Holy Mary Mother of God!!!!

This blog has already documented the heartbreaking news that Emily Watkins is quitting The Wiggles.https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/661014602266362710/383504608042528957

Yes, the Yellow One is off but never fear, someone is ready to step into her jaundiced jeans and jersey. Step foward 15-year-old Tsehey Hawkins who becomes not only the youngest member of the excruciatingly annoying TV team but the first black person/person of colour/darkly toned, bilaterally symetrical, metamerically segmented, triploblastic metazoan (not sure this is the most up to date supposedly acceptable term for "black"? Ed).

Now, I'm not normally one for berating young girls but there ARE times when some really deserve a proverbial slap to bring them back into the real world.

I'm not going to attempt to reproduce Tsehey's mind numbingly pretentious and stunningly deluded introductory interview, safe to say you'd think she'd just brought peace to the fucking Middle East or cured cancer!

Firstly, she said she was excited about being the latest "incarnation" of Yellow Wiggle, like YW is bleedin' Dr Who all of a sudden!!

Then she went on to handling "the pressure" of joining the bloody Wiggles - Jesus H Fucking Christ!! - and how she was striking a blow which would inspire women around the world! Really? I mean bloody really??

I'm sure some lass sentenced to be stoned to death in Iran for forgetting to cook her husband's eggs sunnyside up will be thinking of the Yellow Wiggle as she mounts her defence!

Tsehey then banged on endlessly about "inclusivity" and how The Wiggles were a shining example to the world! Yeah, Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus is an avid follower of the show and never pens a policy without thinking "I wonder what The Wiggles would do?"

Dear Tsehey and All at The Wiggles,

While I welcome your promotion of inclusivity by casting a teenage black girl I was disappointed you chose not to go with a disabled Abo.

Also, where is the trans-gender or cross-dressing, sexually undecided Wiggle? You are spurning communities around the world at God knows what cost!

If war breaks out as a result and millions are killed you've only got yourselves to blame!

Regards,

Reg.

P.S. Have you ever considered getting over yourselves?

You're Nicked My Son of a Camel!

Police are apparently investigating after Crystal Palace fans unfurled a banner critical of Newcastle United's new owners at the game with the Magpies at St James' Park.

Why? Did the banner say whoever bought Newcastle must, by definition, be a twat? Did it read: "Fuck You, You're All Wankers!" No, surprisingly not.

What it actually said was that the human rights record of the country behind the acquisition of the club was appalling!

You see, the consortium which stumped up £305 million for the purchase is led, to all intents and purposes, by Saudi Arabia's ruling royal family.

Saudi Arabia? You know, hot place, sand, loads of oil, stinkingly rich sheiks? Where they assassinate journalists they don't like, torture, execute, ban free speech and protests, cut off hands and heads and subjugate women? You must have heard of it?

What a refreshing change then. Banners at our football games used to say things like "Rooney Shags Grannies", "Derby Sheep Shaggers" and "You're Going Down With An Overdraft" (just a slight bias there, courtesy of the team I support).

Not anymore. Palace obviously have some more intelligent and socially aware fans. Their supposedly offending banner proclaimed "Premier League Owners' Test - Torture, Beheading, Civil Rights Abuses, Murder, Censorship and Persecution."

A man was also depicted in Arab gear, holding a bloodied sword.

There was also a banner which read "Alan Shearer Is A Bellend" but I don't think that's under investigation.

You've gotta laugh. Just days ago the grovelling toady officials at Newcastle urged fans not to don Arab headdresses or traditional Middle Eastern garb, assumedly to avoid offending the new  owners.https://draft.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/661014602266362710/2671825679686655938

They didn't foresee visiting fans pointing out those owners were responsible for horrific abuses. Makes the Geordie Lawrence of Arabias seem a bit tame now. I wonder what they thought? "Hi Kingy. I think we've fucked up here old son -SEND"?

What caught my eye though was that reports of the incident said "Police are investigating".

Dear Croydon Metropolitan Police,

I was interested to read that you were carrying out an investigation into a banner displayed by some Crystal Palace fans during their team's game against Newcastle United yesterday (Saturday, October 23).

