Voy Por Ustedes

A newspaper called La Capitale has offered up ten reasons to hate us! Us of all people. What on Earth have we done to upset the world, besides conquering it and educating it and making it feel inadequate? Here it is, here's the article right here

1. They are self-centred. (Literally: They think they are the belly button of the world.)

I think if you look closely Belgium you'll see we are the centre of the world. Look at the map, we're at the top in the middle. Time begins in London.

2. Their language is universal. So they refuse to even try to speak ours when they get lost over here. (80 per cent don’t even want to take a phrase book on holidays with them!)... but they look at you condescendingly if you speak bad English.

Our Language is universal so it's us who are in the wrong for not learning some weird dialect that requires litres of phlegm to speak and carries with each conversation the risk of drowning, just so we don't upset the locals two weeks a year when we're asking for directions for how to get the fuck out of there? OK fair enough, but.....

3. They can't do anything like everyone else (drive on the left etc).

Erm...like speaking the same universal language? You're saying driving on the right is universal and we should change? This only applies to driving then does it, not language? You want us to speak French, but it's OK for you to bitch about driving on the left when you visit us temporarily? Hypocrites.

4. They have the worst cuisine in the world

Belgium is famous for chips and chocolate. Jog on.

5. They drink warm beer, much to the despair of even our least talented brewers.

Should we all be drinking Stella Artois and similar lagers?

6. They are such drunks! According to a study, the English drink 8 alcoholic drinks a day during the holidays.

At chucking out time when the fighting begins at taxi ranks and kebab shops and the sex begins in alleyways have these people been drinking Wychwood's Hobgoblin or Stella Artois?

7. Their climate is even worse than ours.

No it isn't.

8. Their tabloids only think about bums and scandals.

Tab•loid |ˈtabˌloid| - noun - a newspaper typically popular in style, dominated by headlines and sensational or lurid stories.

9. They unfairly knocked out the Red Devils from the 1990 World Cup... we haven't forgotten that goal, in the last second, by David Platt!

Unfair? One of the greatest World Cup goals in history was unfair? You should try playing Argentina.

10. We havent forgotten their hooligans either, responsible for the death of 39 people at Heysel in 1985.

39 Italians, not Belgians more's the petty. I think you'll find it was the wall collapsing in that decrepit stadium that killed those Juventus fans not Liverpool's fans directly. Shoddy architecture, poor workmanship, shit policing and strong aggression inducing Belgian beers were the main contributing factors.

We shouldn't be too hard on Belgium I suppose. Given that practically every European nation has rifled it's way through Belgium at one point in history or another on it's way to somewhere else, it's not surprising they've become such a bitter and twisted nation. No doubt their irrelevance and national sense of inadequacy has led to them now being the globes leading paedophiles too.

A recent poll showed that nearly 80% of all single Belgian males over the age of 35 have a bespoke dungeon underneath their homes in which they imprison children kidnapped from all over Western Europe and in many cases their own progeny. This figure up 14% from last year.

It's estimated that almost half of Belgian females will lose their virginity to a member of their immediate family and 25% of those will never see daylight. Ironically, this trend was highlighted in the Agony Aunt column "Dear Monique," of La Capitale in which a 14 year old girl asked..."Dear Monique, I am 14 years old and still a virgin, does this mean my brothers are gay?"

A Belgian paedophile yesterday

Additional**

Erm..just figured out what the second set of ten points are. They basically say despite the ten reasons to hate us they still like us and give ten reasons why: We saved them in the war, London is lovely at Christmas, our music is the best, our football is the best, our Royals are still around despite the scandals (quite right too), something about nice gardens and Scotland being pretty and Agatha Christie is awesome for making Hercules Poirot the greatest detective.

Well, OK then good. Good. Sorry about the er.. paedophile stuff then.

Now now now Ireland, come on now stop crying, I know it hurts to miss out on the World Cup, I would still blame Ronald Koeman for England missing out on the 1994 World Cup if I gave a shit, but don't let's pretend every single Irish player wouldn't have handled the ball in the same way as Thierry Henry last night had they been in his position.

Well, I say in the same way, perhaps not to so delicately and with such nonchalance as Henry, as if he were teasing a moist pussy from behind. No, the Irish may not have fingered the ball with the same Gallic sexual dexterity as Titi, but they would have thumped it over to the waiting striker nonetheless.

Some facts: If the game is to continue with this luddite attitude towards the use of technology in the game, then controversies like Henry's part in the France winner last night will remain as much a part of the game as own goals, freakish deflections and the intervention of outside agents.

Ireland have had two years to qualify for the World Cup, so blaming this single incident in a 24 month campaign to reach the finals in South Africa is just self-absorbed navel-gazing. You had your chances, you blew them.

Don't hate the player hate the game as the kids say. If the rewards for cheating are to remain so high, while the risks remain so low, then player exploitation of the patchwork quilt manner in which the game is officiated will remain as much a part of the fabric of football as all the other myriad of things in the game that make us tear our hair out and cry our wee hearts out with joy all in the same 90 minutes.

A disappointed Irish fan yesterday

Henry: hands a defeat to the spud faced chancers.

Queen's speech today. Splendid stuff. Shame about the weather. When one considers that this speech is essentially irrelevant due to the forthcoming election, I'd like to see the Queen exercise her power as head of state. Why not stretch her sovereign legs and ad-lib a little?

This is an election broadcast on behalf of the Labour party thinly disguised as the Queen's Speech - there's not enough time left before an election has to be called for any of these bills to pass through Parliament. It's only an opportunity for Gordon Brown to hit the ground running with his campaigning and politicking and beating Cameron to the punch. Don't let him Ma'am. Don't let him.


