From the sound of it it seems quite fitting when talking about Katie Price. In fact using both words independently also works – very handy indeed!

In the past I didn’t mind Katie Price and Peter Andre with their ‘kooky’ antics, and in fact I used to stay up just to watch ‘Katie & Peter: The Next Chapter Stateside’ for a little light hearted giggle. The problem I have now is that after their already heavily publicised break-up Katie just doesn’t seem to go away. It’s like a old school friend whom you never quite new but didn’t mind too much suddenly appearing and wanting to be best friends! Yeah, it was fun when we were 10 but please, life goes on! At the moment she is so embarrassingly desperate to get people to read some trashy mag about her version of the events that led up to their relationship break down that she is reverting to her old tactics of fandangled sleaziness! Can anyone honestly take her seriously when she drapes herself with letters from her supposed fans and with a deep seductive voice to entice the viewer to buy the mag? Can anyone give a fat arse? Jordan, you are being pathetic!

Sigh! That is the reason for my little vent!

I have a list of celebrities that I find nauseously annoying. Well, it’s not an actual list, more of a mental note – I don’t want you to think that I am obsessive. Of course Victoria Beckham and Heather Mills are up the top. Now, I’m sorry to say Katie, you and your perma-tanned face has shot up from an almost insignificant mosquito buzzing annoying to Pat Ferrari from that Sally Raphaël talk show annoying – who is one anusly annoying wench I might add!

Unfortunately, I don’t think that Katie will get the hint that all products have a used-by-date. She may have found it easy to show some silicon cleavage in the past for a bit of coin but like all plastic-wrapped chickens they only have a very short shelf life. Sad? Perhaps, but this chick is destined for the bin and lets all hope for the sake of our sanity it is sooner than later!

Sheesh!

Poor guy was winning before the crowd started chanting his name!

To give you a bit of a background.

Bad Lashes were a contestant on Britain’s X Factor 2008 and sung an acappella version of Crazy by Gnarls Barkley for their initial audition. Although completely murdering this great song by over ambitious and badly arranged harmonies they made it through with 1 No and 2 Yes’s.

Throughout X Factor’s filtering process it continued to be apparent that these ‘Hairdressers Trying to be a Girlband’ were completely out of their depth and was very painful to watch – like an uncle making rude jokes at a christening. They have no understanding about creating anticipation with their harmonies and was as though each one of them were competing on being the loudest with their vocal masturbation.

I shouldn’t say that they have bad voices as I’m sure that with some coaching that they one day may sound ok. But for the moment I suggest that they keep quiet, get some lessons, change their name and apply for a job singing old classics at the local old people’s home.

If you are unfortunate enough to be rejected at the Pearly Gates, then for sure you will bump into these 2 animals – Tracey Connelly and Steven Barker.

For months the courts have banned any publication to reveal their identity until just recently when finally the courts lifted the ban and we can now see who these people are – and their crime? Torturing Connelly’s baby Peter to death!

It’s hard to fathom how anyone can perform these vile acts on a child but I am sure we can all agree that it is against the nurturing instincts most normal humans are born with. But month after month baby Peter was living out his short,17mth, life being beaten, thrown, tortured by Steven Barker, Connelly’s boyfriend, and Connelly sitting idly by allowing this to happen. At the time of his death, baby Peter had 50 injuries including a broken back and eight broken ribs.

It can be somewhat understandable that Connelly wasn’t a model citizen having been fathered by a convicted paedophile and raised by her drug addicted mother. Perhaps seeing this obese slob walking in the supermarket isle swearing at her children for taking a Mars bar could almost be expected. But to allow her boyfriend to beat her son while she watched hardcore porn and chain smoked is to me beyond subhuman. To be so completely detached from a child that she gave birth to, feed, changed diapers etc etc.. and to do nothing? It’s too hard to comprehend! I mean, when she gave birth to baby Peter surely she would have felt some kindly emotions towards him? No? What happened to those motherly feelings?

Steven Barker, convicted of raping a 2 year old girl and a suspect for sexually attacking other children, was brought up by his grandmother who also tortured him throughout his childhood. His upbringing, as disturbing as they were and could be argued that he was fighting some childhood demon, cannot excuse the tortures he performed on this helpless child. What sick pleasure, release, whatever, could he have felt by beating this poor helpless boy to death? And to keep on doing it?

Barker was given a life sentence and Connelly was given a 5 year sentence (but is appealing and could be released in 3 years). Now it may seem a bit unorthodox, but something inside of me wish they were released earlier. Not because I feel sorry for them as they both had horrid upbringings, but because prison is protection. If they were released earlier they will be exposed to the fury of the public and will live their lives in Hell on Earth – just like Baby Peter. That’s what I call real justice!

8jm6hr2ynx

The story goes like this. Derrick Moore, Moore’s son, was listening to music in his mom’s car with his friend Perry-Anne when they decided to take the car for a drive. So they took the car to Perry-Anne’s friend down the road and on the way back they had a terrible car accident and Perry-Anne was killed. She was only 16.

Now a normal mother in that situation would be extremely sorrowful especially as she allowed the children to be in the car with the keys and in fact allows her son to drive the car on her property even though he is not qualified. But instead of this normal reaction she instead decided to sue Perry-Anne’s mother for the cost of the car and for Derrick’s medical expenses!!

