon is laboring under the delusion that women who can cook aren't sexy. Gordon, hon, you're a millionaire ex-footballer TV personality. Sexy, intelligent, capable women won't be interested in you because you're clearly too high maintenance. Ickle bimbos will be interested in you for your money. The sort of women who men open doors for because they don't look like they'll be able to work out how to do it themselves. You will also meet unsexy clever women who having clocked the other kind and rightly weighed their chances, will seek from you what they think they can get: recipies and cooking tips. Women like me, valuable above rubies as we are, have been snapped up already and are being treated to dinner at your restaurant by our husbands, not trying to meet and pull the chef.
In addition to Minister Ramsey, ISTBO's headhunt hitlist also includes Neil French, who we would like to offer the position of Unspin Doctor, to translate for us from advertising into English. Mr. French has gained our attention for stating that the reason that there are not many women at the top in business is that they all "wimp out and go suckle something". Yes! Hallelujah! Someone said it!
You cannot take months or years long breaks from your career, rusting while your colleagues gain experience, return to work putting in less effort and less hours, being off work more frequently, and always always having your job take second place at best, then demand the same pay, advancement opportunities and respect as people who don't do any of these things. That's not equality, it's blatant flaming cheek. It's not fair on the rest of us. And because of it companies are more wary of employing women. I don't blame them. Just show me where to sign to promise I wont be doing it to them. If you want to be a mother, be a mother. Just don't expect to have a job that requires a similar amount of effort and dedication at the same time, you can't do it, and it's not fair on your kids or your colleagues.
First famous person to get in the news for saying "Parents need to understand their children are nothing but a bloody inconvenience to the rest of the world, and take responsibility for minimizing that inconvenience as much as possible." or similar can have the job of ISTBO Home Secretary.

Ding Dong

Justice! Ha ha!

AND THIS TIME STAY OUT YOU CUNT

I urge you all to download BBC News Alerts to your computer. Wonderful news like this can really brighten up a slow morning!

Strictly Loving It

Despite my pre-season favorite Siobhan going out in the first week in an outrageous travesty of justice (honestly, look what happens when you let people vote, f'rcryin'outloud), I'm having the time of my li-ee-ife watching Strictly.
The dresses have, with one or two exceptions, vastly improved from last season, and lets all give thanks to whatever we believe in that Gloria Hunniford made it a condition that hers "covered what they had to cover". I always had her down in my mental filing system in under the same heading as 'The Daily Mail' and 'People Who Really Really Love The Royal Family' and 'Coronation Street' (well ITV in general if I'm honest. The Bill, Poirot and Inspector Morse re-runs do not a channel make). Now she's been re-filed under 'Self-Aware Cheese' with a 'Niiiiiiiice' stamp on her file for the comment about not wanting to look "absolutely desperate" like Esther Rantzen did last year. Go Gloria! Still glad she's out though. She was boring me.
It's just great to have something to bitch about! It's less perpetual and schedule-troubling than Big Brother, but you can get a daily fix if you're home early enough. And you already know the people before they 'go in', so you have far more joy in seeing them fail or succeed. Now initially, as I said, I was rooting for Siobhan, but due to the 'Kind Of People Who Watch GMTV' who escaped when I let Gloria out of the cupboard, we woz robbed. So the next week I voted for Colin Jackson. I thought he was going to impress me the way Denise did last year. He looked so proper and unmincey doing the cha cha and the quickstep. But last weekend I was utterly unimpressed. Yes, it was a latin jive as opposed to the more rock and roll lindyhop variety, but after his acrobatics in training and at the end of the quickstep, I have to say I had high hopes. So I was left with a dilemma over who to vote for. I was equally impressed by both Patsy "Little Donkey" Palmer and Darren "Rhino" Gough. In the end I waited to see which one scored higher, then voted for the one who did least well so as to even it up. I hadn't liked Darren the first couple of weeks, but it was an improvement. I hadn't envisioned voting for Patsy because, well, because, you know? But I am open to being convinced in her case. And in any case, yon Anton somewhat resembles Rob Brydon, which must be a good thing. Anyway, it might make a bit more of a lady of her. Mind you, it does seem to be encouraging her fake tan usage, and can I say to any Ginggers reading this NEVER USE FAKE TAN. There is only so much orange a person can look at in one go.
Mind you, wor Dennis managed to pull it off on Saturday. Isabella's outfit was one of those exceptions I was talking about, but Dennis, well! For a man of his age to be able to pull off the dances in a respectably non-camp style, jive better than a lot of the young 'uns and look good in an orange shirt? What a guy! Deep Shine has been voting for Dennis all the way through (he are snoo-ker loo-py), and although he's not quite made the cut for my vote yet, he may still. He appears to be losing weight, and all this activity can only be good for his health. I hear mutterings that a certain person is bored of snooker, so can we expect you on the floor next year Ronnie?
Now, Who I Don't Like:
Hag-faced deadweight lazy whinging no talent Fiona. It's got to go, it really has. It's just spoiling it for everyone else. She's as tacky as fresh tar and I hold her personally responsible for Siobhan going out. I favour the beeb in the morning, so I wasn't aware of how much I didn't like her. I was also laboring under the delusion that Bill Turnbull was a fairly ok sort, but having watched him 'off script' as it were, I have to say I no longer think so. I'm not sure quite why exactly, but I suspect him of being a bad man. Add to this that his partner resembles one of the daft slags off Desperate Housewives, and they'll not be getting a vote off me any time soon.
I didn't like Jaye and 'Zorro' much, and I was glad they went early. She'd obviously really seriously pissed off someone in the BBC wardrobe department, as they seemed hellbent on making her look as fat as was humanly possible. Between that and Andrew's pigeon chest and naff facial hair it was just too cringeworthy to watch. James the chef would be better if he was less visibly perving over his partner, and Will gives me nightmares because he looks like a scary ventrilloquist's dummy come to life. I suspect his head rotates all the way round.
The one I REALLY object to is Zoe Ball.
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES MUST THE CHEATING OLD SLAPPER BE ALLOWED TO WIN.
She can dress herself up all pretty and point her little toes and pretend she's all good and everything, but she can never change the fact that she had an affair and bought shame, SHAME on the good name of Johnny Ball, pissed all over her marriage regardless of having a child, put poor simple Norman through the hurt of an affair and the embarrassment of the whole world knowing his wife was having it away behind his back with some Z-list Good Face For Radio, and now she's blatantly flirting with and frankly rubbing herself all over that Ian, gazing into his eyes and dancing to tunes like 'Part Time Lover'. Just exactly how much is her husband supposed to take? It's bad enough for us having to watch her all over the guy like fake tan on chav. She just couldn't be any more blatant. It's embarrassing in the same way watching a Breezer-drunk eighteen year old Essex girl trying to chat up your dad would be embarrassing. I think she's doing it on purpose. I reckon she decided a little while ago that she was done with Mr. Slim, and is plotting to explosively bust up her marriage two-thirds of the way through the series to get votes, which she will achieve by making it look like nasty husband was all "unreasonably" jealous. Well I don't care how well she dances. Every time I see her in my head I hear that Irish nurse from AbFab saying "That's that old slag from the papers!" AND I WANT IT OFF MY TELLY.

I also want that dress she was wearing on Saturday, with the accessories.

And I want to meet Brucey. To See You.....

BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!