I'd like to see her smuggle in a copy of the Racing Post and read the form for today's meeting at Lingfield before embarking on an epic foul mouthed tirade against those who feel the Monarchy are parasites who don't deserve to have people squeezing toothpaste out for them and a President would be far more preferable.

Queenie: ....and in the 2:00 on the All Weather track at Lingfield one fancies Alfresco.
Now then you cunts, about my Royal privileges...

I like the Queen and I'm pro Monarchy. I'd rather enjoy a debate about the irrelevance of the Monarchy and how shockingly parasitical and undemocratic they are especially at this time where we have a non-elected Prime Minister who is second only to Swine Flu in unpopularity and who is shortly to be superseded by a non-elected President of the European Union. Are you listening Ben Elton? Are you? I know you read my blog. I'm glad he's moved to Australia, bloody noisy hypocrite. Progressive, yet moves to a country that still finds golliwogs amusing.

The lefties want rid of the Royals because they represent a link to the past - historical continuity - and this is the nemesis of the average commie pinko. They represent the values that have sculpted our way of life over the centuries. Values that made us the most awesomest nation ever and values they so desperately want to destroy. Bastards.

Rather than being stored away and released only for ceremonial stuff and the pageantry of the opening of Parliament and so on, I actually think the Queen should express her opinions more frequently. She should have a column in the Telegraph at least.

I'm quite looking forward to Charles taking over if the truth be told, I've changed my mind about him - he might have big ears and may or may not talk to his plants - but he won't have a problem with giving his two penneth about the state of the country and expressing a genuinely conservative opinion that has been banned by all parts of the media.

Fair enough he couldn't satisfy Diana, but such an accomplished cocksmith would be a challenge for James Bond let alone an old duffer like him, but there's no doubt in my mind he represents an essential antidote to this sneaky socialist putsch that has turned this country's moral centre into mush. Yeah I said it - I said that shit. MUSH!.

Charles: Couldn't satisfy Diana, but an important figure nonetheless

Let us be clear also that the Monarchy actually cost us next to nothing. Despite what the lefties might have us believe, they cost us something like 70p a year, arguably most tax paying Britons have spent more on Gob Stoppers per year than the maintaining of the Monarchy.

Most people who whine about them being parasites have no idea how they're funded or how much their preferred alternative - a President - would cost. So let's break it down shall we. Some home truths before lunch.


The Crown Estate has an annual income of about £200m - this is the Monarch's property portfolio - all of which goes straight to the treasury. The Civil List is then financed by the Government which is used to maintain the Sovereign - expenses, salaries of her staff, pensions, garden parties and what not.

That Civil List has not increased since 1990. It's £7.9m and has been for twenty years. If our frugal politicians had to cope with a freeze like this they'd still be earning £25,000 a year. Pish-posh - they're on about £70,000 as we speak not including what they've sneakily stolen under fraudulent pretenses.

The Civil List this year cost something like £13m - the deficit was funded out of a surplus the Queen ran up because she lived within her means and spent her time at home frugally turning lights of in rooms that weren't being used and eating super market own brands for breakie.

The entire bill for having a Royal family is £40m a year - most of which is spent on maintaining places like Windsor Castle and Buck Palace - these are all owned by the state not the Monarch and would still be maintained if we had a President - just as the French do with Versailles and they haven't had a Monarch for 200 years - because of the tourist monies they attract.

The Queen and family's income comes from the Privy Purse, which is mostly income from the Duchy of Lancaster - the Prince of Wales income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. None of their private expenses is financed by the tax payer. We don't pay for Charles' Polo weekends and the Duke of Edinburgh's collection of Roy Chubby Brown DVDs.

They may have a yacht and a golden coach, and use helicopters instead of cars on occasions, but none of their comings and goings can match the fraudulent over-indulgences of our elected politicians and none of the Royal family have opportunity of fleecing a dodgy expenses system.

A President would cost far more than a Monarch. See President Obama, the syrup wearing German fella Köhler and that media whore midget Sarkozy for examples.

Now then, it's a fair enough debate to have, alls I ask is before one embarks on an anti-Monarchy campaign, one should at least pay her Majesty the compliment of knowing what the fuck one is talking about before one begins.

Elsewise your Ben Elton style diatribe on one of the few things we have left in this country to feel proud of will sound really quite ignorant - and you won't have the excuse that you have a book to sell to justify your oafishness.

For many years I've had a song in my head that appears fleetingly and then disappears. It's not the whole song, in fact people, it's no more than a few chords of bass guitar. I've never been able to quite remember any of the lyrics, just this bit of bass guitar - du du du du duuuuu - so have never been able to use the Googles to identify the song and release it for ever from my mind as one might release an aggressive wasp from ones home.

Alls I knew was it was a bad song sung by a poor man's Beastie Boys. And when I say poor I mean POOR. Poor like being reduced to suck on a homeless man's piss soaked trousers to remain hydrated and nourished.

Today though, I somehow induced some of the lyrics from the deepest parts of my memory - the places I usually reserve for my most traumatic experiences - fortunately without uncoupling anything sinister in the process - the most explicit details of the Glitter Gulch and the psychological abuse I suffered at the hands of my fourth year Primary School teacher Mrs Justin remain a hazy blur. Phew.


So anyway, I have Googled and the song is by Dog eat dog and is called "No Fronts." Sing along if you know the words. Why not wave your arms about too like the chaps in the video, as if you're troubled by that wasp still.