Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > Opinions
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-02-2006, 09:10 AM
marypopinz marypopinz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 710
Default Batman, get Robin... The Joker is loose in Metropolis


My opinion/my mind/my heart
Batman, get Robin... someone send out the Bat signal!
The Joker is loose in Metropolis!






sir ian blair: YOU ARE the weakest link.

...GOODBYE!


Attention:
sir ian blair
Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis
London, England
c/o
Caring Cross Police Station
Charing Cross
London, England
sw44444444
02073217711

Dear Sir:

I believe the first thing I need to do is to clearly define some words in my own mind. That would be a good place to start when attempting to decipher the murky world of "anti-terrorist" law and the world of Blair and Blair - the naughty pair - the lepers of London and civil liberties or should I say... the liberators of civil disabilities as may be a more politicalally correct way of approaching the matter. Definitions are a must when approaching the law. Apparently, the first definition of the 'crappy' Oxford Dictionary, which has eliminated the noun 'free speech' from its concise tenth (hard cover) edition contents hence defacating on the English language and democracy herself, is the rule of thumb where Tony's modern, new and improved English law is concerned. (That was a mouthful!)

Words are very important in my mind. I recently purchased a white t-shirt with three words on it that has recieved a few comments from society. It started a rather interesting lengthy conversation the other day. The conversation began, "What does that mean?"

I replied that's it is a rather impolite way of saying, "Hell No!"

I thought is was just a North American colloquialism. I was informed that the English understand where this Canadian transplant, with her English roots, is 'coming from'.

£2.99 Oxford everday dictionary - old small paperback - containing a definition of free speech

colloquialism: noun a colloquialism word or phrase
colloquial: adjective (said about a word or piece of language) suitable for ordinary conversation but not for for formal speech or writing

That's odd. I always assumed that colloquial meant a phrase pertaining and relevant to/understood mainly within a certain geographical area and associated within a region of people with a common language; is generally slang as opposed to grammatically correct. 'Monkey see, monkey do', as an example.

The three monkeys posed in a sculpture generally is recognised everywhere as it artistically depicts the combined words and saying 'Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' with three individual monkeys sitting collectively, side by side. Each little monkey has both of their hands placed over their ears, eyes, and mouth repectively. An assumed meaning behing these three little dudes could be that if you don't hear about evil and you don't see it and you don't speak about it - you won't know about it; in essence; evil won't exist. If no little monkey talks about evil at all and no one sees it and no ones hears about 'it', how could 'it' possibly exist? Quantum physics clearly states that things must be observed and quantified in order to be percieved as part of reality.

exist: 1. verb to be present as a part of what is real

real: adj. 1. actually existing, not imaginary 2. actual or true 3. genuine, not imitation

imaginary: adj. existing only in the imagination, not real... unreal, fanciful ficticious, invented

imitation: adj. 2. something produced by copying or imitating something from a Latin word imitari meaning 'to copy'

You could make another assumption of meaning behind the three monkeys. All knowledge of evil could be eradicated by simply completely ignoring evil and refusing it to be allowed to be imitated in any given way. If it can't be seen or heard or spoken about, the assumption one is left with in a non-existence of evil which seems highly unlikely given todays oversexualised greedy mentality of most warmonging nations involved in weapons trading. Or, it could artistically depict that once these three little monkeys heard what they heard and saw what they saw, they said what needed to be said and the evil wasn't tolerated anymore. Art is like poetry, it inspires differing meanings in different people. Words can be very artistic, by nature - they paint a picture.

The phrase on my t-shirt is, "DO I FCUK". It is a French Connection U.K. brand t-shirt. There is no question mark at the end of the statement. While it appears to be a question, there is only a grammatical reference to a question of thought in the use of the word 'do'. Do I swim? Do I bike? Do I love my children? Do you read? These are all phrases that raise a question mark at the end of each thought expressed in a questioning format, complete with the proper punction mark needed - a question mark.

