This entry was posted on
Friday, March 24th, 2006 at
11:17 pm and is filed
under The War on Stupid.
I would like to apologise to women everywhere… shortly.
First, there’s this:
But I’ve read in now… and by Blair’s God it’s glorious!
To get to the guts of it now, you’ll need to click here and fork out, but it will be worth your time and money, I assure you.
This opinion-piece refers to this incident, also reported in the Telegraph and – quite tellingly – used as ammo by the Scum as part of their recent turnaround in a way that suggests that they either don’t know the meaning of the word ‘bereaved’, or couldn’t care less if a July 7 bomb victim is alive or dead (so long as her plight can be used to further their agenda).
Ah, yes… the apology. Getting to that…
Matthew Norman is of the opinion that only one word can be used to describe Charles Clarke; it is a word that Clarke himself (insert: reportedly/allegedly/supposedly) bandies about quite often, and is described as “the one word we are not allowed to use even in so grown-up a newspaper unless it comes wrapped in sanitising quotation marks”…
I am about to use that word now, and I want you to understand in no uncertain terms why I am using it in this way…
It is a beautiful word that describes a beautiful thing… but then, the same could be said of words such as ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’ (until such words drip from the lips of our ‘defenders’).
So (apology goes here) consider yourself warned; this word is about to be spat out in an ugly fashion as a nasty weapon against a nasty man who uses it in an even uglier fashion for far, far nastier means.
I am convinced that – if enough people use this word in this way – the world will soon become a more beautiful place.
Consider this a test of will for the battle to come…
Begin your journey to a better life by letting the world know that Charles Clarke is a cunt.
Yes, you heard me… a cunt. Of the very lowest order.
That is all.
(Static link added to sidebar because I really, really, really gosh-darn mean it.)
UPDATE – For those who find this word a tad strong/improper, I suggest the following alternative: slug