The Lava Trolley: Too PC or not too PC?

The Lava Trolley

Or is it the lavatory???

...Either case, this little nook on blogasphere is the natural dumping ground for the sort of crap that erupts
when you find a wee Chink in the Britworks...

But hey, I promise you this is steamingly hot shit...which is probably why it's all looking a bit brown!


09 October 2005

Too PC or not too PC?


"A West Yorkshire hospital has banned visitors from cooing at new-born babies over fears their human rights are being breached and to reduce infection."
See what I mean about this whole human rights thing going too far? It's getting bloody ridiculous!

'Tis all starting to resemble a scene from the Life of Brian...

Judith: [on Stan's desire to be a mother] Here! I've got an idea...Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb - which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' - but that he can have the 'right' to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother...sister, sorry.
Reg: What's the point?
Francis: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Perhaps babies should next be given the right to vote, and animals the right to own artillery. Speaking of which...

"Traditionally owners have put deterrents to trespassers on their wall or fence and if it is a party wall just on their side. You will often have seen spikes or broken glass or barbed wire on the top of walls.

However, if the wall or fence borders the public highway, then the local authority has powers to protect the public by having the deterrent removed if it thinks it could cause a danger to highway users. If the deterrents causes a nuisance or by your negligence injures a passer by, then they may be able to sue you."

Oh goody, I could make a career out of this - "Your honour, I would like to claim compensation from the owner of that property for having a garden wall as it was in the way when I drove my car onto his land..."

It came to my attention awhile back that if a burglar were to injure himself whilst climbing over your fence or garden wall, he could sue you for any damages incurred during the course of his 'employment'...After all, us civilians have no right to defend our homes in any way that could threaten the career of these poor innocent criminals.

"Unmoved by popular opinion, or a spate of brutal attacks on householders, the vice-president of the Superintendents Association insists no change in the law is needed, only better locks. In case of a burglary, he urges families to retreat to a 'secure room' there to await police help. On no account are they to arm themselves with anything, or approach the intruder. Someone might get hurt. If that someone is the intruder the resident can be sued by the burglar, and will certainly be prosecuted by the state."

That's actually quite laughable, if not for the fact that this sort of thing actually does happen...So let's get this straight...Someone is trying to make away with my hard-earned possessions (which I have worked for almost every hour that god's sent), but I am to stand aside and let that person have his/her way?

Fuck, no... Image hosted by

Anyone who sets out to destroy the lives of others deserves everything he/she gets...I have no sympathy for people like that...

Don't want to be shredded by barbed wire? Simple, don't trespass...Don't want your head battered by a homeowner's Maglite? Easy, don't invade his home...Don't want to have your limbs broken? No problem, just don't attack anyone for no apparent reason. NO excuses! Did anyone not understand that?

It's hardly rocket science...

"We don't believe in vigilantism or excess violence."
Just how is defending one's life, loved-ones, liberty and property 'vigilantism'?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked, the UK was a democracy...So much for having any rights if we have a zero-stance against criminals, and simply allow them to walk all over us.

A few weeks ago, I was set upon by a perv (after work) whilst waiting for my train at a fairly deserted station...Needless to say, I was pretty shaken after that, and was naturally inclined to adopt certain measures for self-preservation purposes...

Since it is not strictly legal to be walking around with sharp pointy objects, or instruments that shoot anyhing other than paper streamers (Setting off fireworks in residential areas is perfectly fine...Really, it's ok for kids and pets to get burnt to death or disfigured year after year...Stop making such a big deal out of it), I thought pepper sprays might be a good idea.

But, guess what??? They're illegal...Oh, what a surprise...

The only other alternative is some doodah like StoppaRed UV Spray.


"In an emergency situation you may be justified in directing the thick formula into the face of the offender to distract them while you attempt to escape. You should only do this if you feel you are justified in doing so - the formula is 'eye safe' and has been made with the assumption that at some point it will be directed into the eyes of an offender and it will not damage or harm them in any way."

Ooooh, that's dead scary that...Bet hoodies are now quaking in their white Reeboks (probably stolen) for fear of being contaminated by a little face paint.


Even pepper spray and tear gas are not completely infallible, so what makes anyone think this puny device would work?

All it takes is for someone to grab you from behind...Once they've got you, having their vision temporarily obscured ain't gonna make them take the risk of letting you go...Besides, I'm not even sure the ID system works since it relies on the premise that attackers would first have to be caught, or that records of their past offences actually exist!