We all know that the logo FCUK is a cheeky way of printing the "F" word from the English language which is pretty much globally understood to be the word 'f*ck'(replacing the * with the vowel 'u'. It is a slang word and a dirty word, as I was taught by my mother. As an adult, I now understand it to be a colloquial word. It was generally known in society as a foul word and not acceptable to be said within the public media; i.e. television or radio. It is certainly not acceptable to be used within a court of law or legal documents when addressing memebrs of the legal community unless quoting the words of a statement given by an individual. You could quite rightly get arrested by an officer of the law in many countries, whether it be in its English form or whatever transaltion of language, when combined with the threee letter word 'off'. Now now I am being cheeky.

Where I come from in Eastern Canada, the Maritime Provinces to be specific, we use the phrase "Do I f*fuck!" as an exclamatory remark of disgust and objection to an unreasonable question, especially when the question is of an insulting nature. If I were to take personal affront to a man asking me a rediculous question that insulted my intelligence say...

"Do you have permission to" sing a song?

"Do I f*ck!" I thought in my mind.

Did a police officer of the Diplomatic detachment of the Police of the Metropolis threaten once again to have me arrested and therefore separated from my child, interrupting me from singing a song to my youngest daughter for an 'offence' that is only reportable and not arrestable by definitions contains within SOCPA legislation? Was he abusing his powers and the laws of justice? Did someone ask him to approach, abuse the law - question, bully and threaten me? Was it sir ian's behalf or am I being completely paranoid? Do I need permission to sing a song in public areas, specifically outside - exterior to any public or privately owned building, in a free and democratic society, providing no foul language is used? "Do I f*ck!"

'Hell no!' is a more polite response within the accepted morality of general society than the above noted phrase and yet still wouldn't be regarded as a remotely polite response within a court of law. The response "Hell no" would have certainly gotten me arrested last Thursday afternoon. I simply exerted my knowledge of the SOCPA Act and clearly stated that Joe Coppo was abusing the SOCPA legislation and his assumed position of power over my freedom of speech. I carried on singing, as usual. He said goodbye and toodled back to his position behind the gates.

Do I need a courts permission to wear a t-shirt that bears a logo outside a courtroom? "Hell no!" Inside a courtroom, I would assume that a FCUK t-shirt would not be deemed appropriate attire by any persons sitting in judgement of those individuals accused of crimes.

"DO I FCUK" - French Connection U.K.

There is little opposition to Capitalism and the wearing of branded items of clothes within a Capitalistic society, that may be by their artistic expression, offensive in nature. Here is hoping we are all 'on the same page'; another colloquialism that delivers the assumption that should we all be reading the same book by the same author, we have all read up to the same page in said book and have therefore read the same information and have a shared understanding of the grouped meanings of these words - a common knowledge.

'Ask a stupid question - get a stupid answer' is another good saying. Is a saying is a colloqialism?

saying: noun a well known phrase or proverb

The correct response to the question of whether a saying is a colloquialism is - possibly yes, possibly no. The words that combine to make a 'saying' are also known as phrases. Certain phrases, certain people use, generally, in certain geographical areas. The question of colloquialism depends not where the saying originates from but whether the phrase is suitable for formal speech or writing."Is it f*ck!" is a variation of Do I f*ck!"; both are sayings and and a colloquialisms - not suitable for formal speech and writing.

formal: adj. 1. strictly following the accepted rules or custom 2. following a set structure or form

Providing a phrase is suitably in line with the accepted rules and customs of a democratic society, is a phrase just a phrase or is it a security risk? Given a phrase is not suitable to be expressed in public due to the use of foul language and/or that it would be found to be offensive to the majority of said public, i.e. racial slurs, is the verbal expression of certain phrasings that incite hatred towards a specific segment of society an arrestable offence?

