Should Animal Rights Campaigners Boycott Zoos? (Part 1)

I keep seeing various articles crop up all over the place about how boycotting zoos is the only way forward if you care about animals, and as a man who's planning to spend the rest of my life dedicated to animal interests I thought I would try and debunk the myth that zoos are inherently bad places to go. The most common and influential culprit of this fad are my favorite charity, or money laundering service as I like to call them, PETA, who have given us a nice article to sum up why boycotting zoos is best for everyone. (http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-not-use-entertainment/zoos/)

The primary problem here seems to be that PETA is manipulating its supporters into approaching this issue, which is solely about animals, from a human perspective. Not only is that completely irrelevant, but it's a sure way of giving animals human emotions despite captive animals themselves having no idea what freedom is and so obviously won't react in a similar way to humans. What PETA are doing here is effectively dictating an animal's emotions and assuming that they know the inner workings of its brain when in actual fact scientists are still debating over this issue to this very day. There's a varied range of different organisms inside zoos, and so different organisms are going to react to captivity in different ways. Are PETA seriously suggesting that a chimpanzee has the same cognitive functions as a cockroach, whose behaviour is designed for survival, not self satisfaction? Science has told us that humans hate being in captivity for long periods of time, but humans aren't the organism in question, so PETA need to can this generalisation schtick that unfortunately runs throughout the whole article. PETA do the same thing with the evil cluster of zoos that are clearly all the same no matter where they're located. Zoos are varied areas that differ in how they operate, coming under totally separate guidelines. But PETA don't target the minority that are solely in business for the money, and instead use these broad generalisations to demonise a problem that largely doesn't exist. Here's how they justify their radical reaction:

The reasons PETA give for boycotting zoos are lacking any scientific evidence for them to actually come across as valid. They do have a point here about a problem they call 'zoochosis', which when given its scientific name is actually known as 'stereotypical behaviours'. This is actually a very important issue to highlight, but will under no circumstances be solved by simply boycotting the zoos in question. Stereotypical behaviours can be reduced by providing a highly enriched enclosure that can only be achieved by a constant stream of funding. Boycotting will lead to a decrease in revenue that can be spent on animal welfare, and so this problem is just going to escalate without the public funding that you're trying to stop. The sole evidence you bring forward is about the use of drugs on animals, which if I'm not mistaken is standard medical procedure for depressed and agitated human beings. Still, this issue has only been reported very few times, so to use this as a reason for boycotting all zoos is incredibly naive. I've just never understood the logic of giving less money to zoos and suddenly expecting the conditions of the animals to suddenly improve. You must be aware that businesses require money to operate, so why the hell are you trying to deny a positive environment for the animals to live in?

Again, despite using the word 'instances' you still use this point to try and prove that every single zoo is evil. I doubt that every charity out there is entirely reliable, but does that mean all charities are wasteful with their money. Actually I wouldn't answer that if I was PETA considering they're ranked very lowly when it comes to where their money goes on websites such as 'Charity Navigator', which only just gave them a score of 2 out of 4. Still, you could of at least found a few more sources considering that the two you cite here are from the same article. You didn't even mention that the Cologne incident was caused by a keeper not shutting the gate properly, and not because the animal was frustrated and desperate to escape like you falsely claim. If your total sample number is one, and even that is invalid, then you cannot possibly make a broad generalisation on the activities of zoos in general on a global scale, especially when your sole source doesn't even mention any atypical behaviour that would cause me to doubt the animal welfare of that single location. Also, how did that tiger try and 'regain its freedom'? In my funny little world I would of thought to 'regain' freedom you would've been free at some point in your life, not born into captivity. Yet again another false statement from supposedly the world's leading animal welfare charity. Shameful.

Well first of all zoos are a small gene pool segregated from the wild, so actually they are the stand between extinction for wild animals; that's just basic logic. It's also interesting to note that despite zoos hiring educated experts, PETA assume that all zoos are idiots when it comes to animal welfare and have to remind them that captive animals won't fare well in the wild, which coincidentally also invalidates PETA's argument that all animals should be free. It's all very well saying establishments such as 'SeaWorld' should empty their orca tanks when you admit yourselves that the process would just end up with more suffering. Zoos are aware of this and so they support breeding programmes that you completely fail to mention despite this process being an integral part of conservation in zoos. Instead you focus on how many zoos dispose of their animals, despite again providing a single source that isn't definitive proof. That source by the way refers to Knowsley Safari Park, which contrary to your beliefs occurred due to the animals simply dieing of natural causes, and not just culled or sold on the black market, as that goes against WAZA regulations. Again, surely if zoos are so evil then you must be able to provide at least a few reliable sources, but so far there has not been one.

We then go onto this bullshit argument that zoos divert money away from conservation efforts, despite the fact that breeding programmes themselves are conservation methods. To call the protection of the natural habitat 'the only effective and sustainable way' is simply bogus. In no way have schemes to prevent habitat loss been sustainable in the last few decades as fragile environments are declining at a record rate, with various statistics coming out daily on how long they have to last. It's interesting that you say it's the only sustainable way, yet when reading your annual report I couldn't seem to find any expenditure from your charity into these so called 'sustainable' projects. Funny that. Schemes such as ecotourism in Rwanda have worked wonders for the local gorilla population, but your so called 'sustainable' approach is just wasting money on a problem that isn't being rectified. Surely the sheer number of new animals appearing on the endangered species list is enough evidence for you to realise that your solution is absolutely hopeless, and maybe you should actually leave this conservation issue to people who know what they're doing; you know, the people who are employed by zoos. But no, just as long as the animals are free then all their problems are gone. The only reason this breeding programmes exist is because your solution is so fucked up, and so drastic measures are needed. By boycotting zoos you're making the process of extinction a thousand times worse, which you don't seem to care about. Animal welfare doesn't make any difference if the animal in question has become extinct.

Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. Even from personal experience I can say that thanks to the educational facilities at my local zoo I'm now going into a degree that centers around the science of animals. The fact that zoos have a great number of educated professionals working directly for the animals shows that not only are they educational places, but probably the best educational method for conservation that doesn't require you to spend thousands of pounds. Thanks to zoos you don't have to fly halfway around the world for the slim chance of seeing an animal in the wild, as you can see the same animal just down the road for a fraction of the price, with the same awe inspiring effect. At the end of the day PETA have to pick their poison and prioritise which issue is far greater. Is the real evil a business that confines and personally cares for their animals, or the natural world that is constantly under threat from habitat destruction and mineral exploitation? Does a tiger that's been bred in captivity care about its natural context? Of course it doesn't, it has no knowledge that even exists. Zoos don't segregate an animal from its natural habitat since the animal never had one, and unlike humans has no notion of the concept.

Here's a little factbox for gullible idiots. I refuse to call these actual facts as they're simply misleading. The survey in which Bristol University students found that over 75% of zoos didn't meet minimum animal welfare standards was determined through visits that often didn't last a single day and was funded by an organisation known as 'Born Free'. That doesn't sound biased at all does it. It also turns out that the majority of 'zoos' who didn't meet the standards were actually farm zoos, and therefore not members of the BIAZA, who claim that 83% of their members meet all of the minimum welfare standards. But somehow it gets worse, as we have the life expectancy of ONE animal found in zoos. One. That is quite possibly the worst generalisation I've ever seen, when in fact the reality is that captive animals generally live longer than their wild counterparts due to the decreased selection pressures found in controlled environments. The explanation for the last statistic is that breeding programmes are often used as an insurance method, just like seed banks, and so the animals often become sources for scientific knowledge and act as ambassador species for their wild counterparts. Breeding programmes are a global initiative, and like any initiative the results have been mixed. However populations of animals such as the Siberian tiger have rebounded from 40 to over 500 in the last 70 years according to the WWF, so unlike your prevention of habitat destruction plan, this method is proven to work. Let's just say the UN isn't so positive when it comes to estimating habitat loss each year, which of course is the only sustainable solution.

