You...No...You Didn't....But...No...

And there I was thinking the shit with Darth Lord Walker's bald spot was over-hyped...

Really ?  Seriously ?

The Duchess of Cambridge is famed for her glossy, lustrous locks.

But she has been offered some sage advice by celebrity hairdresser Nicky Clarke, who fears she faces potential "disaster" by letting them go grey.

The Duchess, 33, has occasionally revealed a small patch of silver, most recently in February when she was six months pregnant with Princess Charlotte.

But Clarke has urged her never to do so again.

"Kate needs to get rid of her grey hair — it's not a good look," he told the Daily Mail.

"She does have amazing things done to her hair and it can look great, but unfortunately it's the case for women — all women — that until you're really old, you can't be seen to have any grey hairs."

Clarke, 57, who has styled Princess Diana and the Duchess of York, claimed grey hair would be "disastrous" for the Duchess.

He added: "It's different for men. Men can go grey in their mid-50s and still be considered attractive. It's the whole silver fox thing. But it's not the same for women. Kate is such a style icon that even a few strands of grey would be a disaster, so I highly recommend that she cover it up. I hate grey hair."

If I could actually resign from humanity, and there were anywhere else the fuck to actually go...I'd do it.  And don't doubt it for one moment.


*I'm almost tempted to unleash even more ABBA on the world -- Come on, when was any problem not solved with the application of more Swedish pop from the seventies & eighties ?

Everyone's a Nazi

Gasp ! Truly shocking video that, isn't it ?  How dare they goof around with their children in 1933 ?  Clearly the Royal Family must all secretly be Nazis ! Thank goodness the Sun was able to reveal that for us.

But, that's not all.  Turns out the Beatles were secretly Nazis too !

Time for a record-burning ?

Always...Priorities

Around the world, children are starving, children are dying of preventable diseases.  Children are being forced into child-labour, into slavery, even being forced to fight as soldiers.

Meanwhile, in the west, a certain toddler from an ever-so privileged family goes on an outing with his parents...and it's front-page fucking news (in mainstream publications no less).

Look at the little boy rolling down a hill.  Marvel in wonder as he kicks a ball !  See him running with his little toy-car in his chubby little fists...  But it's newsworthy, because one day, if our species hasn't completely destroyed itself before then, the adult this child may one day become could get to wear fancy-dress and pretend-rule over the people of a portion of a couple of small islands in the North Sea.

I will give the Telegraph & Times credit for one thing though: Not being the Daily Mail.  Because they apparently felt this particular combination to be appropriate:

There's a certain .gif out there on the 'ole Internetz that I could post here, that to put it mildly, starts with someone banging their head against a desk.  I'm going to refrain...this time.

MP Follows Official Protocol Shock Horror

Labour's Andy Burnham derided over cringeworthy sign off to Prince Charles’ spider memos

The former health secretary was writing a letter to the Prince of Wales thanking the royal for congratulating him as a newly-appointed minister.

But he ended the note with the hand-written flourish: “I have the honour to remain, Sir, your Royal Highness’s most humble and obedient servant.”

The sign-off appears to be following ministerial protocol, with fellow former health secretary John Reid using the same wording when he wrote to the prince.

However, Yvette Cooper, the former planning minister, signed off her letter to the royal with the simple phrase: “Respectfully yours.”

As the fight for the Labour leadership hots up, Mr Burnham, a frontrunner in the race, has been derided for his obsequious reply. 

One commentator said the sign-off spelled the end of his leadership campaign, while others agreed it had severely damaged his credentials as a leftwing moderniser. 

Others on Twitter accused Mr Burnham of “sucking up” to the heir to the throne, while another tweeted: “Your most obedient servant? Thought better of Andy Burnham #socialism”

Just curious, but what would be the appropriate 'left-wing' or 'socialist' protocol for addressing the future monarch ?  Surely Yvette Cooper's 'Respectfully Yours' is also excessively fawning and deferential towards the evil institution that is the monarchy.  Respect ?  Why should she respect Charles ?  He's a fascist figurehead surely ?  A greedy aristo. mooching off the labour of hardworking Brits.