"The law-abiding citizen when confronted with a snarling example of criminality is at a disadvantage. One is armed, the other not...

But, I hear you say, what’s to stop criminals from using CS gas against innocent people? Nothing, but then crooks have a habit of using offensive weapons, regardless of their legal status, against blameless citizens. And misusing a spray or using it offensively could still count as a crime."

Well, I couldn't put it any better than that...It's about time someone did something to tip the balance in the favour of law-abiding citizens...

Right, where did I put my AK-47? Ah...there it is, under David's nuclear missiles...

Now...WHO'S THE DADDY? Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Related Articles:
Garden Law
Bashing Burglars
Let Us Spray

Labels: , , ,


  • At 18/10/05 20:14, Anonymous eponine1971 said…

    Interesting little system you have there. Here, there are better laws regarding self defense. In your home you have no duty to retreat. You can shoot, beat the hell out of him, anything really. There is pepper spray though it is not allowed in clubs since it has caused several deadly stampedes to the door.

    Just like you, I've worked hard for everything I have. If someone breaks in when I'm home, they better be hopiing the cops get there before I get them. How does that go? Steal something, lose a hand?

  • At 21/10/05 15:25, Anonymous Matthew WIlkinson said…

    StoppaRed UV works within the letter of the UK legislation. No point selling something that lands its users in prison, sharing a cell with the types of people who prey on the law abiding.

    StoppaRed UV has such a thick formula that it is impossible to remove with runninng water. If an attacker has grabbed you from behind and you manged to spray his face, he would need his hands to clear his vision. What you do while he does this is entirely down to you! Its stain lasts for several days and its UV dye even longer. Better than a Rape Alarm!

    Lots of sexual predators rely on 'she wanted me to do it' defences in Court, discharging StoppaRed UV demonstrates your non compliance in a very visible way. If you think there are lots of cases that could have been solved much sooner and repeat offences avoided if the offender's mother or girlfriend had noticed the red goo and called the police after hearing about the crime on the local news. Much more likely that the potential rapist will suddenly take umbridge over your 'mistake' and that YOU misunderstood him and he did not mean to rape you afterall. IMO that is better than him arguing that he 'misunderstood' you and he thought no really meant yes by the time it got to court.

    Criminals in general operate on the assumption that they will go un-noticed, being sprayed in what amounts to bright red thick wall paper paste tends to make even the hardened criminal stand out from the crowd.

    If you live in the UK and you think that you need Pepperspray, write to the Home Secretary and ask him for something called "Section Five Authority" He is obliged to grant it if he thinks your case warrants it.

    If he turns you down blame the Governments policy of discouragement rather than blaming our product. We are doing everything we can as a company to legally to protect women and other vulnerable persons from criminal attack.

    Stay safe. Matthew

  • At 22/10/05 14:44, Blogger Charme said…

    "How does that go? Steal something, lose a hand?"

    Either that or an eye for an eye...LOL...Yeah, that's my philosophy as well.

    That perv was at the station again...He tried to talk to me, but didn't manage to do anything else since there were too many people there this time. Weird thing is, he doesn't even take the same train as I do, so I don't understand what he's doing on that platform...That's freaking me out...Next time he tries it on again, I'm going to quickly take a pic of him with my mobile, and then run to the ticket counter upstairs.

  • At 22/10/05 15:02, Blogger Charme said…

    "If he turns you down blame the Governments policy of discouragement rather than blaming our product."

    I didn't need to read your entire message to figure out that you had an agenda...Whilst you have every right to avoid bad press, as a potential client, I too am entitled to comment on the effectiveness of your product.

    Besides, if you HAD read my blog properly, you'd notice it was mainly about government policy (the title is a bit of a giveaway), so I'm not entirely sure what made you think I was laying any 'blame' on your shoulders (or rather your goods') for the lack of options civilians have to defend themselves. Nor was I suggesting in any way that you should be selling anything illegal...

    Surely there's enough room in this world for constructive criticism. How else will you be able to improve your services without some input from the very people who use your products?

    "If an attacker has grabbed you from behind and you manged to spray his face, he would need his hands to clear his vision."

    Or he might be able to overcome it...This is a moot point...Obscuring an attacker's vision may not be a good enough incentive for him to let go...Especially if he is a lot stronger and bigger than his victim, and has a weapon of his own...Or if there are accomplices. I read all the info at your site about StoppaRed (hence the link in my blog?), and am aware of its properties...