So no PETA, zoos should never be boycotted by the public on the grounds of animal welfare issues. Your reasons given for avoiding zoos are blatant lies to manipulate idiots into thinking they're making a difference in the world. I urge people to support their local zoos, as contrary to what PETA believe they are not the enemy, and are the simplest way in helping to maintain biodiversity on our precious planet. PETA on the other hand operate like hypocritical assholes, and are actually part of the problem they're trying to erase. They have the audacity to say just watching animals on a television screen is good enough, when everyone knows that seeing and experiencing things for yourself is a totally different, and much more beneficial experience. So actually I agree that we should withhold our money from inhumane establishments that profit from exploiting animals, and that begins with boycotting PETA. Yes these are the hypocrites that have no problems with people owning a pet, but object to them visiting zoos. The worst thing is it gets worse when you actually look deeper into their operations.

Morons of the Internet: Viral Women (25/07/15)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we return to the website 'Viral Women', who have once again let their feelings get in the way of common sense. Apparently logical scientific practices should always be inferior to the feminist agenda, even if that does involve ignoring peer reviewed studies and decades of statistics.
______________________________________________________________________________________
http://viralwomen.com/post/vaccine_choice_is_a_feminist_issue
______________________________________________________________________________________

I'd like to start by pointing out that I do actually agree with the law that California has just passed to instigate mandatory vaccination unless a valid reason is given, and failing to do so will result in children not being allowed in public schools. As far as I'm concerned vaccination of common diseases should be compulsory as there is clear scientific proof and statistics to show that not only does this prevent the spread of diseases, but also eradicates some if the vaccine is particularly effective. The author of this article doesn't understand that, and instead is ignorant enough to deny other children a healthy working environment for the sake of feminism, yet still demands that she needs the benefit of free schooling. She totally neglects the idea that this new law has been founded on public safety and years of peer reviewed studies and statistical analysis. Just because you can't feel the effects of vaccination programmes doesn't mean they're not effective, despite whatever statistics you bring to the table. That would be like standing under another persons umbrella when it rains and then deciding that your own umbrella cannot possibly stop you from getting wet as you still kept dry without taking it. The statistics you do source are actually laughable. Where you got that '8% required to preserve herd immunity' statistic from I don't know, but the reality is that it simply isn't true. Different diseases require different levels of vaccination, or herd immunity threshold as it's known. According the World Health Organization measles requires a 92-95% vaccination rate that by your own admission is not enough to stop the spread of the disease if some people are allowed to opt out. The measles vaccination has a 95% success rate, and so it's imperative that everyone is vaccinated to preserve a herd immunity. The statistics clearly show that contrary to your belief the vaccination rate of California is not high enough to adequately deal with some diseases, and so surely regulation was the correct solution.

What a surprise, another invalid source. The link for showing that vaccines aren't as effective as first believed has been deleted; what a surprise. If you had bothered to do some research you would discover that according to the webMD, the reason why diseases still exist after vaccination is due to newer vaccines not lasting as long as before, and the contribution of the good old people who object to vaccination. This is further evidence that an even greater number of people should be vaccinated to preserve a herd immunity, despite your claims that even more vaccines will not solve the problem. Need evidence that more vaccines will solve the problem; well here you go:

The issue here isn't that schools aren't beneficial. The issue here is that they're a congregation of various groups of children from different backgrounds that will easily allow a spread of diseases to a large number of individuals.Why should law abiding children have their health put at risk by a minority of ignorant parents who think they know the bodies of their offspring better than science? I wouldn't say that was naive, I would say that's a necessary precaution. It is true that those children will be visiting the same recreational facilities, but unlike school that won't happen on a daily basis, and so contrary to your theory the risks of contracting an illness will be greatly reduced thanks to a reduced amount of contact. The law may be a drastic measure to improve public health but you have not provided me with any evidence to suggest that this would have a detrimental effect, and science has proven that the exact opposite would happen, so why are you putting your opinions above the health of average citizens? Face it, you have no fucking clue about the technical details of vaccination, and so are in no position to start dictating over the wellbeing of the public, unlike the lawmakers who have been thoroughly educated on this decision and haven't just passed the law for the banter. I still don't see how this is a feminist issue. Just because women predominantly care for the child in the family doesn't mean that they instantly have a greater knowledge of vaccination processes. The actual bill has nothing to do with gender, and so maybe you should be more concerned with women in third world countries who cannot get vaccinations because of their background. That is the only thing that seems to be a feminist issue here.

How the hell does breastfeeding, ear piercings and circumcision affect the health of other children? You are aware that herd immunity isn't just going to be of benefit to individuals, but a whole community. It's hardly fair to call this bill extreme when serious illnesses that can be prevented by vaccination are still rising in America on a daily basis. You have proven that you have no idea about medicine on a national scale, yet alone a global scale, so how about leaving this debate with science and not just uneducated feminists. I would like to know what your opinion is on narcotics. Where do we draw the line on that? You know that drugs such as heroine have negative effects on the human body, but under your logic they should be legalised by the government as a women has the right to choose over her body. I'm sure this feminist stance on drug use would certainly not be beneficial on public health in the same way that their views on vaccination would also lead to a decrease in public wellbeing. I just hate this view that because a woman has the power to make informed decisions for their child they can do as they please. You wouldn't give your child prescription medication that's suitable for over 18s because it would have a negative effect on their health, yet the hypocrisy here is that you simply ignore this for vaccinations even when the science, or the label in the case of my metaphor, is clear on the consequences. It would be interesting to hear the views of body autonomy off a person who's contracted measles due to not being vaccinated. I think that person would prioritise health over body autonomy.

So now being injured by a vaccine is becoming the new issue? I know you're now clutching at straws and trying to avoid a scientific debate at all costs, but wouldn't you rather be injured by a vaccine than die of a disease that could easily be treated. Just for the record if you are injured by a vaccination then you are entitled to compensation. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has reported that 2,620 people have been injured by vaccines since 1988, as opposed to the 545,000 who have died from measles alone since 1990. I'd say that not using vaccines because there's a risk of injury is a bit like campaigning against the use of airbags in cars since I'm told they're not the most pleasant of objects to hit your face on, despite the fact they save thousands of lives and are a mandatory safety feature in cars. But then I'm sure you hate that the government forces you to have an airbag in your car as after all it's your car and not theirs. Trust me, I'm a huge supporter of car autonomy.

However the thing that pisses me off most about this article is the blatant denial that millions of people are affected every year by diseases that could be treated with vaccinations, but you don't give a damn. All you care about is your own personal agenda, showing no sympathy or respect for the people that are in desperate need of something you take for granted, and even campaign against. That's the issue here, not your body as a method of trying to adhere to the feminist ideology. You conclude by saying that feminists should support the rights of women even if they make stupid choices, which not only implies that women are somehow being victimised by vaccinations, but also that this is an issue that solely affects women. Your narrow-minded, ignorant and irresponsible approach makes you look like an idiot, and I hope that no sane human being actually believes this bullshit propaganda that's quite obviously false.