The phrase 'Ask a stupid question - get a stupid answer' is acceptable in public and might not be in a formal setting and therefore, by accepted definition, is possibly a colloquialism depending upon whether respect is an accepted formal standard. I would assume the correct grammatical expression of that phrase as an assumption and a complete sentence would be, "If you ask a stupid question of a person, you wil recieve a stupid answer in response." Ask a stupid question - get a stupid answer.", is a shortened version and is grammatically correct and I do not believe it is acceptable at a formal level of society as formal or proper English due to the implied cheekiness and lack of respect that specific statement creates. The saying implies that only stupid people ask stupid questions and therefore deserve stupid responses.

proper: adj. 3. according to social convention, respectable

respectable: adj. 1. honest and decent; of good social standing

decent: adj. 1. conforming to the accepted standards of what is moral or proper, not immodest or obscene

immodest: adj. not modest, indecent

indecent:adj. offending against generally accepted standards of decency

obscene:adj. indecent in a very offensive way. synonyms: indecent, pornographic, coarse, filthy, dirty, vulgar, smutty

offense: noun 1. breaking the law, an illegal act

offensive: adj. 1. causing offence 2. disgusting or repulsive
offensive: noun a forceful attack or campaign

disgust: noun a strong feeling of dislike or revulsion

repulsive: adj. 1. disgusting... revolting, repugnant, repellant, vile, hideous, loathsome, obnoxious

pornography: noun pictures or descriptions that are intended to stimulate sexual excitement

pornographic: adj from a Greek word porne meaning 'prostitute' and graphy from a Greek word graphia meaning 'writing'

f*ck: not to be found in my old paperback Oxford everyday dictionary... perhaps because the word is pornographic and obscene and the noun free speech was still defined?

Concise tenth edition Oxford dictionary - hardback - lacking a definition of free speech

fuck: vulgar slang verb 1. have sexual intercourse with ... loads of definitions and phrasings offered... of Germanic origin - 16th century

£2.99 Oxford everday dictionary - old small paperback - containing 'free speech'

vulgar: adj. 1. lacking refinement or good taste 2. rude or coarse 3. (old use) to do with or used by ordinary people

rude: adj. 2. indecent or vulgar 3. roughly made, not sophisticated

ordinary: adj. usual or normal, not special... commonplace

sophisticated: 1. having refined or cultured tastes or experienced about the world 2. complex or elaborate 3. able to understand complex issues

Getting back to my French Connection U.K. t-shirt... by definition f*ck is a ponographic vulgar word. 'F*ck off' is a colloquialism that would not be acceptable in a court of law or as a response to an officer of the law. 'F*ck you' as a phrase could and would have the ability to insult pretty much anybody who understands the meaning of the saying. 'Do I f*ck' as a phrase, a verbal statement of response and a colloquialism is most probably an arrestable offence in England, when spoken directly towards an officer of the law. I do not believe society accepts men who are supposed to be respected within our society for their roles as protectors of society to be sworn at. I am certain it must be an arrestable offence; regardless that I have been informed by Inspector Lyons of the Charing Cross division of the Metropolitan police that a man who thumps an officer will serve very little time, if any. He also told me he teaches his children that it is a hard, cruel world during a conversation in which I attempted to report an assalt committed by an officer of his police station, Charing Cross, witnessed by myself and my two children and many other independent witnesses at the gates of number 10 Downing Street and clearly filmed by an independent member of the 'news' media. (can be found on the internet on the indymedia UK site - thank you rikki for your talent of always being at the right time at the right time and your anti-capitalist spellings and reporting of the real news from London, without political bias.)