You said in a statement that any allegations of racist abuse would be taken "very seriously". 

I'm keen to know one thing - racist abuse by whom? Crystal Palace fans or the ruling Saudi Arabian royal family which is ostensibly the new owner of Newcastle United?

The banner pointed out THE FACT that the Saudi Arabian regime is accused of horrific abuses, including racist and others of a human rights nature. 

I don't believe statements of fact are against the law. Torture, murder, beheadings and floggings are, however.

May I assume then that your investigation will be into the Saudi royal family?

I look forward to hearing from you soon,

Reg.

Apropo Nothing.

 No letter arising from this. I just thought I'd say.....

Cushy jobs: No. 345; Greta Thunberg's hair stylist.

Carry On Comrade - Allegedly.

Owner of the London Evening Standard Alexander Lebedev is a former KGB agent - fact.

Intelligence sources first had the teeniest, weeniest suspicion he could be of interest to them when he stepped forward to buy the paper in 2009 and they took a quick gander at his CV:

Name; Evgeny Alexandrovich Lebedev.

Career History; Baby, school, paper round, college, barman Wetherspoons in Moscow, KGB spy.

Then he became best pals with our dissident-looking PM Boris Johnson. So, could he be an ever so slight security risk to this country, the crowd at The Circus/Legoland pondered? Well, yes. The security services initially seemed to think so and assessed both him AND JOHNSON as such.

However, they changed their minds in June 2020 and removed the label, a decision allegedly pushed through by the Cabinet Office, Johnson obviously having had no say in that whatsoever, honest.

Just to reinforce the change of attitude, Lebedev was also made a baron - the same sort of confidence and gratitude shown to Anthony Blunt when he was enobled.......before all that silly "traitorous bastard" kerfuffle started doing the rounds.

What could go wrong? I mean our intelligence services are so brilliant. That is why they are still celebrating the rooting out of five Cambridge types who infiltrated MI6 - just 30 years after they started passing secrets to the Russians.

So, does Big Al regard himself as a red under the UK bed? Definitely not! Well, that's good enough for me. I mean, if you ask an actual spy if he's a spy he's been trained by his spymasters to say "yes I'm a spy, it's a fair cop", right? A denial, therefore, means he obviously isn't.

It is therefore clear Lebedev IS IN NO WAY A RUSSIAN SPY so I thought it was important to show my support by dropping him a line:

Dear Comrade,

The pig in the wellingtons flies south for the winter but Dame Nellie and Yuri won't have toast at teatime.

A radish grows tall among the giraffes while the sun rises over No. 23, Flange Terrace, Hounslow, on the Ides of the rubber mollusc.

Fraternal aadvarks comrade,

Regovich.

On Graduates, Goalposts and Gits.

In addition to toying with the ideas of reintroducing slavery and burning at the stake, our Government is considering a change to the student loan scheme.

The latest wheeze would see the income level at which post-grads have to start repaying their loans fall from £27,295 to £23,000.

Critics argue, not surprisingly, that lowering the bar would make students from poorer backgrounds believe university was unaffordable but not everyone agrees.

Chief among the dissenters is former Thatcher top table toadie Kenneth Baker.

Baker, Thatcher's former Education Secretary and chief slug, is now officially Britain's biggest dork having been enobled as Lord Baker of Dorking and he says he "strongly" supports lowering the student loan repayment threshold.

"Would-be students should realise the obligation they will be taking on," he said, stubbing a smouldering servant out on his orphanhair rug.

Dear Lord Baker,

I was pleased to hear you welcome moves to change the rules on when students will have to pay back their loans - AFTER hundreds of thousands have already taken them out!

Your support of retrospective action therefore makes it easier for me to give you some bad news.

I hope you realised the obligation you took on as an MP because, as a tax payer, I write to tell you I have decided that the hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions, you were paid was in fact just a loan! 

Worse than that I'm afraid, I want it back a week on Thursday!

"But you can't do that because you're not an MP and no-one elected you!" I hear you belch. Well, neither are you anymore fishface and yet you've still been hoovering up my tax payments as a member of the House of Lords for the last 24 years! Oh yes, and I want that back as well!