Top 10 Action Movie Stars

One time being an action hero didn't just mean walking away from explosions in mundane films. Once it meant beating the living hell out of everything that moved in the most awesome way possible. This surge of testosterone from the acting talent managed to fuel a whole generation of films that aren't necessarily my favorites, but thrilling rides nonetheless. This is a list of my top ten favorite action stars.

#10 Bruce Lee

Notable Roles: Enter the Dragon (7/10) The Chinese Connection (7/10)

We literally kick things off with a man who is quite simply the greatest martial arts pioneer of all time, who tragically lost his life at the young age of 33. Had he lived longer then he may have become the ultimate film star of the new age, but as it stands all we have to remember him by is some epic kung fu moves. Lee's story begins with street fighting in San Francisco, and through that reputation he was able to become a cultural icon, developing a film genre that helped to pave the way for many others on this list who have prospered from this man's legacy. The stories that have been told about this legendary human being are quite extraordinary. There are many tales scattered around that describe how he would beat up any challengers, but the truth about his personal life is an area we simply don't know much about. However what we can witness are his action packed films that lack any sort of emotion or detail, and just rely on Lee kicking many people in the face in order to look totally badass.

Lee's dream was to conquer the world of Hollywood for his Chinese heritage, that he felt was often misinterpreted in the fictional realms of Hollywood action movies. The results are films which depict Lee bashing the privileged whites, including Chuck Norris on one occasion, showing the world just how epic thoughtless violence could be on the big screen. In his career Lee only appeared in five feature length films, which when you consider his impact on popular culture is an incredible achievement. I'll admit it's not my style of movie, but back in the day this raw violence was a breath of fresh air that captivated American audiences, in turn popularising many martial art forms into Western society. Lee died of a cerebral edema whilst filming his epic 'Enter the Dragon', quite literally giving his life for the film industry. His ideology now lives on in his martial art 'Jeet Kune Do', which translates into English as 'the way of the intercepting fist'. He is such an awesome man, and a huge loss.  




#9 Jason Statham

Notable Roles: Snatch. (7/10) The Transporter (5/10)

A man from London that I would happily believe can knock out any human being in the world, and almost has done in his extensive roles in the action genre. The man's brutal British charm has landed him in some unforgettable roles over the years, and as a result he's become an iconic name in the business. Unbelievably Statham started out in life as a professional diver, which might actually be the least macho thing a man could ever do. Looking at pictures of Statham's diving career is hilarious now considering what an intense psychopath this man has become in recent years. Statham's deep voice and chiseled physique could make any jacked up thug shit his pants, and don't think he's a fake either; he performs all his own stunts. Statham is a genuine tough guy, and will no doubt never lose that image. He may not be the best of actors, and he can fuck off for the atrocity that was the remake of 'The Italian Job', but you can't fault his dedication and legendary status when things need to get blown up in style.


#8 Vin Diesel

Notable Roles: The Fast & Furious (7/10) The Chronicles of Riddick (7/10)

Vin Diesel can thank the 'Fast & Furious' franchise for launching him into the spotlight, and also giving this man a well earned career as an action hero. If that sounded like I was being enthusiastic about his talent then I'm sorry to have mislead you, as although Diesel is an action mainstay, he's certainly not the world's greatest actor. However things blowing up have given this man a purpose in life, and when he sticks to that he's a quality cast member with a lot of charisma. Diesel just works as protagonists like Riddick and Dominic Toretto from the 'Fast & Furious' series, as they just fit his rough and tough attitude towards acting. Diesel lives for those roles, and although that has led him to become a slightly monotonous character, it's still a positive influence on what have been some good films. Diesel's hardman antics, name and deep voice that only his mother could love would make you believe that Diesel is a black belt in sixteen million martial arts, but he's actually a bigger fan of 'Dungeons and Dragons'. Yep, one of the most loved action heroes is actually a bigger nerd than I am. That's like finding out The Pope is a big fan of BDSM.


#7 Jackie Chan

Notable Roles: Rush Hour (6/10) Shanghai Nights (3/10)

Are Bruce Lee films too mature for you? Well then I present to you the legendary Jackie Chan. Chan admits that he hates violence in films, so naturally he became a star in the action genre that very, very rarely contain any violence whatsoever. But the amazing thing is that Chan managed to fit right in, and even made his name from films that are relatively 'PG' compared with more full blooded adrenaline fueled box office smashes that a normal action hero relies on. Chan's films might not be the most gritty and mature, but they do make you laugh in a way that most over the top sequences do. I'm not a huge fan of that myself, but as something unique it's elevated Chan's career to that of legendary status, so fair play to him.

Chan is a man that is obviously dedicated to his career. Under all the joking is a guy that is passionate about performing some fucking awesome stunts. So much so that Chan usually can't get insurance for his films as the stunts are so dangerous, and his track record is also extremely poor. Chan has been injured numerous times over his extensive career, even fracturing his skull on one occasion, so I think we'll let him off for not going to those extreme levels now that he's in his twilight years. As a result of turning down the stunts, Chan's recent films have been shocking, and the quality of his film's is now no longer existent. If anything he's known more for his political activism these days than anything else, which is a shame for a man who's appeared in countless iconic films. 'Bruce Lee lite' he may be, but their similar approaches to stardom have made them both legends of action films, standing the test of time and remaining cultural icons to this very day.


#6 Dwayne Johnson

Notable Roles: The Scorpion King (5/10) Fast & Furious 6 (7/10)

In my opinion this guy is one of the most awesome people in human history. Everything this man does is so smooth that you can't help but admire his personality. To wrestling fans he will always be known as 'The Rock', and for me that was a time when Johnson was at his best, laying the smackdown on anyone else with his legendary charisma and screen presence. Even now he's still one of the greatest wrestlers of all time, and although that can't be said for his acting abilities, he was still the highest grossing actor of 2013. He's obviously a man that many people enjoy watching, including myself, and I would be lying if I said I didn't get sexually excited every time this man appears on my screen, because you know with this guy that things are about to get intense.

The problems with Johnson begin when you take into account his previous work, which are properly shit. Aside from the 'Fast & Furious' series, Johnson always manages to find himself on the wrong side of some terrible films that only a man of his charisma can even try and rescue. I'm genuinely struggling to think of any film Johnson has been in that's even decent, which I honestly don't understand from such an awesome personality. Surely 'The Rock' doesn't deserve train wrecks like 'Tooth Fairy'. Do people believe that he can only do hardcore or gimmicky performances and so just ignore him? Come on, the guy's an absolute tank; he's made for huge blockbusters. Okay he might not be the world's finest actor but the effort he shows towards himself, his fans and the industry is commendable to say the very least, and I couldn't think of another guy who's presence is anywhere near as epic as Johnson in this day and age. He's an extraordinary person, that me and many others would love to see appearing in better quality action films to finally complement that legendary career.