Maybe I missed something, perhaps I’m not worldly wise or maybe I’m a little harsh in my thoughts, if so please forgive me when i say that surely this woman is one cold hearted, self centered biatch!! I bet a thought crossed her mind to report the car stolen so she could get an insurance payout but then backtracked as her son was also in the car.

Whatever her reasoning the fact remains that she gave the method for the teenagers to drive the car knowing that she allows her son to drive it and left the keys in the ignition.

Watch the video and let me know what you think!

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that Scientology is the only one to focus on as there are a lot of other religions that do the same – for example the Christian Church. The difference is that with the Christian Church greed has taken over and has contradicted the core beliefs of the religion that it is trying to represent.

Now getting back to Scientology – the main reason why this organization (it is not a religion as what defines a religion is the belief of a higher being - ”Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and especially of a personal God entitled to obedience”), is to make money. This is not just an opinion of an ‘outsider or non-believer’ but was said by the founder himself – L. Ron Hubbard. Here are some of his quotes:

• “MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY.” - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 9 March 1972, MS OEC 384
• “I’d like to start a religion. That’s where the money is.” - L. Ron Hubbard to Lloyd Eshbach, in 1949; quoted by Eshbach in OVER MY SHOULDER: REFLECTIONS ON A SCIENCE FICTION ERA, Donald M. Grant Publisher. 1983

Now we have a  bit of a conundrum here as if a believer were to say that Scientology is not about making cash then that person would be contradicting their ‘messiah’ and if believer were to say that Scientology was only around to make money then they would contradict their ‘religion’.

L. Ron Hubbard was lucky that he started Scientology when he did and where he did. Had he tried in any other country or time then I do not believe that Scientology would have been as successful as it is today. The reason why I say this is because Scientology was created close to the end of the 2nd world war, in 1954, when people were shaken up by the war and started questioning their beliefs and wanting to follow something, wanting to find meaning. Another reason why it is so successful is that it was created in America, where it is easy to ‘bribe’ politians – political ‘donations’, and where they virtually no privacy laws – you can find dirt on anyone quite easily and then blackmail them if they do not  pass a law etc..

Do I feel sorry for people that join this organization? Well for those who are born into Scientology then I do, but for those who decide to join them then I do not as there is enough information on the Internet to find out what they are really like.

I don’t really want to get into what I really think of Scientology because they are just too powerful, but I do believe that the more information on the Internet about them so that people can form their own opinions about them the better it is. If this is in fact the one true religion then it should welcome people who are against them as truth is only truth if it can stand up to opposition. But unfortunately they’re are not of the same belief and will do anything to try  keep their religion stain free. Unfortunately for them  this is also a reason why people are becoming vocal in their opposition against them.

Basically the Equality Bill was passed in the UK which encourages employers to take action to widen diversity in the public sector.

Top Gear, as do a number of other programs,  falls under this Bill as it is owned by the BBC – a publicly owned entity.

So it appears that Drrr Louise Livesey, a tutor in sociology and women’s studies at Ruskin College in Oxford, thought that this would be a good opportunity to jump on the ‘sexist bandwagon’ and said of the show that it was ”entrenched with institutional sexism”.

Ahem.. I am sure we would all agree that most of the programs on TV are focused towards the fairer of the sexes, and if you feel different then I would like to propose a challenge by asking you to get today’s, or any days, television program and have a look.

It was claimed that, not only are the 3 hosts all male, the show had a ‘boys club’ production team and more male guests than female.

Andy Wilwan, Top Gear’s executive producer claimed that it was ”utter drivel that the show excluded women, and asked if it was geared so harshly towards men then why is the audience almost half women?”

He continues by saying, “Secondly, if we are to have a female presenter just to represent the sexes, then by that logic Loose Women needs a bloke in the line-up pretty sharpish.”

“I actually believe these sorts of mandates are patronising to women viewers, because they assume that women can’t enjoy a show’s presenters on merit, but can only appreciate a program if spoken to by one of their own sex.”

If Top Gear is change then I know for sure that it will lose a majority of the viewers. Not just the male viewers but the female as people love the show as it is.

Feel free to let me know of others.

1. Speed 2 – Directed by Jan de Bont. Starring: Sandra Bullock and Jason Patric
How can a movie about high jacked cruise liner earn the title ‘speed’? Anyway, Sandra Bullock stars using her trademark ’5yo babbling’ acting method. Please Sandra Bullock – cute talk is quite nice just before a bit of nooky, but when it’s stretched over a 1.5hr period it becomes well.. really really annoying! ARGH!

2. Basic Instinct 2 - Directed by Michael Caton-Jones. Starring: Stan Collymore and Sharon Stone
Watery scripting, watery acting. Sharon Stone, known more for her ‘spread eagle’ scene in the original Basic Instinct then her acting abilities, tries desperately to convince the viewer that she a twisted, dark, novel writer but instead comes across as someone suffering the after effects of a bad curry.

1. Cheryl Cole
2. Megan Fox
3. Jessica Alba
4. Britney Spears
5. Keeley Hazell
6. Adriana Lima
7. Elisha Cuthbert
8. Kristin Kreuk
9. Anna Friel
10. Freida Pinto