The Daily Fail

The Daily Mail ran a story a few days ago about a student who tore into David Cameron during a live TV debate.

During the debate she accused pig loving Cameron of waffling and scaremongering over the EU referendum.

Student Soraya Bouazzaoui interrupted the Prime Minister as he bumbled his way through a pitch for the Remain campaign.

She’s since won plaudits on Twitter from people saying that she managed to say what other people were thinking.

However, the article (which has since been rewritten, I hasten to add) then goes on about Soraya herself, how she likes to party and post selfies on Facebook – many of which “attract Likes”.

Now, here is the crux of many a Daily Mail article, it’s all about the Likes!

What the hell does posting selfies and people “liking” them have to do with anything at all?  The original article (before it was extended to contain more content about the referendum and the EU and less about Soraya) went into great detail about the kind of pictures she posted on Facebook and how many likes she got, rather than concentrating on her views on the EU.

But then again, is that even news? 

Woman tells Cameron he’s waffling shocker!

Student who isn’t a politician has view on EU EXCLUSIVE!

I have an opinion on the EU but it’s not on the cover of any newspaper, it’s not news.

But this kind of shit is typical of the Daily Mail.

I don’t read the Mail by the way, it’s badly written nonsense which is published without being proof read or spell checked (hence the article last year which stated a man had been “Shit dead”) but I do like to go on the site for material.

Another thing about the Daily Mail is that they’re obsessed with age, as if it’s new to them.

I saw 2 articles the other day which could have acted as a template for “What has happened to x celebrity?!

The first one was about Hugh Grant, asking the question “What’s happened to Hugh Grant?

He was on a beach, he’s got a bit of a paunch, moobs, and was wearing baggy shorts.

Fuck me, is that the worst they can do?  Is that news?

So, what HAS happened to Hugh Grant?  Well, he’s got older for a start.  He’s 55 now. 

Is he supposed to hit the gym 5 times a week to keep some vapid blert at “FeMail” happy?   

Since when has it been a crime for a 55 year old fella to have a belly, moobs and a shit haircut?

And then on the same day the other “article” in “FeMail” showed 6 actors and actresses from some American show I’ve never seen.

It showed them 10 years ago and then again now, and asked the usual question “What the hell has happened to the cast of <Insert show name here>?

The answer is that, funnily enough, they look about 10 years older because, you know, they pissing well are 10 years older.

Given that they’ve gone from their 20’s to their 30’s they’re still good looking people and haven’t really changed that much.  Ones got bigger tits, one fella has a beard.

The Mail is obsessed with it though, they just can’t comprehend that we all get older. 

 

All Rosie

News reaches Toast Towers about Rose West and the prison football team.

 

Forum

The forum has been removed as it was about as popular as Judas.

 

More cliches

Remember the rant about Shit things about TV and Movies well there's a part 2 now!

 

Kim Thong Un

Turns out Kim Jong Un likes ladies pants!

 

A big shout out

We're told Chris Evans has a new job.

 

And finally...

Here's some more thoughts on the EU referendum.

 

What ho, old bean.

A posh University Challenge student has been charged with rape.

Bartholomew Cuthbert Joly de Lotbiniere has been alledged to have carried out a string of sex offences including rape.

If he's convicted I reckon he should change his name to "Lobitinthere"

 

Things overheard in the playground #261

"X (aged 9) got Star of the Week this week because he used toilet paper instead of his hand"

Hygienic.  And this is the same school where a Muslim kid called a non Muslim kid "dirty" because she had a ham sandwich.

Dirty?  Dirty is wiping your arse with your hand, pal.

 

James Bond

Monkey on Toast can exclusively reveal the next James Bond.

 

New Feature!

We've a new feature here at Monkey on Toast called Headline Makers.

It's a collection of scenarios and the potential newspaper headlines for them!

Feel free to send yours in, see the contact details on the About page.

 

Gorilla's will be missed

So the internet's gone wild over a gorilla that was shot because a child "fell" into its enclosure.

Experts who have never been to a zoo claim the gorilla, Harambe, shouldn't have been killed because it was protecting the child.

We've all seen the footage and while we're all animal lovers the shooting of the beast isn't as senseless as it may seem.

It has been stated that a tranquilizer dart wouldn't have taken immediate effect which could have brought harm to the child, Harambe could have drowned if the tranq kicked in whilst in the water and it's possible the child could have actually been squashed, possibly in the water.

Internet judges blame the parents, they should be shot apparently.

But it's not a black and white case against the gorilla, the parents or the child.

It appears fairly clear cut that Harambe wasn't exactly protecting the child and offering him up to any of the zoo staff.

It appears fairly clear cut that the child actually WANTED to get into the enclosure.  Having been heard several times saying he wanted to get into the enclosure, I find it very hard to believe the child "fell" into the enclose, I am of the belief he actually sought out a way to do so.

It appears fairly clear cut the parents are fuckwitts for not watching their child in public and for not keeping hold of him when it became clear what his intentions were.