#5 Jean Claude Van Damme

Notable Roles: Universal Soldier (4/10) Kickboxer (5/10)

How can you have one of these lists without including 'The Muscles from Brussels'? He may be a pretty shit actor that's graced some of this age's shittest films, but he's a shit actor that's very talented at kicking people in the face, and looking damn fine doing it. Van Damme is quite simply a martial arts machine that must have fucked up every B-movie actor in his low budget atrocities. His films all have the same basic premise, and that's watching Van Damme beating the shit out of everyone, and then maybe if he's feeling pumped up the odd bit of showboating for good measure. I'll admit that doesn't make his films very good,*cough* 'Street Fighter', but as testosterone filled thrills they're fucking epic when you've had a lot to drink. Van Damme's legitimate badass persona is what sets him apart from his competitors, yet never enough to get the guy some serious popularity. As a black belt in shotokan and an action movie legend it's no surprise that Van Damme has been the inspiration for many performers over the years, but nobody has quite managed to become as brutally sexy as the man himself.


#4 Chuck Norris

Notable Roles: The Hitman (4/10) The Delta Force (5/10)

Hugely christian, hugely republican and a former member of the air force that enjoys beating the hell out of bears and insurgents; Chuck Norris must be the most American person of all time. However what makes him special is his skills in martial arts that have even led him to creating his own discipline known as 'Chun Kuk Do', which probably doesn't mean anything in Japanese but sounds pretty intense anyway. However reading the personal code is like looking at a scout promise and so I'm amazed that Chuck Norris has become famous for being the manliest bastard in the known universe. Norris has a black belt in judo, a black belt in jiu jitsu, and a huge list of badass action films that do support the various jokes that are littered across the internet that suggest this guy is the toughest guy in history. I still doubt that he has the ability to come into my house and smash my face on the keyboard when I piss him off like some jokes suggest, which at least reassures me to say that I think Chuck Norris is actually a terrible acto kdfg m'dfslgskmgmlsgkmkgsdrsytshsrfjuytsitstuxfgs


#3 Sylvester Stallone

Notable Roles: Rocky (8/10) First Blood (7/10)

An actor so epic that even his mere presence is enough to make any man cry. He's a walking lump of testosterone fueled action who's become an iconic actor even though he hasn't yet gained the ability to talk in proper sentences. It's almost a crime against humanity that this once legendary man has been demoted to appearing in really crappy low budget films that are just painful to watch. He's a man of great talent having written the script for both 'Rambo' and 'Rocky', so why the hell does he keep on appearing in the same crap over and over again? I just hate that his presence is now solely to elevate already shitty films, which although impressive for a 68 year old, is still not acceptable for a man with a history as grand as this man's. I do hope I'm that badass when I'm 68, but then I doubt I'll beat up every action star worth knowing about, even taking a shot from Dolph Lundgren and Steve Austin, ending up in intensive care both times. Sure he might be a dreadful actor, but you can't help but get all excited when this man pops into shot. He's possibly the only man alive that can get away with a monotonous voice and wooden acting in action epics and still look fucking fine doing it. Stallone is a man that can make a shit ton of money from blowing a few things up, and that's why he's become an action film icon.


#2 Arnold Schwarzenegger

Notable Roles: The Terminator (8/10) Predator (8/10)

It took us a while, but we've now finally come to the action icons that have frequently starred in some good films. The first of those is a man with the greatest one liners in human history, and that's helped cement his place in cinema's hall of fame with some memorable roles in the action genre. That's an amazing feat considering that Schwarzenegger started out in life as just a bodybuilder who impressively won the Mr. Universe crown on three separate occasions. That simply translates as a man not destined for acting, but that doesn't really matter when you can blow things up with a fuck load of charisma. Just look at him holding that rocket launcher in the photo above; how badass does he look? Couple that stature with an iconic monotone voice and his legendary charisma and the products are various films that Arnie dominates from start to finish. He's not in the action spotlight anymore, and has recently made his name in the political world preaching about the environment, which isn't much like the man who bought the first ever Hummer. Still, back in the day everyone could recognise that Arnie was an absolute legend.


#1 Bruce Willis

Notable Roles: Die Hard (8/10) Armageddon (5/10)

Is there another action movie better than Die Hard? I can't think of one, and so Bruce Willis has become synonymous to me with the whole action genre in a way that nobody else has. His role in 'Die Hard' alone is enough to make him an action god, but I even believe that he surpasses legends such as Schwarzenegger when it comes to blowing things up in an over the top fashion. Of course there are now many films on the market that cater to the adrenaline filled action market, but Willis' role as John McLane helped kick start an era of flammable objects detonating for no apparent reason. The thing that makes Willis' explosions much more appealing is that he does it in style, and given the immense amount of charisma this man possesses, anything he does appear in is usually a box office smash.

It just doesn't matter whether Willis decides to be a police officer or in the military, as it always produces a pretty epic result. He's done his fair share of other genres, showing that he's actually a decent actor, but you never end up with a laid back snoozefest when Willis is around. He may have toned down a little since his glory days of the late eighties, and so now unfortunately only produces crap in a similar decline to almost every other action star in history. The most recent installment of the 'Die Hard' franchise was an episode were Willis didn't look like he cared anymore, appearing as though he's become bored of being cast in that same tough guy role with good morals for the past few decades. We should only remember Willis when he actually used to show the world his talent for punching people in the face, and even when deciding to veer away from those stereotypical manly roles.

Should the UK Keep the Fox Hunting Ban?

I write this article in response to the petition that has almost reached 500,000 signatures that urges the British government not to repeal the ban on fox hunting from 2004. For fox hunting to be legalised again would be an unlikely scenario since this is a controversial issue that tends to divide congregations of society, but as David Cameron has formally made aware that he supports the freedom to hunt, this petition is gaining a lot of momentum with celebrities such as Ricky Gervais and Brian May helping to spread the message. The idea is that Britain should never allow the idea of foxes being brutally hunted predominantly by the upper classes, and that actually harmless foxes should be protected by law. The method of fox hunting is usually quite straightforward. A pack of dogs that's often led by a group of horsemen will attempt to route out and kill a fox by following the scent trail it leaves behind, and then finishing up with some brandy and cigars. There are various methods to this traditional activity, but it's the universal threat towards the fox that has activists up in arms about the Conservative Party repealing the act.

Thanks to the Labour government fox hunting has been banned in England and Wales since 2004 after a series of debates and enquiries that stemmed from the absence of protecting foxes on the 1996 'Wild Animals Protection Act'. Since 2004 a maximum fine of £5,000 can be given for failure to adhere to these laws, and in Scotland a six month jail sentence can even be obtained, which does seem a little harsh in my eyes. Since the act was brought in only six hunts have been formally cautioned by authorities, which does suggest that the current system in place is working effectively and provides a suitable deterrent and compromise for supporters and the government. However, this is an act with a lot of loopholes. What most people don't realise is that the 2004 act didn't actually 'ban' fox hunting outright and in fact fox hunting is still permitted in England and Wales if the party consists of only two dogs, or there's a bird of prey in the party that can instantly kill the fox upon location. I must ask David Cameron why he needs to repeal this law, considering that it appears to cater for both parties, and legalising this activity would be a controversial issue that wouldn't win him many voters. As a person I don't advocate the torture of animals in any way, and so for me fox hunting is a sport that needs to be controlled by the government, and the current method of ensuring that the fox dies in a relatively painless way appears to me as an area of common ground between me and supporters.