    Simply put, I am unconvinced.

  • At 24/10/05 11:46, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hi, I was not trying to poo poo your comments in any way, I was merely trying to add weight to your theory that the main problem people face in the UK is the Governments policies of discouragement. We welcome your comments and understand EXACTLY where you are coming from, trust me on that!

    StoppaRed UV is not necessarily for everyone and I would not try and convince anyone otherwise, their are no guarantees anyone can give you if faced with an assault - it would just be better for everyone if the Government and the CPS were on the side of the innocent party more often. Its just as a responsible Company we have to be careful only to introduce products that are legal and we have also got to be very careful how we market said products especially as the Government are only just coming round to the idea that mere members of the public should carry 'even' StoppaRed UV.

    I actually agree with what you are saying, but what more can we do?

    Stay safe!


  • At 24/10/05 15:33, Blogger Charme said…

    My response was mainly referring to your assumption that I was directing blame towards your company. I was not.

    StoppaRed is fine for what it's meant to do. However, I was making a comparison between that and pepper spray...The latter being more of a deterrent.

    "especially as the Government are only just coming round to the idea that mere members of the public should carry 'even' StoppaRed UV."

    Oh, I can believe that. Things are getting worse...I happened to glance at the front page of a tabloid in a shop this morning (whilst topping up on some caffeine sustenance), and noticed that there's talk of banning 'piggy banks' as it could be deemed offensive to Muslims. What next???!

  • At 24/10/05 15:42, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I am sorry, I didn't mean to sound all defensive in my first comment. I think that at the very least vulnerable persons with no history of violent crime should be allowed to carry peppersprays. The legal framework is in place and all that is required is Section Five Authority and the Home Sec's blessing. For this to happen the Government would only have to change their policy but interestingly enough they would not have to introduce any new legislation! Zero time in the Commons, zero time in the Lords, only a quick memo to the Home Office and the law abiding go start to feel that little bit safer.

    The Bill of Rights 1689 gives us all the legal authority to have weapons for our defence. The Home Sec at the time the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 was passed in on record as saying that the new law would not create ' a blanket ban on weapons and that a women going in fear of her life would still be able to carry a weapon for defence' So much for the original intentions of Parliament with 'modern' politicians making policies that they use to over ride the Law!

    Stay safe!


  • At 26/10/05 15:13, Blogger Charme said…

    Fair enough! :-)

    Thus far, everyone I know is in agreement of giving civilians more power to defend themselves...With so many of us out there who support this idea, I don't understand why so little is being done about it...Perhaps we should start a petition or something...But then again, I'm sure I'm not the first to have thought of that...

    The way I see it, if someone goes around deliberately endangering the lives of others, he/she deserves to be fragged...Simple as.

  • At 27/10/05 20:24, Anonymous Anonymous said…


    what's that?

  • At 28/10/05 20:05, Blogger Charme said…

    Shot, annhilated, pulverised, vapourised, decimated into many tiny fragments etc...Take your pick...The possibilities are endless...But of course, such an eventuality sadly exists only in the world of gaming (or military).

  • At 23/11/05 17:44, Blogger Uncle Pavian said…

    "Fragged" (or "fragging" from "to frag") refers to a method used during the Vietnam War by disaffected soldiers to kill their officers. The term originated with incidents of soldiers tossing fragmentation grenades into officers' tents, but eventually came to mean any murder of an officer by a soldier under his command. A number of people in the anti-war movement and faculty at public institutions of higher education in the United States have called for a revival of the practice.

  • At 23/11/05 18:36, Blogger Charme said…

    That's one definition...But today, it's more commonly used by people who play too many computer games. :-p

    "Frag is a commonly used term in first-person shooter games. When you kill an opponent in the game you call it a 'frag' rather than kill. The term 'frag' is commonly associated with multiplayer deathmatch games.

    The word 'frag' was first used in the Vietnam war, but there are some discrepancies as to the meaning of word from this time. Some references point to it being used to describe a soldier who was brutally killed by a grenade, while other resources state 'to frag' is a term used in wartimes to describe the use of a fragmentation grenade 'to cool the ardor of any officer or NCO too eager to make contact with the enemy'.


Post a Comment

Comments are moderated, so don't bother posting SPAM because it won't even get looked at...Also, please stick to ENGLISH.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home