Assuming this doesn't find you as it leaves me i.e. skint,

Reg.

Lessons in Life.

There are calls for schoolchildren to be given lessons on the concept of "consent" in sexual relations.

Whether it's being followed, sharing pictures online or just holding hands, campaigners say the necessity for consent has to be TAUGHT.

On the face of it, this is all very laudable but aren't school curriculae already stuffed to the rafters? Shouldn't we simply be turning out rounded, questioning kids who have the capacity to think and reach obvious conclusions themselves, without resorting to micromanagement - tending the trees instead of the wood?

I wonder what our Education Secretary thinks?

Dear Nadhim Zahawi, 

I gather you are facing calls for the issue of consent in sexual relations to be taught in schools?

If you favour this idea, I have some other classes you need to consider:

1. Lying on railway tracks can seriously damage your health.

2. Stabbing people has drawbacks.

3. Eating your own excrement isn't necessarily a good way of reducing waste.

4. Becoming anorexic, alcoholic or drug-addicted like rock idols is somewhat "benefit limited".

5. Jumping off the Eiffel Tower "for a laugh" will limit the number of future YouTube videos you can post.

6. Hacksawing your head off with a rusty blade is not an ideal way of eradicating embarrassing facial acne.

There are more I could suggest but I've only got limited time. This would all cramp the timetable, I know, but maybe you could free up space by allotting just one day a year to learn maths, English, history, geography and all those boring things with which schools are unnecessarily burdened?

Hope this helps,

Reg.

Boris and the Re-Introduction of Slavery.

Our raving, right-wing Tory rulers, under the Fuhrership of Boris Johnson, have blocked a law preventing companies from firing and re-hiring employees.

Boris Johnson,

Do you know what the practice of "fire and rehire" actually involves? Of course you do. It means firms can bin staff without just cause and then take them on again under compulsory contracts offering less pay, with poorer conditions, and no-one can do a sodding thing about it.

Perhaps you need a little basic instruction here. What is employment? Well, it's where Person A contracts to supply their skills and labour to Person B in return for some reward, traditionally financial. 

Key to this is the "contractual" element. Person A AGREES a certain reward due to them from Person B for their help and any changes to that have to be AGREED by both parties.

Well, that used to be the way it worked. At the turn of the last century trades unions were established to negotiate on behalf of the As with the more powerful Bs - but then the devil's daughter got involved.

Thatcher crushed trade union activity, got them outlawed in some sectors and with her footsoldiers at the Daily Mail, Sun, Telegraph etc instilled in the public consciousness the belief that unions were Communist wreckers intent on destroying the well-being of everyone. Also, people were told they were lucky to have jobs and they had the generosity of employers to thank for that so should be eternally, cap-doffingly grateful to them.

Result? Workers were either left alone or with toothless union backing to combat the dictates of employers. Contracts were literally worth less than the paper they were written on.

To get round nit-picking anti-slavery laws, however, contracts were still given to employees but they were IMPOSED, not negotiated or re-negotiated. It was take-it-or-leave-it management. They are NOT contracts! Contracts, by definition, are agreements! If one side doesn't or isn't allowed to agree or disagree then it is not a contract, it is an order, a diktat.

So, we've now moved on to Person B ordering Person A to provide skills and labour if they want to live. Make you feel proud?

Fire and re-hire is yet another substitute for agreement. Employers who have already dictated pay and conditions to employees but now want to screw out even more can simply sack them and draw up a new "contract" which workers HAVE to sign if they want to keep their jobs! No need for time-wasting and potentially disagreeable negotiations!

You and your Tory lot have decided that instead of outlawing "fire and rehire" companies should be offered "guidance" on the issue. Can we assume that similar "guidance" is to be offered to other sections of society? I mean, do you intend to abandon Common Law and instead offer "guidance" to murderers that they really shouldn't top people if they can help it? Do tell?

Haven't you and your lot had enough of trampling on ordinary people and lining the pockets of yourselves and the ruling elite?

Here's hoping you get fired by the electorate at the next General Election (assuming you don't intend to scrap elections as well as proper contracts of employment?) and are never, EVER rehired.

In the meantime, and pleass don't take offence, fuck you!

