"They did it on purpose, Lynne"

There are plenty of words you can use to describe the urinating actions of the US soldiers on Taliban corpses. Abhorrent, disgusting, despicable, erotic. Well, not so much erotic.

I'm sure you've seen the story by now, but basically, some army whistle blower has released video footage of a bunch of American soldiers 'getting caught short' all over a row of dead Taliban fighters. Despite the inhuman nature of their antics, there's a definite air of positivity within the footage, with one even squeaking 'have a good day, buddy', as if that's possible after everything that's happened to them.

What I find ironic is these lads were sent over there to restore peace to the area, and after putting their lives on the line to do so, they think that stirring the shit up by doing this is the best way to progress. Fortunately, the Taliban leaders who have begun talks with the Yanks about calming the whole "Well they started it" caboodle down have said that this footage won't affect the progress they're trying to make in brokering peace, which is a bloody good job really. Let's face it; they've every right to kick off and start scrapping again, and who could blame them? If footage was leaked (arf) of the Taliban doing that to US corpses all hell would break loose.

Perhaps most stupid (or brazen, depending on your outlook) is the fact that they allowed their faces to be shown on the video. Surely they must have realised that if this footage ever ended up in the wrong hands, their asses would be grass in no time? As we speak the government has already said they've identified the battalion and a couple of the participants, I fully expect the noisiest of noise to be brought by the military now, not least to show that they're not going to stand for this kind of mucking about when there's peace in the offing.

I have no doubt that this kind of activity takes place on both sides during the fog of war. Andy McNab was very descriptive about what he was made to do by his captors, for example. I'd be amazed if more urine or licking-your-own-shit-off-your-fingers action wasn't happening off-camera, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable. There are plenty of underground clubs that cater for this kind of 'erotic niche' the world over, so my advice would be to do it in a toilet until you get home. Or at the very least cover your face, you dolt.

Anthony Worrall Tealeaf more like

Shoplifting. The old five-finger discount. Reserve of the social underclass and confused soap opera teenagers, right?

Er, wrong, actually. Know it all.

Miniature double-barrelled pan-jockey Anthony Worrall Thompson is the latest 'celebrity' to be caught half-inching goods, in this case from Tescos. This high-drama caper began last month, when he was seen using the self-service checkouts to his advantage by bagging stuff he hadn't paid for. Apparently he did it five times under surveillance before security hauled him in for questioning. He was subsequently cautioned by the Feds and the bleating has gone into overdrive.

You may recall a previous e-rant regarding people being caught having affairs and what have you, but rather than admitting they enjoyed the trappings of their adulterousness (it's a word, don't bother looking it up), they instead went all doe-eyed and wailed how they were in a dark place and needed help, etc. In all likelihood they would have carried on shagging their pneumatic backing dancers forever if they hadn't been caught, but saying "I was enjoying that, spoilsport" sends a negative message which may affect future album sales.

Anyway, AWT has decided that 5 was exactly the right number of thefts to commit to realise it was wrong, and has gone on record about how he has let his family down and he needs professional help. Yeah, cos you've been harbouring these demons for 60 years, and they've suddenly wrestled control of your psyche and made you steal onions? Put a sock in it, beardy. If he did it once in a moment of sheer madness, maybe, but repeatedly highlights not that he needs help, but that he's a tight twat who was trying to keep his shopping bill down. Understandable during these times of austerity, but surely nothing a quick book launch couldn't have fixed.

At the end of the day, it's hard to argue that his celebrity status hasn't saved him from the big house. Behooded hoodlums were banged up for far less after last year's riots so it hardly seems fair that he gets away with it. I very much doubt he employed Basic Instinct-like behaviours to flash his minge at the cops, but then I wasn't there so I don't know. Either way, I hope you're not thinking about what that might look like. That would be awful.

Age gaps: Nothing but a number (derived from subtracting one number from another)

I'm missing something here. A 32-year-old woman and a 17-year-old boy have admitted they're seeing one another (I therefore presume shagging one another too). That's it. That's the story in its entirety.

Talk about a shit-storm though.

The lady in question is Caroline Flack who presents The Xtra Factor (whatever the hell that is), while the lad is part of singing sensation One Direction, who I'm led to believe are a modern musical act. Apparently the fact that there is a 15-year age gap between them has got some people very hot and bothered, as if he was nine and she some aging spinster with a pocket full of flying saucers.