The most common reason given as to why fox hunting should be legalised is because it provides a method of pest control that ensures a stable fox population in a way that's far more humane than the alternatives. This is actually a really important point considering that the large British fox population are considered vermin in rural areas. The diet of a fox consists of valuable commodities such as lambs and chickens, and even extends to rare birds and many small mammals. Not only do foxes threaten the stability of many threatened species, but they also have the tendency to kill more organisms than they consume, meaning that whether you like it or not, the British fox population does need to be controlled for the benefit of both farmers and ecosystems. The truth is that fox hunting is one method of pest control that works in a similar way to how natural selection would work in the wild. Weaker and younger foxes are more likely to be killed, and so in this way only the strongest survive. That's all very well, but when you view the statistics you actually discover that fox hunting is a very inefficient process at controlling rural fox populations. It's estimated that five times as many foxes are killed on British roads each year, indicating that there are far better alternatives of pest control that don't resort in sadistic games.

The question now becomes if fox hunting is no longer viable then how can we control the rural fox population? The number of foxes has increased at a steady rate since the 1950's according to figures from the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, and this can be attributed to the increase in food sources and lack of competition from similar organisms. The interesting thing is that the population has actually remained relatively stable since the mid 1990's, and so as the number of fox hunts decreases, the number of foxes doesn't actually change. Fox hunting is clearly not a realistic method of pest control, so the idea that it does work is going against the statistics provided by reliable sources. But now that fox hunting is out of the picture culling appears to be the most appropriate option, despite the fact that this method has the potential to be even more barbaric than fox hunting. The Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management has estimated that in order to sustain a stable fox population up to 68% of rural foxes past the breeding age will have to be killed. That does seem an excessive number, but contrary to what activists believe it's simply foolish to leave the rural fox population as it is, even if that does mean relying on more inhumane methods such as shooting or snaring. The statistics show that objecting fox hunting based on the thought of purely killing foxes is simply misguided, and that conservation of ecosystems needs management instead of personal ethics to succeed.

The reasons for controlling fox hunting don't stop there either. Not only is it a poor method of population control, but it's also not really a sport in my eyes. As far as I'm concerned fox hunting appears to be a form of casual sadism that butchers living foxes for a bit of fun. I understand that chasing animals is an exciting event to be part of, but does that also require you to butcher a fox in return? Well actually no. There are a variety of alternatives to fox hunting that as far as I can see make no difference on the actual event. Drag hunting is the most popular alternative, and requires just the scent to find an object that resembles a fox. I recall 'Top Gear' using a small 4x4 as the fox when they decided to give it a go, and the overall premise didn't seem to change. Maybe asking for the law to be restricted further is going too far, and if drag hunting was to be made the only method then many dogs would have to be put down, thus effecting the 8,000 people that rely on fox hunting to make a living. If you think I've ignored the ethical debate in this issue then you'd be spot on, considering that there really isn't an ethical solution to this problem. Even those people that don't want any harm on the rural fox population must realise that their solution is also unethical within itself. Preserving the rural fox population would only cause more deaths in organisms at lower trophic levels, so in reality killing foxes, which may entail the continuation of fox hunting, does appear to be the most ethical choice.

In conclusion I personally think the restrictions should remain in place. If members of society want the freedom to hunt and uphold strong traditions, then the current law doesn't have a huge effect on the pastime. However as for legalisation, that shouldn't happen in my opinion, as the casual torture of helpless animals is an activity our country shouldn't be advocating, and the statistics evidently show that the process doesn't work as pest control. If we as a nation accept that the reality is there isn't a way of controlling the fox population without inhumane devices then we can manage the countryside to a greater extent, which whether you like it or not is vital to rural conservation. Unfortunately foxes are pests and so there really isn't any option when it comes to culling, despite what your feelings may be. The problem is that the countryside can't be managed by people's feelings, and leaving the fox population alone would be a major issue for Britain's ecosystems. However I do hope this is achieved in a way that doesn't involve torturing the poor animals.

The Creation Adventure Team

I just had to analyse this bollocks. This is genuinely a children's TV show from America that's been edited down to highlight what is apparently conclusive evidence that dinosaurs are part of the creation story. And people wonder why the civilized world frowns on America; this is education to some of them.

1. Why have you based this educational video off of the film 'Jurassic Park'? Surely you must be aware that 'Jurassic Park' wasn't actually a documentary to prove that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. It's almost like you want people to believe that this too is a work of fiction. Having said that, at least 'Jurassic Park' employed one of the world's leading paleontologists to make the film feel realistic. By the looks of things The Bible wasn't a great substitute.

2. Well it is actually true that how the dinosaurs died out is still a bit of a mystery, but to say this well documented study is just a belief might be obnoxious to say the very least. It's certainly not a valid way to disprove a commonly held scientific belief, even if the video is aimed at children.

3. So your primary evidence for discovering what day each dinosaur was individually created can be found out by using some binoculars and The Bible. Nope, that's all the evidence I need to agree with you.

4. "How can they be sure of anything. They weren't there." That's not really helping your argument; in fact you've just disproved your own theory considering that nobody was around when dinosaurs were created. The Bible was written much later than this time of creation, so by your own admittance you've just lost your only source of evidence. How can we be sure they died out around 65 million years ago? Well the fossil records can tell us everything, and carbon dating has proven that in fact dinosaurs couldn't possibly be created days apart from each other. So that point about how scientists can't test dinosaurs couldn't be further from the truth.

5. "The past can't be observed." You might want to ask a few World War Two veterans about that one. I'm sure they would love to hear how the war they sacrificed their lives for can't be proven. Also this invalidates your theory that dragons and Noah's Ark existed. As far as I'm concerned, this is just a case of "nobody can know for sure, so we'll just go against all logic and take a stab in the dark so it conjoins with our beliefs."

6. Wow, that point about dinosaurs evolving into birds is actually now accepted as the most likely cause of where the dinosaurs went. Just a shame they then backed that solid scientific theory up with absolute bollocks. Reptile's and birds may have different physiology, but don' tell creationists that their genetic material is almost identical. Doesn't that hint that the two organisms might have a common ancestor?

7. "An animal with sharp teeth doesn't tell you what food it ate." It does though doesn't it. Okay it's not absolute proof, but at least it provides an indication of an animals diet. Even by your own ideology this point is flawed, since you haven't explained why God would create an organism that isn't perfectly designed to consume its chosen diet.

8. Even if for some reason you still believe that every air breathing organism in existence could have fitted on only half of the ark, then that still doesn't explain how they survived. Surely the carnivores must have eaten other organisms, and since there's only two of each organism that's just suicidal. Even by your own standards of saying that carnivores only came about through sin, you must understand that this theory is still ridiculous considering that the whole point of the global flood was to eradicate sin, and so predation would still have been an issue.

Obviously there was far more bollocks to pick apart in only eleven minutes of film, but these were just a few things that instantly caught my eye. The video still didn't explain how the dinosaurs did die out, nor did they explain how nobody has ever reliably documented the sighting of a dragon. But apparently that's still enough evidence for concrete proof that evolution is bollocks. God bless America.

