The Sydney Sweeney haters are a bunch of hatchet faced bitter cunts.

Women athletes the world over are having a pile on on the epically gorgeous Sydney Sweeney because she did an advert for some sports gambling brand in which she used various bits of sporting paraphernalia to disguise her delectable modesty.

Cue the ugly women’s athletics brigade all outraged that Ms Sweeney should – by their assertion – diminish women’s sporting achievements in this way. They are also disgusted that in the modern era women should, in their words, monetise their bodies and sexualise the arena of their sporting activities. Presumably their objection is rooted in the insinuation that most men would rather enjoy, and be happy to see women financially rewarded for, the spectacle of a near naked sex goddess flaunting her considerable assets in a sports setting, than they would take an interest in any wimminz actual sporting activities. Correct. Us men couldn’t give a fuck if your best girly performer leapt over some sandpit, managing about a third of the distance of the bottom rated in the entire world lazy eyed fat boy from school. And you’ll find that a lot of women agree with us in writing off women’s sport as mostly boring at best, often embarrassing in its effort to claim to offer everything that men’s sport does by way of achievements and entertainment.

Furthermore, what exactly, as a bunch of liberated feminists, is your problem with Sydney using her god-given talents to her uniquely feminine advantage? Could it be that you’re all just bitter and twisted that she’s got the kind of bod and bazookas you could only ever dream of? Or perhaps it’s the following facts from Wikipedia that get right up your nose:

“In 2021, Sweeney purchased a 3,200-square-foot (300 m2) Tudor-style home in Los Angeles for US$3 million. In 2023, she bought a US$9.9 million “fixer-upper mansion” in Los Angeles’s Bel Air neighborhood, and in 2024 she bought a US$13.5 million home in the Florida Keys.”

What’s more, where’s all the “women can do what they want with their bodies” chanters when you need them? I thought feminists were supposed to be pro- women getting ahead in the world and doing it any way they wanted, and doing just what the fuck they want with their own bodies. Turns out the kind of fems who want you to be able to do what you want with your body, sister, are only of that opinion if your body is also a hirsute unwashed shapeless heap like theirs.

It’s these same sisters that hounded the Formula One pit girls and the page 3 models out of their jobs, claiming to be standing up for wimminz rights as they did so.

Face it bints, no one wants to watch you in any sporting context, but if you’ve got tats and a bod like the fair Ms Sweeney go ahead and flaunt it and earn your three mansions with the unreserved blessings of the entire heterosexual male species.

BBC News?

Nominated by : Balsamic Dave

With sloppy seconds provided by Norman:

Seconded, Dave.

Funny how these so called ‘feminists’ always hate attractive young women. I recall that Clare Short minger openly targeting Page 3 Girls in the 80s. Also, funny how all these feminists are ugly fuckers as well. This currnent hatred towards Sydney is no different.

is a cunt.

This is an important message about the end of democracy in Britain. Regardless of your politics, you need to know what is now at stake.

You’ve probably seen that Reform has received two record donations this week. These donations came from British citizens and were perfectly lawful when they were received. Labour does not dispute this.

What Labour is doing is rushing through a new law that it plans to backdate to render them unlawful – literally changing the rules after the fact to try to bankrupt a political opponent.

Make no mistake: this has never happened before in modern British political history. In fact, you have to go back to 1641 to find its like.

That was the year Parliament passed a Bill of Attainder against the Earl of Strafford: a law written for one man, to punish one man for things that were not crimes when he did them. They went on to behead him on Tower Hill.

Even the MPs who voted for it knew it was a disgrace, and the country spent the next 50 years in civil war and revolution, seeking to ensure that Parliament could never again be used as a weapon against the individual.

This is the road Andy Burnham is now walking back down. It collapses the very concept of the rule of law. It collapses the legitimacy of this duly elected government.

There is a sacred, albeit unwritten, contract that underpins eight centuries of British constitutional liberty. It was sealed in Magna Carta in 1215: “No free man shall be seized or stripped of his possessions except by the lawful judgment of his peers and the law of the land.”

The law of the land – present tense. Not the law the Crown decides it would have liked to have had.

The law is a set of rules for citizens to live by, not a retroactive trapdoor sprung by Parliament to crush a political rival.

By weaponising Parliament to pass retrospective laws to bankrupt a political opponent, Andy Burnham is crossing a Rubicon. Changing the rules today to outlaw an action that was legal yesterday tears at the very fabric of the rule of law.

Labour’s attempt to apply retrospective legislation through amendments to the Representation of the People Bill – to render impermissible donations that were perfectly permissible when they were received – is an existential assault on parliamentary democracy.

