Verbal

Ah, so I imagined all the garbage about how a lisp makes someone unelectable, did I? Or was that the point you're making by trying to talk with your tongue in your cheek?

Well done. Choudhury's got you jumping through his hoops, just as he wanted to. He know perfectly well that there's a knee-jerk fraternity just waiting to react with apoplectic incoherence. It's what he wants: swivel-eyed rage, blaming all Asians for the deliberately provocative nonsense of people like Choudhury and Hassan Bhutt. He knows that violent thoughts will eventually turn into violence itself, and polarise people still further. He gets a kick out of manipulating the gullible on both sides of the 'argument'.

Which is quite a useful demonstration of how public reporting of infractions can work. At least it might stop the victim mentality. I'm a little agnostic on it, to be honest. A bit of give and take around the rules is desirable, i'd have thought.

If you quote my 'non-story' (how funny it is to see that you and dune could be arbiters of that), then it's reasonable to assume that you're relating your point to the quote. Anyway, let's get backing to laughing at Cameron.

What? I don't understand what that expensive waste of space Andrew has got to do with a no-fly zone. And secondly, the Americans were planning a no-fly zone way before Cameron. What they resented was this utter bellend rushing in, a la Blair, and stealing the credit for something that he wouldn't foot any but a fraction of the bill for.

Today's bellend political news: Now Cameron is furiously back pedalling after his new spin doctor briefed against 'Prince' Andrew.

Hague and Cameron have turned Johnny English into a documentary.

You're doing exactly what he wants you to do. Don't be manipulated by a monumental wind-up merchant.

Strange that no one here has mentioned the obvious - that Sheen is having a very public mental breakdown. I hope this circus does not end badly.

I think there's a compelling argument in this for keeping infractions private. Sadly, the problem is a wider one of perceived fairness. When Deppo was briefly banned, dune sailed on regardless - and yet EVERYONE knows he's been banned before and has been allowed for no obvious reason to breach rules which apply to others. It was the same thing with Nineteen Canteen et al. He even boasted to several of us by PM that he had re-emerged in about five different guises - all known to Admin. If there were a clear argument that justifies this, the clamour for making infractions public would probably go away.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/charlie-sheen-fired-from-two-and-a-half-men/?emc=na

And now he's been fired. The future of the show will be decided by Warners 'at a later date'. Hmm.

Unfortunately, the simple fact is it was your post rather than Deppo's that took this thread off topic. There is a serious argument to be made for making infractions public, but why do it here?

All in the eye of the beholder, of course, but I can think of at least a dozen things better on TV right now. Most of it American.

Aren't you the same trousers who complains all the time about punch n judy politics? Please explain how Cameron's pathetic and embarrassing in the Middle East disqualifies him from the bellend award. Or how the nomination of his Old Etonian and moated chum for a peerage represents a new non-bellend politics.

It seems the latest chapter in Cameron's misadventure in the Middle East is set to confirm bellend status of historic proportions. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/06/sas-diplomatic-mission-in-libya "They were carrying espionage equipment, reconnaissance equipment, multiple passports and weapons. This is no way to conduct yourself during an uprising."

dune? Or benjiiiii?

Alone presumably.

You have no idea. I am about to explode.

So that's you out, Johnny Bog out. Dune is terminally incoherent. I'm running out of foaming-at-the-mouths. Who else? There's always that Sergei chap. He always tries, poor thing, to defend the indefensible. Maybe he'll have a go.

So benjilegend, what's your defence of Cameron's failed attempt to award his Old Etonian, moat-non-paying chum Quintin Hogg a peerage? What's your defence of Cameron's brilliant attempt to sell arms to despots in the midst of the upheaval in the Middle East, then suddenly to see the light with a no-fly zone, only to be thwacked by Clinton? Johnny B couldn't come up with an answer. Maybe you can. Here's hoping.

So we're agreed. Cameron is indeed a bellend. This thread has been illuminating.

Im certainly no fan of Brown. Odd that you should think (or imply) so. But let's not change the subject. Cameron's performance in the Middle East was truly bellended though - surely you'd agree. And you're surely not about to offer a defence for Bellend's attempt (again, withdrawn after a good kicking from his colleagues) to promote plebs-can-pay-for-my-moat Hogg to a peerage? Or are you?

When the condom fits... Actually his performance in the Middle East recently is surely the walking, talking definition of a bellend. First he turns up in the middle of a region-wide revolution to try to flog arms to all the nice corrupt regimes, then comes home and storms into the Commons to tell the world that Britain is about to impose a no-fly zone, and finally, after a sharp slap-down by the Americans, returns to the Commons with his tail between his legs. Bellend indeed.

Double agreed. Comedy wouldn't be funny without an element of truth. In any case, Cameron goes on providing such good material. Who other than a bellended toff would propose his Old Etonian chum Quintin Hogg for a peerage? For services to state-funded moats, presumably.