Morons of the Internet: Viral Women (11/07/15)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have a feminist reading of Pixar films. I've always thought society has needed to analyse the underlying messages in films aimed at children, and since children themselves are too fucking lazy to do it themselves, I'm thrilled that some idiot has finally decided that this is a pressing issue. And where do we begin; with body positivity of course. Fucking brilliant.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
http://viralwomen.com/post/inside_out_how_pixar_fails_at_body_positivity_and_well_everything?fb_action_ids=10153462117634283&fb_action_types=og.comments
_____________________________________________________________________________________

I don't think we really begin with a clear definition of what a 'good' feminist is. You see I often thought that being a good feminist was to see the issues of women on a global scale, which as far as I'm concerned doesn't involve being a Nazi and hating films for reasons that are simply illogical. Surely you must be aware that films are a subjective art form, and therefore I wasn't aware there was some sort of feminist agenda to whether you're allowed to enjoy them, as different people have different interpretations of the same film. What the hell this has to do with why Pixar is failing as a company is my question, as surely they're just doing their job by creating films for a younger audience. Just because you don't like a single element to the film doesn't mean you should diminish its status as a perfectly valid art form. I didn't particularly enjoy the excessive murdering in 'The Godfather', but that doesn't mean I now can't respect it as one of the best films I've ever seen. I'm not saying that you should show your kids that, as it does carry an adult rating for a reason, but your point stands for a recent kids film and so I don't understand why you would purposely prevent them from watching it. For all you know this film could open up the minds of your children as they may have a different interpretation of what the film is trying to portray. It's this ignorant view throughout the article that just pisses me off, as your claim that Pixar is infecting the minds of children through your own personal views is simply misguided, and certainly not worth sacrificing the liberties of your children for. I have to ask myself whether it's really Pixar that's impairing your children's view of the world, and not just a narrow minded parent who dictates the lives of her children through no evidence apart from her own subjective views.

But then what would I expect from a so called 'body positivity activist', which as far as I can tell is the view that people shouldn't hate your body size, and if they still do then society needs to be changed because I want everything to be the way I want it to be. This view of the world is not only creating the very problems you're trying to eradicate, but also completely ignores the reasons as to why society frowns on people with larger builds. Maybe I might be somewhat sympathetic if you could make at least one intelligent point, but it seems you can't even do that. You as a person dictate the very lives of your own children despite the fact that this disgusting film is one that you've never even fucking watched. Just unbelievable. How the fuck can you tell if the points you're making are completely out of context? You can't, and as a person who's actually bothered to watch a film that's not even two hours long I can inform you that you're a fucking idiot who's made their own children suffer for what is a misunderstanding borne from sheer ignorance. You even say it yourself: "We remember what we see." Yeah, too fucking right. So why the fuck haven't you seen the film? If you admit that visual memory is critical then how can you sit here trying to make a serious point when even by your own standards you sound like a clueless individual. Have I missed the satire of this article, or is this person actually trying to construct a serious argument? This is so badly put together that I'm starting to think it's one big joke.

Now let's have a look at that opening sentence. Surely you must be aware that not all eleven year old girls are going to be into One Direction and Barbie dolls. To think that way would surely be stereotyping. Please remember that, for in a few paragraphs time you're going to be complaining about Pixar stereotyping in their films, you fucking hypocrite. But apparently it's fine when you do it as you seem to be in some delusional world where stereotyping should only be acceptable if it has positive messages, which is naive considering that the character you're criticising Pixar for stereotyping is one of the protagonists. I'll say it again; films are a subjective art form and so different stereotypes are going to have different connotations to different people. Whether a stereotype is viewed as a positive or negative message is dependent on the viewer, and so for you to judge a film based on your own narrow minded principles is a really stupid thing to do. Hasn't it occurred to you that this character called 'Sad' might be portrayed that way for a reason that isn't to do with shaming body sizes? Hasn't it occurred to you that if Pixar changed their character to a brightly coloured 1970's disco dancer whilst still calling it 'Sad', the target audience aren't going to understand your little foray into the symbolism of body positivity, and that actually this character doesn't reflect their idea of sad at all.

You have to ask yourself whether children are actually analysing this film in the same way as you. I'm pretty sure all they're seeing is a light hearted film designed for their enjoyment, rather than a cynical film that aims to demonise certain sections of society. All Pixar wanted to do was create a fun range of characters based on emotions, and so of course that's going to involve stereotyping, which if you're a person who's not obsessed with their fucking image is going to be great fun to watch. Maybe your children would feel the same way, but as you've shielded them from the terrors that lie in this film aimed at them, they aren't even going to be given the opportunity. Maybe like rational children they will see a light hearted film that's drastically different from the visions you have of them shaming chubby emos. However it seems unlike your children, who have the ability to distinguish between works of fiction and reality, you don't. We're not going to be seeing kids caring about their weight, and so they're not going to become miserable and fat like that fictional character in the film they thought was a version of reality. Recognising if something is fictional is a skill you haven't yet learnt, and if you keep seeing things from your narrow minded world then it's only going to be your kids that suffer the consequences.

There's jumping to conclusions, and then there's this. What evidence do you have to suggest that Pixar thinks fat people are sad? You've just instantly assumed that everyone has the same mindset as yourself and so of course everyone is going to view this subjective film in the same way. I'm sure in your mind Pixar are famous for shaming fat people and so naturally they couldn't help but add some to their new film aimed at CHILDREN, but if this is the message you get out of a lighthearted film then I feel sorry for you as a parent. Broad generalisations can't help you prove a point that never existed in the first place, and all this time your children may also think that you're regime against Pixar is absolute bollocks, as all they want to do is watch an entertaining film without paranoid and retarded mothers dictating whether the message of a KIDS film is suitable. Surely your children should at least be allowed the opportunity to watch the film instead of you condemning it with some bullshit agenda based on ignorance alone. I'm starting to think this article should be titled 'How I fail as a parent, and well, constructing arguments'.

"Yeah Pixar. Despite the fact that I was stereotyping a few paragraphs ago, I'm now going to judge you based on my hypocritical agenda. I'm not even using English words now, yet I expect people to treat me as a serious author." To this writer it must seem strange how nobody else hasn't bought up these issues before, and even modern journalists fail to interpret children's films from an adult perspective, so why the fuck does it matter? To me this article also says something about society, and that's that as human beings we can prioritise issues and not frown at insignificant things such as the portrayal of a single character in a kids movie. However dictating the lives of children is a much bigger issue that unfortunately stems from an unfounded viewpoint that only you possess. But you don't stop at films either; you also dictate what commercials your children can watch. Oh no, somebody's using sex to sell a product. Well of course they fucking are, it's a commercial; it exists to get people to buy their products, not present moral issues. The worrying thing is that just because one advert uses a proven technique that you don't approve of, you instantly assume that all adverts are now evil. It seems this is your strategy for all forms of media, and so it astounds me that you can sit here telling me that Pixar are the evil ones here. You claim they fail at 'everything', yet they clearly don't as the film in question was a commercial success.

However the worst thing that I keep repeating is that you're not the one who's going to suffer for this. At worst you'll be missing out on a film not designed for your age range, but that cannot be said for your children, who thanks to your ignorance are prevented from broadening their perspective on the world around them. Why you blame Pixar for this when you know full well that they make films for children is just ludicrous, and if anything you should be giving them praise for creating a wide variety of characters that celebrates how dynamic human society is. It's a real shame that Pixar's depiction of animated characters doesn't conform to your biased agenda, but then I have to ask myself what Pixar could have done to satisfy your didactic needs. You put the company in a Catch-22 where if the character known as 'Sad' was a thin character you would complain that fat people aren't represented by the cast, yet when they do draw attention to people with larger builds you still complain as that's not the direction you would have taken. Well here's a reality check for you; you don't decide. Please enjoy the film for what it is rather than dictating what it should be. 