Reg.

Benjamin Franklyn and the Temple of Grooming.

Some kids at a school in Texas - where bleedin' else! - are suing over an edict banning boys from having long hair.

When I was at school we not only had regulation hair cuts but also dress codes and the prohibition of sporting a bone through the nose. The idea was to instill some sense of pride in appearance and prepare you for the outside world where there were lots of rules you might not like.

These delightful Texan urchins however claim that having to get their hair cut is not only against a federal law prohibiting sex discrimination but also........wait for it.........against the soddin' constitution! Is there ANYTHING in the USA which some bloody redneck or woke wanker DOESN'T think is against the fucking constitution?

Acording to them, electing someone president when they got seven million more votes than their opponent is against the constitution. Any attempt to scold people who violently protest at the treble-checked, democratic result is against the bloody constitution. Nit-picking about the staging of an attempted armed insurrection which cost five lives is against the constitution. Arresting anyone who tries to stage a coup d'etat is against the constitution. Now, getting your hair cut is against the constitution.

Has ANYONE actually read the bleedin' constitution? By definition, it lays out certain inalienable rights to which citizens are entitled but it is an understatement to say it has become either lost or distorted by the fogs of time.

For clarity, I wrote to Benjamin Franklyn, the man whose proposal brought the constitution into being in the first place. OK, he's been dead for 231 years but I guessed they could just pop this in his "pending" tray.

Dear Ben,

This constitution of yours, just a few questions. After you'd crayoned in freedom of speech, assembly and religion, can you remember anyone jumping up with any other suggestions? For instance, was there some hipply-looking dude who said it was "Well bummer, man" that his mum kept telling him to get a haircut so you decided to include that one?

The bloke there who looked slightly mad, was smeared in blood and had notches on his gunbelt, did he say anything about shooting people being what God wanted so you put that in?

How about the lad who wanted to be called Loretta and to have the right to have babies? Did you add in his wants?

As for violence, getting rid of democracy and a handful of redneck nutjobs being entitled to rule everyone else, what was the general mood of the meeting?

See, thing is, I thought we had certain RESPONSIBILITIES to go with our rights? You know, being responsible for safeguarding others by not driving on the wrong side of the road, not starting fires in neighbours' homes, not shooting people who disagree with you, not hacksawing the heads off those who worship a different God and not jailing people simply because they support Leeds United?

Your constitution, brill though it might be, is a little bit light on the responsibilities side of things. Don't worry, it's like all declarations of entitlements. We've got one called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Again, it's a jolly good thing but is shy of responsibilities and caveats. The result is you get jailed mass murderers suing because they are given raspberry jam at teatime, not their favourite, strawberry. There is no provision which says "Oh, by murdering people you disqualify yourself from having the following rights" - and list choice of jam alongside voting, building aeroplanes and tunnelling etc.

Why not come up with an ammendment? There have been 27 so far so don't feel put out. Another one will hardly be noticed.

Ammendment No. 28: "All rights enshrined in this document to be applicable on a case by case basis."

Kind regards,

Reg.

Jonestown Revisited.

These anti-vaxxers and their leaders and rabble-rousers? They've got to be mentally ill, right?

I mean, only window-lickers and people who think they're Napoleon would want to stop us all being protected from a deadly virus, surely? No sane person or person without malicious intent would want to kill us off, would they?

Take for instance the late Rev Jim Jones. He managed to brainwash 900 members of his cult into killing themselves "for their own good". He really WAS insane and he DID have evil at heart but, because of his "death, you know it makes sense" philosophy, he would have been hailed a hero by today's anti-vaxxers.

Would that it were just so simple as to let nature take its course and survival of the fittest do its thing. The anti-vaxxers would die off from Covid and the world would get that much more intelligent. Unfortunately, by refusing vaccines this mob puts us all at risk as we struggle to build immunity.

Now a new threat posed by the "it's my life and I'll die if I want to" mob has emerged. They have apparently joined forces online with the anti-lockdown brigade to organise the confrontation of MPs face to face.

A Sky investigation has discovered photos and videos of such morons approaching MPs and their offices circulating widely on the messaging app Telegram. One group says its aim is to target the "evil actions" of government. Supporters obviously believe the murder of two of our elected representatives to date is far too few!