For the sake of argument, let's put aside the fact that some boys/men have older women fantasies, and that she also happens to be a proper corker. Are either of them doing anything wrong? I grant you that it's unusual for two well-known people of such ages to get together, but I bet hundreds of millions of couples in the UK alone are in relationships with similar age gaps. Extrapolate those number across the globe and you're talking upwards of 14 billion people in similar circumstances. And they can't all be wrong.

I get why some people might say "Bit weird, innit? She's old enough to be his great aunt on some estates, yet here she is banging him like a porch door in a storm", but in truth, some people have labelled their tryst as 'disgusting', which is a bit harsh to say the least. There does come a point where an age gap becomes uncomfortable, but this isn't it. If he was 25 and her 40 nobody would be batting an eyelid. And the last time I checked the town charter, 16 was the minimum age for coitus, so she's OK on that score.

I can also understand people's concerns when the genders where reversed. That lad off The Green Mile is in his early fifties and he's married to a 17-year-old top-heavy blonde piece, and that's a bit odd. Don't get me wrong, I can see what 'assets' he was attracted to (tits) but she seems happy enough and they spend that much time in the limelight that he couldn't get up to any creepy mischief even if he wanted to.

At the end of the day, you can't choose who you fall for. If these two want to get it on bedroom-wise, let them help themselves. Wringing your hands and commenting on the inappropriateness isn't going to make them change their minds. As with all relationships, it will come to a tearful, bloody end soon enough, so let's let the kids have some fun before we're all in our cold, cold graves. Merry Christmas!

Light up, light up, as if you have a choice. Er, you don't...

I'm a non-smoker. Apart from a couple of years in the mid-noughties when I tried my hand at being a cool dude, I've never been interested in Lady Nicotine. Or cigs.

As a result, any legislation which bans smoking in public areas is AOK by me. Yes, it means that you're constantly stuck behind selfish arseholes at supermarket doorways as they strive to light up the second they leave the building, and the revelation that under the smoke lies only farts and B.O. in nightclubs hasn't been universally welcomed, but the health issues must surely be clear for all to see (not least now all the smoke has gone - arf!).

However, the latest development is a request to have smoking banned in cars, regardless of whether you are alone or not. And to me, that's a bit rubbish.

I subscribe to the notion of common sense; that people have their own minds and exercise the relevant caution in their day-to-day lives to ensure themselves and those around them are not put in any unnecessary danger. To that end, I expect people with passengers in their cars not to smoke, for example. Call me naive if you will, but I just expect people to be intelligent enough to make that call without being told it's bad and what have you.

If they want to get in a car alone, wind the windows up and smoke themselves into some kind of stupor, however, they can jolly well help themselves in my book. Providing they don't obscure their visibility with the smoke and/or piss about lighting fags when they should be concentrating on the actual driving, that's up to them. You would think they would know the health risks (those unsubtle "Smoking makes your ears explode and people call your sexuality into question behind your back" mottos on packets get the point across), so if they want to do it, leave 'em to it (potential slogan there).

If I got into a car and someone lit a cigarette without asking, they would be politely told to put it out. If they asked permission to light up first, they would likewise be told no. It's a simple system which we can all abide by which ensures that those who want to smoke can do, and those who don't like it don't have to tolerate it. Forcing folk not to smoke in the privacy of their own cars is just ludicrous, when we're told police numbers are at an all-time low. Surely they should be out there stopping and searching young people in inner cities for no real reason rather than pursuing someone through the courts because they had a fag on in a traffic jam.

What next - silencers on Christmas crackers to prevent heart attacks? Probably not, no.

End of the world III - this time it's personal

You've got to respect "Reverend" Harold Camping, who has recently announced his bi-annual prediction of the world's end.

Having predicted it would go tits up existence-wise on May 21st, he then revised his calculation to October 21st instead. Presumably he forgot to carry the one.

The most amusing aspect of this ridiculous man is he's done this sort of thing before, having predicted Armageddon in 1994. Whether he was talking about the pissy Hollywood action flick is unclear, but you have to admire his insistence that it was a mere mathematical error and next time he'll totally be right.

Personally, I don't see the point in trying to predict the end of the world. If you're wrong, you look like a right knob, and if you're right, everyone's dead so you won't be able to say "Told ya didn't I". Yes, you'd be able to wander around heaven looking smug at your accurate prediction, but those around you would presumably already believe you. It's us Hell-dwellers who would be most put out by him thumbing his angelic nose at us whilst imploring us to "Kiss it".

The thing is, the Rapture isn't the sort of news folk want to hear about. If you could predict the lottery numbers, you'd probably have a much more responsive audience, but if your game is telling people that they won't be seeing Children in Need this year, aside from a celebratory air-punch, I imagine they'd be a bit irked.