Opposed to Inspector Lyons, I teach my youngest daughter the names of flowers, her times tables, respect and the value of honesty. She sees the corruption of the beauty, the value of knowledge and the kindness respect regenerates , for herself.

respect: noun 1. admiration felt towards a person or thing that has good qualities or achievements

respect verb 1. to feel or show respect for a person or thing... admire, revere, look up to 2. agree to abide by a rule, agreement atc.

good: having the right or desirable properties, satisfactory 2. appropriate or suitable 3. morally correct virtuous 4. strictly following the principles of a religion or cause 5. kind 6. well behaved

bad: adj. of poor quality or a low standard 2. unpleasant or upsetting 3. serious or severe 4. wicked or evil... immoral, corrupt villainous, sinful

F*uck is not a good word - it is a bad word. I think that is what we still teach the children at school. I do not believe the children are permitted to swear at their teachers and are generally reprimanded and/or punished for the use of foul language towards a person within society who is employed to educate. I do not believe swearing in tolerated within most daycares of the infants of todays Capitlaist society. Doesn't Pete of Big Brother fame having issues and perhaps mainly a disease associated with the inability to control his outward expression of inappropriate words which sometimes includes 'swear' words.

swear word:noun a word sonsidered offensive or obscene

Which brings me back to...

free speech : the right to express your opinions

... and democracy.

democracy: noun 1. government of a country by representatives elected by the whole people 2. a country governed in this way from a Greek word demos meaning 'the people' and cracy from a Greek word kratia meaning 'rule'

demonstration: noun 1. demonstrating 2. a show of feeling 3. an organised gathering or march held to express the opinion of a group publicly

demonstrate: verb 1. to show evidence of something, to prove it

demonstrative: adj. 1. showing or proving something 2. expressing your feelings openly

SOCPA - the Serious Organised Criminal Protection Agency or is it...
the Serious Organised Crime Prevention Act... I am uncertain.

Section 134 - The Authorisation of Demonstartions within the Designated Area which curiously happens to also be the main area of central London containing the tourist sites most tourists are likely to and most tourist buses are likely to cruise by, if not stop at... ironic.

Sub section 3. condition may be imposed and specified in the authorisation relating to a demonstarion which are necessary to prevent the following in the COMMISSIONER'S r.e.a.s.o.n.a.b.l.e. OPINION.. This statement implies that the Commissioner is the only person who may authorize and the only person who may impose specified conditions and that his opinion is reasonable. In order to have a reasonable opinion, one would have to demonstrate a reasonable mind through reasonable actions which is simply not the case. Sir Ian Blair has shown himself to consistently be the JOKER of the Metropolis of London in his curtailance of free speech - the right to express opinions publicly. He has consistently shown and proven himself to be a most unreasonable excuse for an English officer of the law and a poor example of a 'male' member of the human species.

Conditions may be applied should there be r.e.a.s.o.n.a.b.l.e. cause to assume it would be necessary to prevent:

a) hindrance to the entrance of parliamentary buildings. The 5 year longstanding protest of Brian Haw of Paliament Square provided absolutely no hindrance to the entrance of Parliament on any occasion, at any given point in the past and yet was limited to three metres in length and one metre in width? Is this reasonable? I understand that metric is not the accepted term of measurement used in the English Court rooms; I could be mistaken. I believe all the road signs in England limiting speed are designated in miles per hour and all speeding tickets are given out in miles over the speed limit.

b) a hindrance to the proper operation of parliament. Once again, over a 5 year period, Mr. Brian W. Haw has never stopped parliament from carrying on willy-nilly, exactly as they pleased, despite the Nourembourg laws of 1945 that clearly state, as valiantly noted in the courtrooms of this land by Chris Coverdale, defining genocide as a war crime and pre-emptive strikes of war by a democratic government are illegal by the laws of England and treasonous to the nation thereof. When reporting a crime, as is every citizenz duty, under said Nourembourg laws, is it reasonable for an official of the law to ask the reporter of said crime as to whether or not he has applied for permission to report said crime? Permission is required to report a crime? Is that a reasonable question I just wrote or does it sound completely farcical and illogical?