Edward Jenner pioneered vaccination in the 18th Century when the average Joe was thick enough to believe that witches existed, rain was caused by digging holes (seriously!) and that there was a entire continent called Mu which everyone had missed in the Pacific Ocean (look it up)!

Dense though many people were they were not cerebrally challenged enough to believe vaccination was not a good thing and so it went on to eradicate horrible diseases such as smallpox and polio and all but kill off whooping cough and mumps, among others.

The difference between then and now? Well, I would argue people ARE thicker but more significantly - we have the internet and social media. "The moon is made of cheese, says 'ere. Must be true".

Dear Telegram,

You are quite happy hosting the rubbish put about by anti-vaxxers. So be it.

However, some of your groups are now urging people to confront MPs - after two were murdered in such confrontations. Incitement to murder ain't ok, actually it's illegal. Not allowed. Naughty.

If any harm befalls any MP in the wake of your irresponsible actions I for one will be calling for your bosses to be appropriately charged.

Reg.

A, B, C - Easy As 1,2,3?

I'm lost! This Covid thing. 

There is a load of hoo-ha-ing going on now about "Plan B". "Should we activate Plan B?" "Will Plan B spell ruin?" "We need Plan B".

I don't think I'm alone in this but I didn't know there WAS a Plan B. I just naturally assumed there was A plan, not Plan A. Things today got even more alphabetically confusing when Health Minister Edward Argar denied there was also a "Plan C" - which means there is one!

Dear Mr Argar,

While you wrestle with the dilemma of whether or not to roll out Plan B and face challenges that a Plan C is in the offing, would you tell me what Plan A was? - I've forgotten.

I thought it was to combat the menace of a Covid pandemic? I didn't know it was a "Barry In Accounts Has Come Up With This Plan Which Might Be Crap But, Ho-Hum, Fingers Crossed Plan".

Plan B I assume then is an "OK, We Ballsed Up the Last Plan Because Barry's An Idiot But This Plan's Gotta Work, Surely, Plan? As for Plan C, I shudder to think.

Even more alarming would be to sneak a peek through your filing cabinet. Would I find? :-

Plan D: Everyone to stay at home unless answering the door to the man with the cart shouting "Bring out your dead!"

Plan J: MPs to arrange flights to moon on Branson's rocket and leave behind "so long and best of luck" message for constituents.

Plan T:  E-mail four UK survivors advising them to keep socially distanced and always wear a mask.

Plan Z: Do something which actually works.

Is this how you approach everything? I mean, do you give your staff seven options when asking them what day it is? Do you insist your secretary ploughs through a list of MPs before telling you what your own name is? Is your wife offered 47 choices of how to reply when you say "I'm home dear"?

Any chance you could concentrate less on the alphabet and more on tackling the pandemic? Option A = Yes, Option B..........

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,

Reg.

One Of Our Serving Men Is Missing.

As a reporter I always employed my professional predecessor Rudyard Kipling's poetic lines as my mantra when doing the job: "I kept six honest serving men, they taught me all I knew. Their names were 'what' and 'why' and 'when' and 'how' and 'where' and 'who'."

Answer all those questions and you've done your job properly with a news story.

Sadly, it seems standards have plummeted so much in journalism over the years that Kipling is no-one now other than a maker of exceedingly good cakes.

Witness a tale on the BBC News website about a double decker bus crashing into a chip shop. I thought a letter to the BBC and the reporter who  subsequently brought the same tale to TV was called for:

Dear BBC and Lindsay Doyle,

I read with interest but ultimately disappointment your coverage of a bus smashing into a chip shop in Castle Street, Dudley.

A dramatic photo of the scene raised a number of questions but one above all others was screaming out.

We were given details of the serious damage to Sofi's Plaice and told how the crash had ruptured a gas main.

Then, in line with all modern news reports, we learned how people "felt" about the incident. We always, apparently, HAVE to know how people feel and it is always SO informative - not!

The man whose wife dies in an explosion is, amazingly, "upset". The gold medal winner is "over the moon" and the woman who finds a snake in her house is "shocked". Well, whodda' thought?