At the end of the day (geddit?) where there's religion, you're always going to have a healthy flock of lunatics telling us we're bad and we're off to Hell and the end is nigh, etc. If that is the case, then why don't you sod off and let us get on with it? If you predictions are accurate, you'll be upstairs playing air hockey with Jimi Hendrix soon enough anyway, so let us get on with our debauched lives in peace. Just let us have a quick crack at Imogen Thomas first.

It's a day for common sense

It's genuinely heartening to see that bloke from Manchester not facing charges after he stabbed some burglar's shit up when he broke into his house. By the sounds of it, he used reasonable self-defence against this punk, so he hasn't been done for murder. And that to me is common sense.

My own outlook goes way beyond this 'reasonable force' mantra. Personally, my attitude is "If you break into someone's house, they can do literally anything like like to you, including (but not limited to) the use of knives, killer bees and some kind of flame-throwing device to cause you harm, predominantly to the face if possible". I don't advocate the murder of the burgling scum, but I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to bring the noise if they have the temerity to break in in the first place. For all they know, you just happened to be sharpening your best axe at the time. I appreciate this leans slightly towards a vigilante culture, but as long as you're not wandering the streets with a machete looking for bother, you should be OK to defend yourself by whatever means necessary should someone want to nick your LP's.

I've heard arguments about such acts infringing the burglar's human rights and whatnot when these events occur, but my argument is always the same - what about the rights of the victims? I have a similar outlook to those in prison. I couldn't give a fuck if you're cramped or have to poo in front of twenty other men, or that two inmates keep trying to disembowel you with razor blades melted into toothbrush handles - you should have thought of that before you started burgling/raping/murdering folk. My sympathy you have not got.

The acid test will come when another burglar tryies to do his thing and is met by a Home Alone-inspired scene of flying paint pots and sticky floors, ending with a good hiding from a sporting bat of some description. At that point the courts will probably have to say 'come on, play the game' and send the homeowner down, not least for referencing Home Alone in modern society. Until that day though, I see no reason why homeowners can't continue to introduce the pilfering underclass to their friend pain. Maybe then they might learn not to bother. Fools.

Just cos nothing rhymes with 'Sollecito'

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Nice rack, lend us a tenner

There has been a study published recently detailing the propensity for people to pose as legitimate folk on that Internet, find vulnerable people to groom, then con then out of literally thousands of pounds by tugging at their heartstrings. Those conducting the study have commented that it seems much more common than they first thought, with the numbers likely to be even higher when you factor in the number of people just too damned embarrassed to report the blag.

You'll be mortified to learn that I find the whole caboodle laughable, as if there is someone out there daft enough to part with their hard-earned just because someone they've never met tells them they've got nice hair. I mean, come on, I get that some people are vulnerable and liable to fall for someone who pays them the right kind of attention, but surely even they get alarm bells when they get requests for £45 cos their beau's clutch is shot.

Don't get me wrong; I can see it happening in a situation where the baddie spends months working their target, meeting them, maybe even interfering with them sexually (consensual of course) before dropping the bomb that they need ten large in the next few days or their fingers will be cut off. Within a few months, plenty of relationships have established a level of trust where such a request no longer feels like a confidence trick. But you've got the draw the line at handing over brass when the only evidence you've got of them is a grainy picture cut from the TV Times depicting a fringe cast member from Hollyoaks.

I wrote a blog of a similar ilk a while ago about a woman who had succumbed to such a ruse, and went on the radio to alert people to the possibility. She suggested that nobody could call her names worse than she'd already called herself, which was asking for trouble, but at least she had the balls to hold her hands up and say "Yep, the game's up. He got me" to at least show that this can happen to people. It's all well and good releasing studies saying it happens to thousands of people a year, but without a victim to come out and describe their experiences, all you're going to get is self-righteous idiots belittling their plight in blogs. I imagine.

At the end of the day, while there's money and emotions in the world, this is going to keep happening. It's a lazy stereotype (something of a trademark on here you might have noticed), but there's always going to be slick-haired lotharios preying on emotional-scarred women who just need a hug in order to get their hands on their wonga (not a euphemism). While it's never a bad idea to expose these sorts of goings-on to help reduce the number of cases, you eventually have to trust people to have a bit of common sense. To paraphrase Homer Simpson, if you're dumb enough to fall for this kind of trick, you deserve to be robbed of all your money. Doh!