c) serious public disorder

disorder: noun 1. lack of order; untidiness or confusion 2. a riot 3. an illness

serious: 4. causing great concern, not slight

c)(cont'd) Is the public the slightest bit concerned regarding the realtively few people of this nation exercising their right to free speech? Is it a crime to confuse someone - create a little confusion in their mind? Isn't that what politicians and propaganda do every day in one country or another somewhere in the world? Is that where democracy has come to? Politicians can blatantly lie though their teeth and Steve Jago may not hold up a board with a few quotes from George Orwell? Babrbara Tucker could not possibly be concieved to cause a riot simply by wearing a pink sparkly banner declaring "peace love and justice for all". Is her pink banner a threat to public order? Does she pose a serious public threat to the order of the the public? Is that a reasonable question to ask? How many times has she been victimised and bullied by various officers of the law? 57 times I believe. Is that reasonable? Has Sir Ian Blair ever accepted that an application has been recieved by himself from Barabara Tucker despite numerous emails and legal letters that have been exchanged through umpteen hands? Is that reasonable? Brian Haw has resided at Parliament Square day and night for over five years and there has not been one terrorist incident at said location nor any assalts or acts of violence, except by officers of law against peaceful protesters.Is that reasonable?

d) danger to property.The only property that has been damaged is that of the people which was gifted to Brian Haw and damaged by agents under direct orders from Sir Ian 'woof woof' Blair. I would ask of the artist Mr. Banks as to whether he believes his gifted artwork was treated in a fair and reasonable fashion when it was removed carelessly, to say the least, in a clandestine early morning raid on free speech that could only be perpetuated by the Joker himself. Is this reasonable way to go about enforcing limitations to freedom of expression as allowed for under the Human Rights Act, Article 10 and/or 11, I believe.

e) a distruption to the life of the community.

community: noun 1. the people living in one place or country and considered as a whole 2. a group with similir groups or origins 3. the state of having interests in common

e)(cont'd) I will assert that working in the community is not the same as living in the community by definition of each and every word of that statement. I will again assert that Maria and Brian live at Parliamnet Square as Brian Haw 's address is recognised by the Royal Courts of Justice to be Parliament Square. Maria is also known to the Metroploitan Police as residing at Parliament Square. On occasion, various other individual has made a conscious choice to live at Parliament Square for periods of time and have been recorded by several CCTv cameras as doing exactly that. I would assert that the community must only be treated as a whole without neglecting one individual who abides within the 'Designated area' specifically including peaceful protesters. Lastly I would assert that bullying tactics of a broad range have been used against a small segment of said community under the direct orders of Sir Ian, a.k.a. the JOKER or Tony Blair's lap dog. I will assert that the only disputive force within said community are the actors of this political police farce - notably the Charing Cross branch who have been known to have behaved abominadably in the past; curiously and specifically since the introduction of the SOCPA ACT. I would question whether bullying is a reasonable tactic for an officer of the law towards a peaceful member of society and the community. I would question whether the Senior Officer of the Police of the Metropolis of London is reasonable to tolerate and condone bullying.

BULLYING: verb to use strength or power to hurt or frighten a weaker person... threaten, intimidate, coerce, domineer, tyrannize

BULLY: noun a person who tries to hurt or frighten people who are weaker

POWER: noun 1, strength or energy 2. the ability to do something
... to do something i.e. 1. illegally arrest a peaceful individual for a non-arrestable and only a reportable offence (Cuba? Russia? China? England?) 2. illegally threaten to arrest a peaceful individual for a non-arrestable and only a reportable offence a.k.a. a breach of the peace - to incite fear - an arrestable offence 3. illegally physically threaten and/or physically harm a peaceful individual for a non-arrestable and only a reportable offence a.k.a. grievious bodily harm - an arrestable offence 4. illegally arrest and detain a peaceful individual for a non-arrestable and only a reportable offence for any indeterminate amount of time a.k.a. kidnapping - an arrestable offence

f) security risk.

