Apparently Princess Spakly’s new product is not thick enough to qualify as actual jam, so it is labelled as spread. In an interview on an episode of her universally acclaimed TV series, she explained:

“Technically, it can’t be called jam because jam is equal parts sugar and fruit. I just don’t think you can taste the fruit that way.”

The runny stuff flew off the virtual shelves the moment it went on sale at around a tenner a jar. Gastronomes are united in their view that sultry Meghan (former star of the hit US TV show “Shits”) is a genius who has single-handedly saved us from that stuff sold by the racist Wollygogs.

Read all about how wonderful it is right here:

Today.com

Buy some you cunts, or the Ginger Prince gets it.

PS Why not try some on your Chiggun?

Nominated by : Twenty Thousand Cunts Under the Sea

Yahoo News.

CH4s new ‘star’ signing to it’s already shit Crufts presenting team of Claire ‘horseface’ Balding and Radzi Khuwungathumpa (mop headed wanker)

Where do I start with this Uber Cunt ?

1. Get your fucking fringe cut so you can see where you going without constantly shaking your head to get it out of your eyes.

2. Eat a sandwich you boney cow.

3. Wash some of the 12 layers of orange foundation of your clock. (Are you David Dickinsons love child)

4. What the fuck are you wearing ? ? ? You’re a 54 year old with 3 kids – Why are you dressed in a Black Top, trousers and Boots all 2 sizes too big. You are not a 14 yr old Goth FFS.

5. Stop grinning like a fucking moron.

Claudia comes from the ‘trying too fucking hard’ school of tv presenting. Grinning, open mouthed, zany, “I’m having a great time – this is the best thing ever” – No you’re not. You’re being paid a £riddiculous amount of money to act like a cunt.

No acting needed – you are a fucking cunt.

Nominated by : Lord_of_the_Rings

I am sick to death of this cunt. Sick to the back bloody teeth.

His ubiquity on the radio is beginning to grate on both my ears and my nerves.
The shite stations they have on at certain NHS establishments I have to frequent make sure I cannot escape this bastard.

His songs – for want of a better word – are dog turd of the highest order. First of all, someone should tell this fat fucking cunt that shouting is not – repeat not – singing. He sounds like a strangulated parrot with a megaphone. And, as for his lyrics. Listen to this corker…

‘I swear to God, I’ll survive
If it kills me to.’

Errr…. If it kills you, you won’t survive, will you? Fucking stupid inept fat cunt.

‘I’m gonna get up and try
If it’s the last thing I do.’

Again, if it’s the last thing you do, you will not be surviving anything. Is there a brain in that head of lard, supported by those 30 chins?

Not only is it excruciating shouting, it is shouting words that are absolute crap.

And, I am sick of hearing the useless talentless squawking fat fucker.

Link here: YouTube.

Nominated by : Norman

Apparently CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) is sexist

It would seems a lot of women have cardiac arrests, but members of the public trained in CPR are put off helping because the mannekins they are trained on don’t have tits, so they are now calling for more of them to have tits to practice on.

BBC News?

‘New figures show women are less likely than men to receive bystander CPR as many “feel unsure about touching a woman’s chest”, an ambulance service has revealed’

I suspect this really isn’t about not being familiar with a bra and tits being there, but more to the point the ‘patient’ should they survive accusing you of ‘copping a feel’ and getting taken to court, and bystanders thinking you are doing something pervy, videoing it and putting it online, and still ending up in court. However, I am quite happy to ‘give it a go’ even if I haven’t been trained…any excuse to feel some tits!

Order your very own Sophie here: Amazon.com (You’re welcome – NA)
(Link fixed as fucking Amazon changed the original. Enjoy! – NA)

Nominated by : Chuff Chugger

or as I like to call them are absolute fucking CUNTS.

Yes, lawyers—particularly criminal defence barristers and solicitors—are expected to face significant professional and financial disadvantages if jury trials are reduced, a move currently being proposed by super-intellect David Lammy in England and Wales to tackle court backlogs. The legal profession has expressed deep concern that removing the right to a jury trial for many offenses will diminish the need for specialist advocates, reduce income for criminal practitioners, and potentially drive new talent away from the field.

So, do they actually care about the thousands of scumbags being relentlessly hauled through the British courts? Of course not. It`s all about the vast amounts of lovely money they`ll lose out on.

The proposed shift to “judge-only” trials for some cases is expected to shorten proceedings, reducing the work available for defence lawyers. As jury trials are considered “long-form” work, fewer of them directly equates to less billable time, ie, fewer fees for barristers.

• Shrinking Legal Aid: Restrictions on jury trials, particularly when moving cases to magistrates’ courts, may shrink the pool of cases that qualify for legal aid, reducing the overall funding for criminal law firms.

• Reduced Demand for Trial Specialists: Criminal law practitioners are concerned that they will be “overlooked,” as the need for specialists skilled in presenting cases to a jury (who can interpret “real-world” context and emotions) will decrease in a system that focuses on more technical, judge-only hearings.

• Diminished Professional Appeal: The reduced potential for career progression, combined with lower funding for criminal work, is causing law students to reconsider specializing in criminal law, potentially creating a talent shortage.

• Shift in Work Type: While the volume of cases may remain high, they will be shifted to magistrates’ courts where the nature of the work is different, often offering lower remuneration and less opportunity for in-depth advocacy compared to the Crown Court.

Thousands of lawyers have signed letters opposing the restrictions, arguing that the changes are based on “little evidence” and are not the correct solution to the court crisis, which they attribute to underfunding and poor management rather than the use of juries. Lawyers contend that these reforms will not only affect their livelihood but also weaken public confidence in the justice system.

No shit. Really?

What a bunch of parasitic, greedy, unconscionable sociopaths.

🤮

Nominated by sņigger-sņigger.