Are you now suggesting that children can't distinguish between right and wrong? I might have at least respected your point if you had bothered to back it up with any evidence. I find it hard to believe that a child's perception of what bad is will be ultimately determined by a single character in a single film, especially when you quite rightly explain that the change is rather subtle. Contrary to what you believe, children do have the ability to rationalise, hence why many of the films aimed at them have antagonists, and so in no way did Pixar 'literally' define sad to your child as a fat blue thing. The problems in this article stem from your personal feelings towards the film, which unfortunately has dictated your parental skills. You may be dissatisfied with Pixar's work, and that's fine, but being a narrow minded idiot really isn't. Because there is a single, minor theme you disapprove of doesn't mean you can start degrading this film's status as a perfectly valid art form, shielding it from your helpless and dependent children. Why the hell should Pixar conform to your flawed agenda when clearly it's only moronic arguments like this that try and ruin the fun for the majority?

Top 10 Worst Comedians

I have a lot of respect for comedians, as making an audience of strangers laugh is no easy task. There are however some performers that unfortunately fail at this task, and how anyone could find them amusing is a big question. In reality this list would be full of American comics, and although I've tried hard to sieve through all the insignificant acts that the civilized world just doesn't care about, there are still those on an international perspective that fuck up big time.


#10 Robin Williams

Well this is a controversial start. I may be a senseless bastard, but I respect this man's work as an actor to an extent, even though his work in comedy is not impressive in any way. For a man who I keep hearing is one of the funniest people of all time, it surprises me that people still fail to see the poor standard of this man's work, and especially that of his standup routines. Yes he may have a bubbly personality, but that needs to be backed up with decent and original material. Williams often complained about the stress of standup comedy, and on that point I do sympathise with him, but if this stress leads you into depression and drugs it might indicate that comedy isn't the right profession for you to go into. I'm sorry for being blunt, but this serious backstory to Williams' personal life is evident during his performances, and as a result it becomes devoid of any emotion, and underwhelming when you consider this man's personality. Everything just ends up feeling like a life lesson, and I don't want that serious undertone when listening to standup comedy.

However the thing that pisses me off the most about Williams' so called comic genius is his reliance on other people's work. In his time Williams was known for being possibly the worst joke thief of all time, and it got to the stage where other comedians would stop their routines when they heard Williams was in the building so he couldn't steal their material. When you see things that way Williams ends up looking like a massive asshole. But to be fair to Williams, he also had a large role in improv, although that's not a genre that particularly excites me, and some of his work in films has to be praised. However, when you compare this to his competitors and modern counterparts, they end up running rings around him. Maybe we should remember Robin Williams as a successful actor rather than an underwhelming comedian. His roles in 'Mrs. Doubtfire' and 'Hook' may have been poor, but their was some genuine talent hiding behind one very misunderstood human being.


#9 Graham Norton

Another man who might be a decent guy on the surface, but fails when he decides to try comedy. I will happily sit through Graham Norton's highly successful chat show, and although that maybe more to do with the range of high profile guests he has on, there is no denying that Norton is more made out to be a presenter than anything else. His narration over the Eurovision Song Contest is one example of why standup comedy really wasn't a good career move for Norton, and although he doesn't quite top the voice of the legendary Terry Wogan, he still does a good job that is far superior to his foray into comedy. The quote above shows that Norton knew he was never put out for standup comedy, and so surely he must have known that some of his material was just shockingly bad. Even now the material he spews out at the start of his chat show is cringeworthy enough to make anyone vomit, and almost ruin the show before its even started.

I just can't quite work out how a man who's failed as a comedian manages to monopolise the world of entertainment broadcasting. It still annoys me that he tries to incorporate that cringey standup act that didn't work before into his everyday broadcasting, that now encompasses just about every programme the BBC broadcast. It's just become apparent that he keeps playing the same tired old cliches, such as when he plays the gay card, that doesn't instantly become funny every time he brings the damn thing up. Okay Norton may have a decent personality, but that doesn't automatically translate itself into strong material. If anything this pisses me off even more, as Norton just shoves the same joke down your throat multiple times in one sitting, and so I just don't understand how people can respect a comedian who lives by a rinse and repeat format. Surely something must click after the fifth time you've heard the same fucking joke.




#8 Micky Flanagan

Comedians who rely on standup to become successful often gain a lot of respect from myself, but then occasionally one comes along that's so bland and forgettable that you have to ask yourself what anyone sees in him. Flanagan is one of those comics, and so not surprisingly he's yet to win any big awards. That doesn't stop him from managing to sell out arenas on his various tours, although what sort of bellends would pay money to see him is a worrying proposition. Over his career Flanagan has appeared on shows such as 'Mock the Week', gracing us with his instantly forgettable performances, and often not producing a single joke worthy of any credit. If you want to experience even more psychological trauma then his DVD is available; although do bear in mind that although it claims to be a comedy DVD, it's not even remotely funny, and just contains some stupid ramblings of a man with a really annoying voice.

It says a lot when the culmination of Flanagan's career was a lawsuit with '118-118', who got in trouble for using his 'joke' when referring to people describing going out for the evening as 'out, out'. People, including myself, regularly use that statement, so I'm still missing the punchline here. It's just a commonly used sentence, so how Flanagan can prosecute a company for another person's work is just mindblowingly stupid. All you need to know about Flanagan is that his comedy is so dreadful that cheap adverts for directory enquiries are using his best material. Since that case Flanagan's career has gone downhill, and he's since become a team captain on the offensively bad 'I Love My Country' game show, which was actually even worse than his DVD. That not surprisingly got axed and so Flanagan now tours the UK, pointlessly meandering around comedy clubs in a very similar way to his mindnumblingly dull comedy shows.


#7 Carrot Top

What the fuck is this thing? Surely that being in the picture can't be human, and yet people still pay their hard earned money to watch this alien life form fail miserably at thinking his woeful material is in some way amusing. Carrot Top's human name is Scott Thompson, and he's widely known across America as being a terrible comedian, and judging by the quote above they're not wrong. That joke above shows that Carrot Top can't even make a decent joke about himself, which I would have thought would be an easy task considering both his appearance and that self depreciation is comedy 101. I guess his inability to make a joke is the thing to laugh about, and not his performances that emphasise on physical objects to get the laughs. I don't understand how people find standup based around physical comedy funny, and to me it seems like a method that requires no creative flair, and is just regurgitating the same amusing objects with almost no skill. If you think his standup is bad, and you should do, then please never watch any of his films. I don't care what the cost of them is, don't even think about watching a second of his bollocks as they're just pure torture. Listening to anything this thing does is against my human rights, which Carrot Top wouldn't understand since he isn't one. No human would ever want to inflict as much punishment on their audience as this alien spawn does.

#6 Alan Carr

Oh God. Alan Carr isn't necessarily the worst comedian in the world, as sometimes he does come out with some decent punch lines, but the problem with Carr is his personality; which is just so fucking irritating. Even if the man does say something funny he'll end up ruining it with his annoying voice and expressions that just make you want to punch him square in the face. This annoying persona is surprising when you consider that Carr started out his career in standup, yet still somehow managed to grow a career from the fact that he wasn't very good at it. Unfortunately it then got a million times worse when he teamed up with the equally irritating Justin Lee Collins to host 'The Friday Night Project', which was unfortunately a show that aired rather than being a simple project like the title suggested, despite being incredibly shit. Who knew that teaming up two of the must unlikable people in the world would end badly? Carr now hosts his own chat show called 'Chatty Man', which thankfully is probably the best move in this man's career, although he still manages to sound annoying when talking to celebrities. I don't know if you could tell that this man was gay, but that obsession with the gay card is just such an annoying style that doesn't work in any format, especially when you're as stomach churning as Carr is. It's just too much to handle, and as a result I don't like this man at all.