Forget Labour’s propaganda about foreign influence and crypto. These donations are from British citizens, and not a penny was donated in crypto. These are smokescreens for this Labour government’s real agenda: to use raw legislative dominance to bankrupt its most threatening electoral insurgent.

Andy Burnham does not want you to decide who runs this country at the ballot box. He wants to weaponise Parliament to crush his opponents before you get the chance to do that.

Unlike America, Britain has no written constitution to protect us from a power-crazed prime minister. In practical terms, there are no bounds to what Parliament can do – no limit to what a power-crazed prime minister can do, so long as he has the MPs to back him.

If an incumbent government establishes the precedent that it can rewrite party-finance laws retrospectively to empty the bank accounts of an opposition party, Britain enters a new and terrifying paradigm.

Once the principle of legal certainty is sacrificed to naked partisan expediency, there is no stopping point. Politics ceases to be a contest of persuasion under reasonable and predictable rules. It becomes a game of raw power, in which the winner simply changes the laws to destroy the loser’s capacity to compete.

Parliament is sovereign, but that sovereignty was never intended to become an elective dictatorship that retroactively punishes political opponents.

If Parliament allows this mechanism to pass into law, it will not have saved democracy from money in politics. It will have demolished the very rule of law that keeps democracy alive.

Think of it this way: you drive down a road. The signs say 30 miles an hour. You’re clocked doing 29. The government then changes the limit to 20, backdates it to the day before you drove down that road and prosecutes you for speeding.

That is what Labour is now doing – except the stakes are far, far higher.

Consider where this leads. If retrospective law is acceptable when it targets Reform, it is acceptable when it targets anyone.

A future government could rule that the last decade of Labour’s trade-union donations was unlawful. It could rule that your membership of a party was itself an offence and backdate that offence to the day you joined.

The people cheering today would be the first to discover that a weapon, once built, does not care who holds it.

This is Britain: the country that faced down the Armada, Napoleon and Hitler rather than surrender these principles. Millions of British people laid down their lives to defend them.

If you want to live in a Britain in which your vote matters, please email your MP and tell them what you think of Labour’s attempt to break our democracy.

Nominated by Dioclese.

Apparently we must suffer the ever increasing price of gas to help out the Ukrainians in their ongoing battle with the Russian Bear.

“The UK national security adviser has said Europe must be ready to endure “real hardship” this winter if it is to keep up economic pressure on Russia.

In rare public remarks, Jonathan Powell told a conference in Kyiv that Europe’s strategy of supporting Ukraine and imposing sanctions on Moscow was working.

Powell said talk of Russian escalation was “not a problem” but a “sign of success” that pressure on President Vladimir Putin was finally paying off – and as such European nations should not take their “foot off the gas”.

How about we fuck “net zero” off and help ourselves to the vast supplies of fossil fuels we need to kick-start our moribund economy and bring bills down..

Oh and fuck Ukraine.

BBC News?

Nominated by : Unkle Terry

The Starmer & Wormald Gravy Train.

“A former top civil servant received a record pay-off of nearly £860,000 after he was forced out of his job by Sir Keir Starmer, just 14 months after the then-prime minister appointed him.

Lord Wormald left his role as cabinet secretary and head of the Civil Service in February by “mutual agreement” following months of media reports suggesting Downing Street was unhappy with his performance.

The Cabinet Office’s accounts, external show there was “contractual compensation” of £332,897 and “additional severance” of £526,598″..

What a lovely notion,get rid of some cunt you don’t like but shower the fucker with someone else’s money.

Just in case anyone might be worried Mr Wormald will struggle to find a job in the real world,fear not!…Starmer has made the cunt a Lord.

Thoroughly splendid for everyone involved.

Tough shit for the peasants as ever.

BBC News?

Nominated by : Unkle Terry

The ‘crackdown’ – no pun intended – on traditional footie chants is a right cunt.

Footie has been ruined by the woke twats. Poor Hull City and its fans have been fucked over by the ‘powers that be’ merely for singing about ‘rent boys’:

BBC Sport?

Of course, the BBC correspondents cannot use the term ‘rent boys’ because their collective dicks are so fare up male prostitutes’ arses there is no room left for a sense of humour.

This sort of nonsense has ruined the game for proper fans. There is no point in going if you can only sing fucking ‘Sweet Caroline’ as you sip your fucking diet fucking coke.

Oh and while we are at it, Chelsea are shit and always have been.

Nominated by : Twenty Thousand Cunts Under the Sea