It's possible Harambe wouldn't have brought any harm on the child, but is that really a risk worth taking?

Yes, it's sad a rare beast was shot but you have to do what you think is right at the time, I can't think of another way this situation could have been resolved.

 

And finally...

A man is arrested for wearing a t-shirt.

Until next time.

Jilted Jihadi John

A woman who supported ISIS, spread radical propaganda and said she wanted to marry Jihadi John has been jailed.

Jihadi John's Wife
Still, she's half way there I guess, look at that 'tache!

 

Staying in that region

It seems that Iraq are desperate to bring back Saddam Hussein.

 

worst brothel everWorst brothel ever.

 

Meanwhile, in Soapbox land

There's a mini rant about Sofology.

 

Disturbing news

About Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber.

 

 

Very Loose Women

So, Katie Price’s son, Harvey, drops the C-bomb on Loose Women, live on air.

Whilst this is quite funny, in fact, it’s hilarious, it also shows just how much of a piss-dribbling thundercunt Katie is.  If that ever really was in question.

For those not in the know, Harvey is what is known in the trade as “a mong”.

And as such, mongs don’t socialise with other children in the same way.

I’d be surprised if he leaves the house to be honest.

So, where did he learn the C word from if it wasn’t from Katie herself?

There are some utter spastics out there who think Katie Price is a wonderful mum.  I’ve seen many a chav regard her as “an idol”.

An idol. 

Someone who gets their tits out for a living, had children to multiple dickhead fathers, been married or engaged to more men than Wayne Rooney’s had hot dinners is an idol?

She’s been up for Mum of the Year as well, probably even won it, if I could be arsed to check.  Which I can’t.

I despair.

Watch the clip, it’s piss funny, you’ll watch it over and over until you’re dribbling like Harvey himself.

But then have a think about how this has come about.

Either:

1 - Katie has told him to say it and it’s been rehearsed, which I wouldn’t be surprised at given that it’s free publicity, again.

2 – The C word is such a regular part of her vocabulary around her kids.  Again, this would hardly come as a surprise given she’s got a gob on her that would put a navvy to shame.

How would Harvey know what context to use the word in unless he’s heard it more times than anything else?

There’s a saying in the world of showbiz “Never work with children or animals”, this is true (especially in porn).

Maybe it should be extended to “…and vegetables”.

Though you can keep them in your porno’s actually.  I’ve seen things done to carrots and marrows that would embarrass Dirty Debbie.

You just know what will happen next - Fame hungry, nose hungry, chip pan headed former Atomic Kitten singer and Iceland queen, Kerry Katona will be taking her kids on “This Morning” where they’ll be effing and jeffing all over the shop.

Katie Price should be utterly ashamed of herself.  Taking her brain damaged, sweary child on live TV and expecting nothing bad to happen.

There’s no way a dribbling spaz like that should be on TV.

And as for Harvey….

Hello You Cunt

We're all going on a summer holiday

Gloria Hunniford has revealed details about her pal, Sir Cliff Richard which probably serves to do more harm than good.

Sir Clifford of Richardian has been the centre of new sexual abuse allegations, and Ms Hunniford has taken it upon herself to protect him and not say anything that could be, you know, incriminating.

In an article she claims he is "consumed by sexual assault" and 

The dirty bastard.

Meanwhile, she contradicts what we all think with regards to his "preferences" when she says:

cliff obsessed

 

Cameron feel the noise

So David Cameron is now feeling the heat once again from those who seek to find any reason to call for him to resign.

This time he was overheard telling the Queen that Nigeria and Afghanistan were "fantastically" corrupt.

So you want him sacked for telling the truth now?

With regards to Afghanistan why do you think nothing ever gets resolved in the country?  Where do you think the money goes?  To tribal elders and corrupt politicians.

And you think Nigeria is sound?  Course it is.

You voted him in, if he commits a crime and has to go he will do, but stop jumping on him for every thing that happens.

"Oh, David Cameron farted in public!  HE OUGHT TO RESIGN IMMEDIATELY!!!!"

 

Facebook Fuckwitts

Over in Facebook Fuckwitt Corner we have a new article about people thinking we're all being hacked.

 

And finally...

Changes have been put into place to divulge to the public the salaries of BBC staff who are earning more than £450K.

Really?  Why does this matter?

So what if Chris Evans, for example, earns £500,000 a year or that Steve Wight (in the afternoon) earns £80,000 a year?

I really don’t care, and neither should a painter and decorator from Solihull, a hotshot solicitor from London or a barista from Barnsley.

Do we really need to know what other people are earning?  What could we possibly do with knowing that information, apart from moaning that it’s too much and they’re not worth it?

Not that I think that way.  I don’t care what anyone at the BBC is earning as long as it’s deemed as value for money and they’re the right person for the job.

Salaries have to be budgeted in any organisation, and the BBC is no different here.