How about 'I fart in your general direction' ?  Too mild ?  'Go fuck yourself you royal cunt !' ?  Maybe he should have smeared the letter in his own faeces ?  There must be a guide out there somewhere...

The Telegraph's Princess 'Spare Tyre' Diana Mark II

Once she has a name, will we finally stop going on about the royal baby ?

I get it.  A lot of Americans and a certain percentage of Britons are obsessed with Royalty, and aristocratic systems generally.  And due to the insane obsession of like-minded idiots globally, there is money to be made in tourism, which thanks to the lunatic commitment of Anglo-Saxon countries to extremist capitalist free-market ideologies, is alongside banking and retail, one of the few meaningful sectors still standing in the British economy.  But the non-stop coverage in the media is ridiculous.

So a certain couple in a certain family, which was once known as the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas has had a second child.  A child, which if the increasingly symbolic institution of the monarchy still exists many many decades from now, could theoretically be queen, depending on the deaths, abdications, or other misfortunes of her nearest relatives.  So the fuck what ?

I'm no anti-royalist, but the monarchy is, whether one likes it or not, an institution of dwindling importance in the everyday lives of the monarch's supposed subjects, and increasingly the role the political elites want the monarchy to play would seem to be a combination of providing cover for unpopular political decisions by the ruling party (and really, the fact that the Queen is trotted out every year and forced to give what is increasingly little more than a party-political-broadcast on behalf of whatever party currently controls Number 10 is frankly disgusting) and serving as a shiny object to distract the gullible masses from the problems affecting their everyday lives, largely as a result of the decisions of those same political elites.  And boy, could those elites ever do with a distraction right now.  Which brings us to:

This shit, from the front page, online and print of the Telegraph.

I don't really care personally that much what the couple in question (it's William isn't it, and one of the Middletons...Kate, I think ?) call their daughter, but in so far as I will engage with it, there's two ways of looking at this: a) They call their daughter what they want, without any consideration for the politics and optics thereof as representatives of the aforementioned political institution, or b) They take into account the politics and optics thereof, in which case, as a Christian name at least (nobody cares about middle names), calling the child Diana is one of the stupidest things they could possibly do.

The passage of time, the elevation of William over his father in the attention of the media and the public, and the marriage and subsequent children from said marriage of William & Kate have done a great deal to heal the wounds of that particular era of the British monarchy.  Why rip them open anew by giving the poor child the name of her grandmother, and reminding everybody of just how toxic that era was ?  And no, whatever you might think of Charles or the Queen, 'Saint Diana' wasn't exactly blameless in what went down all those years ago.  If as a purely personal matter, the couple want to name their child 'Diana', 'Elizabeth', or 'Mongo the Magnificent' for that matter, then hey, more power to them.  But if we must turn this into a symbolic political decision, then fer fuck's sake, just about the only stupider choice of name with which to burden the poor child would be probably 'Camilla.'

I mean, c'mon Telegraph, make up your mind what business you're in.  Is it providing consistently half-arsed tabloid-journalistic propaganda on behalf of the Tory party ?  Or is it just trolling the entire nation for shits and giggles ?

Oh, and lest you might be under any illusion that the Telegraph actually gives a shit about the actual female child who recently entered this world, contemplate this (complete with multiple pictures of seemingly far-more important older brother):

So, the poor child must not only be named Diana, but be Diana, as in some sort of symbolic re-incarnation of the now be-sainted and fictionalised princess of yesteryear.  Although, in the meantime, we'll unofficially just call her 'the spare.'  As in spare tyre.  As in disposable easily replaceable cog.  Wait...hey, the Telegraph finally found a way to make the monarchy relevant to the modern economy and the ordinary working experience.  Result !


Update: Charlotte Elizabeth Diana.  Fine.  Can we more on now ?