In this case, chippy owner Stallo Minas went with the "shocked" option. I persevered in search of an answer to my burning question but was thwarted.

I endured paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of touchy-feely drivel about how Stallo's mother "went to pieces" (literally? Ed) and how the family had received "lovely" messages of support.

Not once in all this diatribe was there a mention of someone I stupidly thought was central to the story - the bloody bus driver! Was he dead? Was he in hospital? Had he escaped injury? Did he flee the scene? Was he a dissatisfied customer of the chip shop? Was he under arrest and, if so, on what charge?

More than this, however, much more, was an answer to the question which leaps out from the photo of the crash............WHY? Why did the bus leave the road? Did the driver have a heart attack at the wheel? Was he drunk? Was he 108 and unfit to be at the wheel? Was he an outraged Moslem waging war on the decadent West's eating habits? Why, why, why?

It was, to me, the most important of Kipling's honest serving men and is admittedly often the hardest question in life to answer - but at least have a stab.

Please train your reporters - properly.

Regards,

Reg.

And You Can Leave That Ceremonial Dagger Outside As Well, Abdul!

So, Newcastle United has been taken over by Saudi Arabia's (Not The Ruling Royal Family, Honest, That's Right Out) Public Investment Fund. 

First, manager Steve Bruce leaves "by mutual consent", the same kind of mutual consent agreed between Ruth Ellis and Albert Pierrepoint.

The second major move is not to sign Messi, Ronaldo and Lewandowski but to issue an edict to fans. "Don't wear traditional Middle Eastern clothing or Arab headdresses to matches!"

Dear Newcastle United,

This ban on Middle Eastern clothing and Arab headdresses, I really don't think you've thought it through.

Firstly, you do realise you've immediately banned Salman bin Abdulaziz, King of Saudi Arabia, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, from coming through the turnstiles of his own club to hurl abuse at Sunderland and any other visiting fans?

He ain't gunna be overly chuffed at being barred after the Saudi consortium lashed out £300 million to buy the Magpies. Not only that but all his family and homies will also be barred.

I can only guess your reasoning was that you felt Geordies dressed as Lawrence of Arabia would offend Sal? Well, I'm reliably informed that back in Saudi Arabia loads of people wear traditional Arab outfits and that doesn't appear to have put him in need of counselling.

Also, I notice your restriction is only for this one thing? Have you ever been to a game, let alone the last match of the season? I think you are going to have to try to get the king to believe blow-up dolls and inflatable penises are a traditional way of greeting people.

Here's hoping you reconsider.

Reg.

How Dare You!

Strictly Come Dancing participant Tilly Ramsay has hit out at LBC radio's early morning show host Steve Allen for referring to her as "a chubby little thing".

The 19-year-old CBBC presenter, daughter of foul-mouthed, gobshite celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay, said Mr Allen's comments were a "step too far".

I despair of our precious, entitled, spoiled and ridiculously fragile young people:

Dear Tilly,

For the record, not that it really matters, you don't appear to be "chubby" and at 5ft 10ins tall you are hardly "little".

That's not the point. What is significant is that you get in a lather over Steve Allen calling you those things.

It was hardly libellous or the worst thing he could say about you. You very generously and in a rare moment of consciousness said people were free to express their opinions. Hurrah! Well done! Sadly, you added: "I draw the line at commenting on my appearance." Why? Is a pronouncement on the way you look not an "opinion"?

When I was alive, many years ago, there was a saying doing the rounds: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." Might be worth getting it tattooed somewhere?

Listen, as you grow up - if you ever do - you will learn that people say lots of things you don't like about your appearance. I can attest to this. "You look a scruff", "You're putting on weight", "Hey, baldy!" and "Oh, it's like a penis only smaller". It's not against the law.

Thing is, they are hardly savage, wounding attacks and, because I am not clinically insecure, with a metaphorically thick skin and a sense of perspective, they pass by me unnoticed.

If someone calls you a paedophile or a murderer or husband-beater then get on to your solicitors and sue the arse off them! If they say you're chubby and little get over it - and yourself.