security: noun 1. a state or feeling of being secure
secure: 1. safe, especially against attack

f)(cont'd) In a democracy, is a verbal attack reasonable? Threatening someone verbally in order to cause or instigate fear is not a reasonable act in a safe democratic society. Threatening to physically harm someone through dialogue is not reasonable in a safe and secure environment. Is accusing the government of a war crime considered a reasonable verbal attack? Is a reasonable display of evidence in the pictoral form known as photography and/or iluustrated through artwork on canvass a security risk? Did Maya Evans not grieve on queue at that appointed hour and minute as stated by the government as a time to grieve and therefore was her statement of the dead soldiers of this illegal war a security risk? Is it reasonable for me to witness a gaggle of female cHARING cROSS police officers drive off only one group of several VISITING tourists, from Parliament Square, who sat peacefully and filmed Parliament and the tower that contains the bell, liitle known to many , named Big Ben. Please correct me if I am wrong.

When I have seen so many groups film parliament at various times of the twenty-four hour solar cycle, is citing the area as a "high security risk" a reasonable explanation for rude behaviour, bullying tactics and general poor form as officers of the policing community? Was it reasonable of me to assume that their only crime was that they were black and were obviously, to myself, Moslem? Did I really witness a hate crime of a racist nature on behalf of those cows on bikes against peaceful tourists - a visiting sector and representatives of a community? Is it reasonable to assume that bullying a race or a religion goes against the laws of this multi-cultural society Tony Blair has for sale? I met two famous comedians that day. One was Mark Thomas from England and the other was from the Sudan. I don't find the The Joker that heads the Met funny in the least. Is free speech a security risk in a democratic society? If Sir Ian Blair believes the act of expressing the God given right of free speech is a security risk, is he a reasonable man?

g) a risk to the public.

risk: noun 1. a situation involving the chance of suffering injury or loss 2. the possibility that something unpleasant will happen
risk: verb 1. to expose something to the chance of injury or loss

g)(cont'd) Is it reasonable to assume that someone will get hurt at the hands of the verbal assalt - the most unpleasant angle of free speech? Can sticks and stones really break your bones? Yes. Will name calling ever really truly physically hurt someone or place them at risk of physical injury? Possibly. Could the public loose something by being offered the opinions of its members of the community? Their ignorance, perhaps? Are the presence of any group of individuals who obviously share a common bond to the naked eye a security risk or a risk to the public?

Have the reasoning abilities of sir ian blair, or lack thereof, ever been demonstrated to be, in the present or in the past, of a reasonable nature therefore indicating his capacity to hold a reasonable opinion ? I think not.

reasonable:adj. 1. fair and sensible 2. in accordance with reason, not absurd.
reason: noun 1. a cause, explanation or justification for something 2. the ability to think, understand, and draw conclusions 3. person's sanity 4. good sense or judgement; common sense

absurd: adj. having little sense, rediculous or foolish... silly laughable, ludicrous, preposterous, nonsensical; from a Latin word absurdus meaning 'out of tune'

pervert: noun to turn something from its proper course or use 2. to cause someone to behave wickedly or abnormally

I BELIEVE sir ian blair IS COLLUDING WITH tony blair in PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND DEMOCRACY; ABUSING SOCPA LEGISLATION, AND INSULTING THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE ENGLISH PUBLIC THROUGH THEIR CLEAR DEMONSTRATION OF A LACK OF ABILITY TO REASON REALITY FROM THE IMAGINARY PERCIEVED THREATS OF TERRORISM CONCIEVED WITHIN THEIR OWN DIMENTED PSYCHES.

pervert: noun a person whose sexual behaviour is thought to be abnormal or disgustings.

PERVERTS ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS OF SOCIETY: ALL PAEDOPHILES MUST immediately BE CLASSED AS DANGEROUS OFFENDERS - SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM THOSE WHO COMMIT MURDER AND MANSLAUGHTER; PERMANENTLY ISOLATED FROM ALL SOCIETIES CHILDREN and ALL SOCIETY FOR ALL TIME.