Hut movement: Pricey

I'm all for preserving our nation's heritage, be it a famous building, a tree where gravity was supposedly discovered or the chair in which a TV executive first pitched the notion of Big Brother. Such artefacts are a part of our national identity, intrinsically sewn into our culture and as much a part of us as looting and sleeping with Ryan Giggs.

What I do object to though is well-to-do families bursting into tears and begging for public money to help preserve something which is very much within their moral and financial remit to protect.

This week, Roald Dahl's family have asked for a £500,000 donation to move his writing hut from the bottom of his garden into the museum built in his honour to preserve it. Now, if they were on the bones of their arse, I'm sure we could come to some arrangement to preserve such an important piece of history, but his granddaughter Sophie has to be worth a few quid from her modelling and pouting exploits, plus she could pull rank on her titchy husband Jamie Cullum, who must have a few notes stuffed under his car seat, if only to raise it slightly.

Lest we forget that the Roald Dahl estate must be coining it as well. He was a world-reknowned singer songwriter, and certainly to my mind the greatest exponent of bluegrass music in the Western world*, so I'd be amazed if they couldn't scrape at least a percentage of the sum together to preserve his beloved hut.

There's been a reasonable public outcry at this request, presumably along the same lines as my attitude. In these times of austerity and iPad purchasing we can't afford to be giving money to a wealthy upper-class bunch to move a garage from one place to another. I'm sure in the fullness of time they'll stump up, but you've got to admire their balls at chancing it. What next - the Queen asks to borrow a million quid to wallpaper the guest bedroom? I'll be in my cold, cold grave before that happens - there is no guest bedroom at Buckingham Palace.

* I'm joking of course. Dahl was a straight-up rhythm 'n' blues aficionado.

Death + Protest = HD TV

I've waited and waited before commenting on this rioting hoopla simply because the story has been moving that fast that there was a real chance that any blog I wrote would be out of date and old-fashioned within minutes. There's a first time for everything I suppose.

As you're probably aware by now, some dude recently got shot in London, resulting in his family marching on the local police station in a peaceful manner, demanding answers and what-have-you about why he was shot. Having not received satisfactory responses from the Feds, some factions of the protesters decided the natural next step was to start chucking stuff around, setting fire to buses and giving it large whilst wearing masks. A nation looked on, tutted, then got back to whatever it does of a Saturday evening.

Then a strange thing happened. Clearly moved by the plight of this poor chap being killed, some of the fruitier elements of the social underclass decided that they too should take to the streets, sling a few home-made explosive devices and loot anything they could from their local retailers. Now, it would have been bad enough if this had occurred in Tottenham where the original bother occurred, but this lot were talking about their own backyards, namely West Bromwich, Wolverhampton and Manchester. For the next 24 hours, we saw wall-to-wall footage of infants in hoods charging about helping themselves to all manner of unrequited goods. I tend not to scare easily but I have to admit I was feeling a bit anxious for the correspondents who were following the baddies as they ransacked countless clothing stores and set fire to shit.

This is what's weird about this though. When you think of rioters, you think of bloodshed, murders even, but the majority of the scum's ire seems to be directed at shops and buses. Don't get me wrong, there have been a handful of merciless killings which put this trouble into a much more racially-motivated sphere, but it seems to me that most of them saw that the coppers were more or less letting them get on with it, so put their hood up, grabbed a carrier with good handles and set off for a night of looting. That the majority of the perpetrators were youngsters and they fled at the first mention of heavy-handed policing tells me that they weren't trying to make some kind of statement. They just wanted to nick some new trainers.

Now, you may be surprised to learn that my opinions of these ne'er-do-wells isn't exactly positive. If I had my way, the cops would be steaming in beating eight shades of shit out of them, let alone seven. Quite why they were told to stand back and let them get on with it is anyone's guess, and I'd wager that the soft tactics employed initially are what inspired hooligans in other cities to chance their arm in their neck of the woods. If they'd seen limbs being snapped and heads coming off, they might have thought twice about having a crack at Top Shop in the first place.

It's more or less settled down now, and the hand-wringing has begun in earnest. Personally I think the various bodies charged with deconstructing this and coming up with solutions are missing the point when they talk about moral degradation and the like. At any time in any society, there will always be folk who will take things without consent given the opportunity. There will also be those who can be influenced and coerced into doing the same. If there wasn't, we wouldn't need a police force in the first place. So next time, coppers, instead of sitting back cos you might not have enough numbers, wade in,bang a few heads together and the majority of the baddies might just realise it's not worth the risk.