By way of establishing how many steps are too far, might I suggest you watch your dad bawling at restaurateurs on TV? 

Hoping to welcome you into adulthood soon,

Reg.

The Fuzzy-Wuzzies Fight Back.

From the bulging files of the You Couldn't Make It Up vault comes a real pearler!

A group of MPs and campaigners with fuck all to do and all day to do it in have, would you believe, urged the equality watchdog to add a new offence to the ever growing list of things to be legislated as racism.

And, ladies and gentlemen, the latest supposed hate crime is..........taran taraaaa.........hair discrimination!

Yes, you heard. A letter signed by Liverpool Labour MP Kim Johnson, the Halo Collective (a trade union for lesbian, gay and trans angels? Ed) and Glamour Magazine has called for "textured hair" to become a protected characteristic!

Right, first off, being a bloke, I had no idea what bleedin' textured hair was! I of course turned to celebrity stylist Vernon Francois for help as one does at times like this and he said it was "where strands create shape like curves, spirals, zig-zags or waves. Hair is kinky, coily or wavey".

That made about as much sense as the instructions on a Chinese DVD player but with the help of photos my best guess is that it is what could be described as "fuzzy".

Quite how such hair prompts vile tirades of hateful abuse I don't know. I can't say I've ever witnessed it. I think bigots and racists have bigger fish to fry than to turn on the follicly-advantaged. I do know that, far from attracting discrimination, hair can itself be discriminatory. My hair, for instance, descriminated against me and fucked off many years ago. However, I don't recall it ever writing to the Government to highlight my plight.

Similarly, I can't say I remember Ms Johnson et al wanting baldies added to the roll of victims of hate crime. Then again, I can't say cries of "Oi, cueball!", "chromedome!" and "slaphead!" ever made me want to bung my head in a gas oven - besides, I'm electric.

A letter was called for:

Dear Ms Johnson,

Regarding your efforts to make hair discrimination a form of racism, you believe you are fighting bigotry but in fact you are doing nothing of the sort.

My lack of hair frequently attracts barbed comments but I don't want to be added to your list.

See, thing is, I have a sense of humour. Such taunts, while not Marx Bros material, are intended to be risible, not offensive.

What really gets me about supposed champions of equality is that, instead of uniting people, they insist on dividing them up into ever smaller groups. Black-white, men-women, old-young, disabled-able bodied, blind-sighted, deaf-hearing, gay-straight, bisexual-can actually make a decision, transgender-I'll stick with this pair of bollocks thanks.

Everyone HAS to be a victim. You and your colleagues pompously believe you speak for others and yet we don't hear them complaining.

I am an egalitarian. I believe we should all remember the things we have in common. I, however, praise the things which make us different and individual and don't make them an issue for protest.

I realise you think you are doing good, and I respect and admire you for that, but I think you've follicly fannied up on this one.

Kind regards,

Reg.

The Day The Wiggling Died.

Remember where you were on April 10, 1970, when Paul McCartney let slip the Beatles were splitting up? Had you moved far when Marc Bolan died in a car crash on September 16, 1977? You were no doubt barely coming to terms with the loss of that music legend when, on the very same day, Elvis Presley rolled a seven - too young to die, too fat to live.

Well, underline today's date and keep it sacred because October 19, 2021, will henceforth be remembered as the day...........the yellow one in The Wiggles revealed she was walking away.

Yes, Emma Watkins said she had finally had enough of being a total prat on TV and wanted to get a life after 11 years with the Aussie outfit.

In an announcement reminiscent of an actor quitting the role of James Bond, she said she wanted to spend more time at home.

She will Wiggle her last at the end of the year.

Ms Watkins was a role model for women the world over when she smashed through a sexist ceiling to become the first female member of The Wiggles. Girls in far flung parts of the globe were inspired to become astronauts, nuclear physicists and brain surgeons by her example.

It is hard to know how to come to terms with this news. It is even harder to know to whom I should write to express my despair.

For once on this Blog there will be no letter, no e-mail, no LinkedIn message, except perhaps private ones from me to the Samaritans. I am too distressed. Only God can restore the yellow Wiggle to our lives.

Goodnight sweet princess.

Love Reg.