Do I need permission to have an opinion and to speak my mind or to sing a song?
"DO I FCUK" - French Connection U.K.

sir ian blair: do you exercise your free speech, power and authority regularly and freely or are you someone's pet monkey?

one ringy-dingy... two ringy-dingy...
tony... pick up the phone you soul-less monster. I do not approve of your war-mongering in this day and age, in this country or any other for that matter.War Kills Children. Weapons are an evil abuse of the tax paying public funds. Kiss my ass you bastard.
- Charity Sweet:

"stop inventing crimes and admit your own" on a plain white otherwise bank placard
- anonymous author/artist of placard present, photographed and physically supported by a lone individual above the sometimes green grass of Parliament Square in opposition to SOCPA and Tony Blair, its author; in unity and solidarity with Mark Thomas and Brian Haw and many, many other like-minded individuals as an expression of free speech and democracy in action and art.







Sincerely,



Charity Sweet



'wake up and smell the coffee'
anti copyright Charity Sweet acknowledging Brian W. Haw, Parliament Square, John Catt, Mark Thomas, Ziggy Abu and FCUK - all equally, greatly inspire free speech
www.howtobeanarmsdealer.com


Baa, Baa, Baa: Tony’s Liberal Sheep


News Item: All Cabinet Sheep MUST support “genocide” in the political barnyard. Baa, Baa, Baa.

Some years ago on the Funny Farm in the land of the political cronies we have seen some political sheep follow their master, the political sheep-herder, into supporting ‘genocide’. It would have been a sight to behold; these woolly headed Cabinet Ministers all Baa, Baa, Baaing on cue when their shepherd and political ewe ram herds them all in the direction of the barnyard NONSEnse; watching them rise from their sheepish positions and bleating Baa, Baa, Baa, which means YES, YES, YES in Liberal lingo, to this deviation of law called ‘genocide.’

Hear them bleat: “We’re Liberal sheep and we can bleat, and you know where to find us. Following Tony, your pal - our crony, leaving our principles behind us.” This is a true Baa Baaing statement. The Liberal sheep, having no principles, just followed their sheep-herder as the sheep are fed, watered and housed in the ‘well guarded’ Funny Farm Houses. Some of the sheep have been there for years and have no desire to lose any of their feedstuffs and perks at the political trough. You see, ‘good’ sheep always follow their master’s voice. Baa, Baa, Baa. The political shepherd and his political lap police dog lead the way for the sheep to follow.

“WOOF, WOOF, WOOF!” barked Sir Ian Blair, the political lap police dog as he sent 78 British bull terriers to remove ‘free speech’ and all traces of ‘genocide’ from the SQUARE. “We must protect the ‘rights’ of those who are different from us sheep. We are a ‘non-discriminatory’ and ‘tolerant’ Funny Farm of ‘equality’, subject to the invented Barnyard rules of our Charter.”

Baa, Baa, Baa bleat the Liberal cabinet sheep in unison. Then they will all sing in bleating sheep language, “We’re Liberal sheep with no Bo Peep and we don’t know where to find her. But we’ll follow the Blair’s, the naughty pair, we’ll vote yes - we don’t need a reminder.” Hey, a nice tune from a bleating good herd.

A few years before that song and dance, on another Farm where everyone is ‘Lordly’ and small ‘c’ conservative, those sheep had voted against lowering the legal age of sexual consent for homosexual males. In fact,,, three times the ‘Lordly’ ‘c’ Farm said, “NO!” to the Funny Farm Houses. The ‘c’ sheep had no intention of changing this accepted ‘normal’ age of consent for homosexual males. But many of Tony’s cronies were going Baa, Baa, Baa in support of this perversion of the ‘law’. And so, it came to be, Tony and his barnyard buddies invoked their very first Act of Parliament, effectively over-riding the ‘c’ sheep, and lowered the legal male/male age of sexual consent. Now that’s Baa Baa Baarking mad!