#5 Peter Kay

If 'Poundland' started comedy shows then this man would be the main event. How the hell Peter Kay has set the world record for the most successful comedy performer of all time is an absolute joke. 1.2 million imbeciles decided to buy a ticket to his shows in order to hear some crap jokes told by a crap comic. But the morons weren't finished yet, as they then decided to buy his autobiography, which became the biggest selling autobiography of all time. Peter Kay's book doubled the sales of Barrack Obama's, which when you consider their respective achievements is an absolute joke. Twice the amount of British people would prefer to read about an overweight man who's crap at comedy, rather than an inspirational tale about one of the most revolutionary and important men in the world. What the fuck is wrong with people?

Kay seems like a guy who could make a few of the lads laugh down the pub, but then somehow became famous off of these same poorly constructed jokes. The people who claim that this man has the best standup performances in Britain couldn't be further from the truth. Great performers don't have bland and simplistic routines that could be emulated by anyone in the country. Kay's only bearable moment came when he coined the phrase "ave it" during a 'John Smith' commercial. Although praising someone for their greatest role in an advert is like praising Mother Theresa for having pretty eyes; it just doesn't matter. However, Kay is a renowned philanthropist, and has put a lot of effort into skits for Comic Relief, and so he's a nice guy at heart. Just a shame that when it comes to comedy he's nowhere near as good as any of his competitors. 


#4 Russell Brand

What an egomaniacal bellend who's now under some false impression that he's some sort of savior for many helpless Britons, when in reality he's an idiot that blurts out constant hypocritical bullshit to maintain his public image. He pissed me off enough when he was a shit comedian, but now he's moved into politics he's become unbearable. Even his voice is enough to send me into a rage. I'm not suggesting elocution lessons, but at least make an attempt to pronounce some words. I mean it's not as if you try and make a living in a profession that requires the use of speaking as a medium, as then I'm sure people would think you're annoying voice is a sign that you're just a stupid wanker. If his political and comedy career aren't enough to make you see what a worthless waste of life this man is then please watch some of his films. It seems Brand can't do anything without completely fucking everything up with his shitty personality. Brand is instantly hateful as soon as he opens that mouth full of shit, and so can't help but become the centre of attention, hiding his shallow and pretentious personality.

By some miracle Brand managed to marry Katy Perry. I don't know if Katy Perry is deaf or is just a terrible judge of character, but not surprisingly after two years it finally clicked that she might be in a relationship with an absolute twat, and so the two consequently broke up. It says a lot about Brand's comedy career when I can't even write two paragraphs about his work without reverting to his personal life, but then you can't really ignore the actions of a total scumbag. However we haven't even got to Brand's worst joke yet. No, his worst joke was prank calling Andrew Sachs so he could lightheartedly harass Sachs about having sex with his daughter. What a pleasant man. I'm not sure I'd call that comedy; more being a dick. Since then Brand's managed to continue being an idiot by urging the population not to vote until the aristocracy redistributes the wealth of the UK, which is just fucking idiotic. Brand genuinely believes that rich people just came about by random chance and don't merit earning more money than the average person, which I sort of understand considering his pathetic career. Brand's subsequent activism has proven he has no fucking clue about politics, and ironically that's become a bigger joke than his comedy ever was.


#3 Kathy Griffin

We now arrive at the section of comedians who are just plain annoying, and what better way to begin than with an American comedian who happens to have the most irritating personality in the world. Griffin is yet another comedian born from the dark world of improv, and as such her material is often loosely connected to her other jokes, but often the content is seemingly just random comments about politics, celebrities or her sex life. Those subject just don't interest me in any way at all, as they're certainly nothing original, and nothing that any sane person should care about when watching a comedy performance. Maybe I wouldn't be so negative if the material was actually of a decent standard, but Griffin's performances are in no way respectable and so as a result she's become one of America's least favorite standup comics. Her routines rely on samey rants that end up feeling cringeworthy to listen to, and they never seem to contain any genuine or sophisticated comments.

The thing with Griffin is that her whole cynical charade just keeps repeating the same pretentious crap over and over again, never hesitating to shove her personal views down your throat at every possible moment. This crappy personality just makes Griffin an intolerable human being, who somehow has managed to survive long enough without somebody deciding to cave her head in with a shovel. Her style of comedy needs putting out of its misery, but unfortunately she keeps putting herself in reality TV shows to infect the poor minds of her captive audience. Any of Griffin's work is about as entertaining as her diabolical standup routines, so please don't hesitate in not purchasing or watching anything with this loud mouthed bitch in it. If you're a comedian that has to rely on reality TV shows to become famous, then you really need to reevaluate your contributions to comedy.


#2 Michael McIntyre

Isn't it a shame when a comedian who can occasionally produce some good material manages to ruin their whole career thanks to their fucking annoying personality. McIntyre is quite simply one of the most irritating humans of all time, and there is nothing I would rather not watch than him prancing around the stage with his annoying laugh and annoying voice, telling jokes that he's blatantly stolen from other comics. He has the feeling of a man you would enjoy telling to fuck off when he inevitably tries to sell you a dodgy TV in 'Curry's', and so I find it amazing that people can actually find this irritating toad funny. The worst thing a comedian can do is regularly laugh at their own jokes, and it becomes even worse with McIntyre as he laughs at every single bit of his performances, despite the majority being absolute crap. How there is so much love for this man I have yet to work out, as there is no way in my mind that this imbecile could become the best selling comedian of 2012. How is that possible when you're a grade-A wanker?


#1 Keith Lemon

I don't think there can be any denying that in a world of irritating comedians, this tumor of human existence is undoubtedly the worst thing to have ever tried to tell a joke. In the world of comedy characters he is the lowest of the low, and when compared to legendary creations such as Mr. Bean or Alan Partridge, Lemon ends up looking so cringeworthy that just the sound of his voice makes me think that genocide is the only solution to humanities consistent sympathy towards this failure of a man. The actual comedian behind Keith Lemon is named Adolf Hitler, although in reality that joke is harsh on Hitler considering that he at least contributed something to the German people, whereas so called 'comedian' Leigh Francis could never even hope to achieve anything under his pathetic existence. Lemon looks like the kind of failed talent you would find as a supporting act on a cruise ship, but that still doesn't justify this weasel's pointless existence.

The above 'joke' is proof of what a waste of life this idiot is. I mean come on. Name me one thing that's meritable about that butchering of the English language. Lemon can't even use proper English words to tell a joke, but instead has to create new words in the poor attempt at his cheap, shitty version of comedy. If you do feel like torturing someone then I suggest watching either his film or his sketch show, which are both crimes against humanity that no sane human being could last two minutes watching without feeling the need to blow their brains out. Never have I ever felt the urge to murder someone as much as when I'm forced to sit through this man's pitiful attempt at making mindless morons laugh at the crap level of hilarity featured above. This man could ruin anything with his hateful personality and forceful humour. Just writing about him is making me feel the need to take my own life thanks to this stupid personality that should be kept away from society. What an absolute cunt.