It seems that we’re going down a very dangerous road here where soon more and more people are going to have to publicly disclose their salaries or tax returns for no reason other than the fact that people are envious and nosey bastards.

Let’s just make up an example of DJ Matt Emulsion.

He works for the BBC and presents a radio show on a Saturday morning between 9 and 12, he earns £100,000 a year from the BBC.

Christ!  He only works 3 hours a week and he’s earning all that”, I hear you cry.

Yes, but he’s not pitching up at the studio at 8:55, sitting down with a brew, playing some records and leaving work at 12:05.

Chances are, he’ll have been at the “office” around 6 or 7 at the very latest, getting everything ready.  He’ll have been working on the material for the show all week as well.

He’ll have been in Production meetings, running through scripts, playlists and such like.

There will no doubt be a debrief after the show as well.

When he goes home he’ll start working again for the following weeks show.

And let’s not forget that he’s been asked to attend a do on Tuesday night where he’s presenting an award for the “Shittest newcomer to music” to some flash-in-the-pan vapid teenager who really can’t sing.  That’s all included in his £100k a year salary.

And the advert shown on BBC1 on a Friday night between shows which serves to advertise his show the following day, he’s had to go and make that advert… and he’s not paid any extra.

Let’s get this clear, BBC “presenters” are contracted not just salaried and their contracts agree to pay them x amount of pounds per year for x number of years and the contractor is obliged to carry out the work that is requested. 

Some of the more highly paid presenters have to work on multiple shows, they're never off TV or radio and it's all included in that one salary package.

Just because someone earns more than £450K a year doesn't mean they don't work hard for it and we've no reason really to complain about it.

Unless it's Bruce Forsythe, he can fuck off.

 

Only white people can be racist

It's true.  Check out this article about a black Oxford student  who racially abused and humiliated a white waitress at a restaurant.

Boasting on Facebook he said he had made the waitress "cry white tears" and would give her a tip when "fellow white people return South Africa's land back to its population".

Oxford University claim that he was exercising free speech.  Correct, he was.

As am I now.  However, I will absolutely guarantee you had that been a white student and a black waitress who was "crying black tears" the student would have been slung out immediately, publicly hunted down on Facebook and probably been sent to prison for a month.

Racism only works one way.

If white people say anything about other creeds, colours or race then it's disgusting racism.

If any other ethnicity says anything about white folk then it's just accepted.

Double standards, makes me really mad.

 

Facebook Fuckwitts

Over in Fuckwitt Corner we have 2 belters:

1 - Burn McMurray, Burn

2 - Poland Day. Disgusting

It's enough to make you weep.

 

Mo Brexit, Mo Problems

The David Cameron Brexit campaign continues to gather pace, with even more propaganda than in recent weeks, as I wrote about here.

But this whole referendum has got me thinking about this and politics as a whole.

In the case of this referendum we have a binary choice to make, or as I like to call it The Hokey Cokey choice - we’re either in or we’re out.

It’s like being given a choice of music to listen to – You can have The Spice Girls or you can have The Venga Boys.

Nobody in their right mind wants to listen to any of that shite, where’s the third option for silence?

This referendum is like that, stay in Europe or leave.

There should be a third option, an option to stay in Europe but to reform the whole paradigm.

There are Pros and Cons to staying in and leaving Europe but why should it have to be so black and white?

You can choose to die in a horrible fire or by drowning.  Thanks.  Where’s the option to die in my sleep?

If the referendum is going to spark change why can’t we choose a third, fourth, fifth option?

Does the general public know the consequences of voting to stay or go?  If there were more options then not only could that potentially be less damaging to the country but it could mean that things change for the better.

I believe if we had further options other a straight yes or no then more people would vote and they would vote for the most sensible option.

Those who are scared of or don’t understand the No vote will vote Yes, to blindly stay in Europe without question.

Those who are a little pissed off about being in Europe will vote No without understanding exactly what it might mean.

It’s all so risky.

This has got me thinking about the political voting system as a whole though.  

For example, take the general election, we’re given a bunch of candidates to vote for.  What if you don’t like any of the candidates?  You don’t bother to vote?  That’s just a massive waste.

Or you vote for whichever candidate you think is not as much of a dickhead than the rest.  Good choice, democracy.

So why can’t we have extra options that allows the voter to say, “Listen chief, I’m not overly chuffed with this set of nincompoops, I’ll vote for X on the condition that Y happens

Or “I think there should be a coalition between X and Y

Or “I’ll vote for X but as soon as it comes out he’s shagging his secretary / au-pair / sister I want a new general election

It might bring some accountability back to MP’s.  After all, they have a manifesto but if they don’t carry out any let alone all of their promises there is no consequence.

Politicians and their parties should come with some form of warranty or be made accountable to trading standards.

If you vote for a party and they fail there should be fines, imprisonment and being forced to go to a Jedward concert.

 

And finally...

Here's a new article about having a poo at work.

 

Copyright © 2000-2017 Monkey on Toast. All Rights Reserved.