Tony says it’s all about ‘freedom’ and ‘security’. Funny Farm watchers have wondered if mad ‘Cow’ disease has infected the Blair’s and most of the other sheep for this sheepish behavior. Some humane animals are worried that perhaps these political sheep have swallowed their own sheep dip, resulting in a poisoning of their minds.

At one point, even the QUEEN BEE, had to remind Tony that the Army Ants were ‘hers’ and not ‘his’ - no ‘his and hers’ allowed. Could there be an explanation for this mind madness in the sheep? Rumour has it; there is a worry of mad ‘Cow’ disease in the Funny Farm Houses. A recent news headline said: “Mad Cow Disease found in German goat.” (NAZIsm? /HITLER? Ringing any bells folks?) Which raised the question: Did the German ‘goat’ interfere with the English ‘Cow’, and if this happened, could Liberal sheep get infected as well?

These are strange times on the Funny Farm, indeed. Still, this mad ‘Cow’ disease should be very worrying to the Liberal sheep. If this disease could jump from a ‘goat’, it could jump to a sheep as well. And wouldn’t that be ‘goat’-awful. (Hey, isn’t that an awful pun?) But here’s hoping no German ‘goats’ have infiltrated the Funny Farm Houses. Certainly, our Liberal sheep are acting very strangely. It would appear they are unable to think for themselves anymore. Their shepherd has trained them to stand up on their hind legs and show their support for ‘genocide’. Are they again planning to be Baa, Baa, Baaing YES to this in sheepish language denying ‘free speech’? Their shepherd says no sheep exemptions allowed.

Could mad ‘Cow’ disease have infected these cabinet sheep? Is their a German ‘goat’ loose in the Funny Farm Houses and chasing the sheep? If so, could the ‘goat’ be charged for sheep interference? Could this be an animal ‘hate crime’? Mad ‘Cow’ symptoms do attack the brain and can cause unnatural behavior to the thought processes. Does this mean the Funny Farm Houses across from the SQUARE will need to be QUARANTINED?

This is a very worrying situation for the inhabitants of the Funny Farm currently governed by this madness. Who will run the Funny Farm if all the cabinet sheep are QUARANTINED? Would some other Liberal turkeys take charge? Is this ‘1984’ or 2006? Is this England or ‘Animal Farm’? These are important questions that need answers.

Hopefully, Tony, the ‘master political sheep-herder’, will hold a news conference and declare there is no mad ‘Cow’ or German ‘goat’ infecting his sheep and that they are all healthy to vote ‘stand trial’ for ‘genocide’ and a ‘failure of duty to protect all God’s children - small and great’ as this is no bull poop. Baa, Baa, Baa. The Liberal sheep have all been ‘swined’ and dined and now all must join in a celebration song of a sheepish victory: “We’re cabinet sheep who have lost their way, Baa, Baa, Baa. Liberal sheepsters not really free, Liberals in the grip of Insanity, Lord, have mercy on such as we. Baa, Baa, Baa.” What will the QUEEN BEE say?

(Paraphrasing, with apologies to Stephen Gray and the Whip and Poof oops I meant Whippenpoof song.)
Anti copyright acknowledging the farcical/genocidal/eugenical British/American/Canadian
Baa Baa Baarking mad government

__________________
[size=medium]Freelance brain owner[/size] R U Darwin\'s monkey?[size=medium] HumanKIND = God\'s creation[/size]
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I think this is Loose Change Final Cut visualvendet Opinions 0 07-30-2007 06:00 PM
Loose Change Final Cut is now out!!! visualvendet General Conspiracy Discussion 0 07-30-2007 05:59 PM
Batman Series: Riddles and Jokes rushdoony Lounge 7 10-11-2005 09:09 AM
Robin cook: anyone know why he died? BvL What is really going on? 2 08-12-2005 10:14 AM
Only Users Loose Drugs Yeoshua Opinions 21 05-07-2005 07:09 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.