American Z Lister Launches Instant weight Loss Plan

When Chistmas shopping has worn you out and a trip up to Morecambe to rescue Dear Old Mum from tidal surge is on the cards, what do you do? Resort to celebrity gossip or girls with big breasts. Or both.

The new celebrity weight loss plan launched by celebrity zero-talent Heidi Montag (no I hadn’t heard of her prior to finding this story either,) is a sensation. According to The Examiner, former reality television star Heidi (famous for a pair of enormous breasts which she did not grow herself) shed six pounds instantly by having her implants removed. See below what Heidi looked like as nature endowed her and then with the unwildy implants.

heidi montag
Heidi Montag before implants and after.

Cosmetic surgery is addictive of course (and always good for a few column inches in the trashier media) but when you’ve already had HH implants, then like Spinal Tap when they turned the amps up to ten, there’s nowhere left to go.

Spinal Tap famously solved the problem by having custom built amps with volume controls that went to eleven. but would the same trick work for tits? It would be possible to go from HH to II perhaps but Ms. Montag is smarter than that, she decided to announce she needed to lose weight and accomplished this by having her megaboob implants taken out.

She has not returned to the pretty, modestly proportioned girl of our before picture however (well a girl has to make a living). But at least she is not quite as threatening as she was recently.

weight loss heidi

OMFG – Tom Daly Is Gay

He only came out this morning and already I want to strangle Tom Daly. Not because he’s gay but because he’s given the gay lobby in mainstream media something with which they can annoy us until the next Olympics when another petulant, preening, posing, hissy fit throwing failure by this obnoxious little attention seeker at his chosen event, the world’s most boring non – sport exposes him for what he really is, a nonentity.

OK he’s the best diver we have had in fifty years but how hard is it to be a contender in a sport nobody else is intersted in?

Its always possible of course, given Daly’s track record for attention seeking and throwing hissy fits when he does not get his own way, that coming out is just a ploy to get himself in the papers because nobody is very interested in diving and he was feeling a bit ignored, what with Rebecca Adlington being on tele every day in I’m a celebrity..

Whatever, unfortunately it means we will have to put up with this Dunt (no, his name really is Dunt, going on about how wonderful it is that the most boring sports competitor in Britain is gay.

“Tom Daley just did more for gay culture by lying back on a couch than a thousands of hours of diligent campaign work could ever hope to achieve.

The Olympic diver’s statement, delivered through YouTube, that he was dating a guy will have probably surprised few people.

What was truly special about the announcement was the way in which it was made. There was no sombre, set-piece, media-event TV interview. There was none of the fevered, front page hysteria which would have greeted a newspaper exclusive.”

What? Gay culture? What gay culture? I’ve never heard anything about julian Clary or Elton John or Paul O’Grady or Clare Balding being into diving. (Actually scrub Clare Balding from the list, she’s probably done more than her share of diving). And what is Dunt on about when he says there was no staged media event. Tom Daly was lying back on a sofa (Oi, stupid Dunt, it’s sofa not couch, you ignorant, lower class moron) talking to nobody in particular about how great it is to be gay and someone who just happened to accidentally film the speech on a smartphone then happened to accidentally post it on You Tube? I think not.

Well if it’s any consolation to the gay culture bods, I don’t hate Tom Daly any more now than I did before. He’s still a pointless, irritating little twat and an attention seeker.

RELATED POSTS:
Homosexuality: As a liberal society we have a duty to tolderate, not celebrate.

A Rant About Self Righteous Labour Luvvies

Today Tim Stanley wrote in the Daily Telegraph:

Bijan Ebrahimi’s murder had nothing to do with class. We are all capable of horror and of tolerating it

On July 14 this year, two men dragged the unconscious Bijan Ebrahimi onto his front garden, doused him in white spirit and set him on fire. They suspected the quiet Iranian immigrant of being a paedophile and had decided to “take the law into their own hands”. The incredible thing is that they were surrounded by a silent jury: local residents watched from their windows and did nothing. It’s a tale of horror to rival the Bulger killing or the patio graveyard of Fred and Rose West.

What does it tell us about anything? Dan Hodges (the Telegraph’s politically correct, blairite, Labour supporting token leftie – Boggart Blog) has written a powerful piece arguing that it undermines the Left’s narrative of working-class life as an “oasis” of solidarity. On the contrary, it exposes the “the other side of working-class Britain. The intolerance. The suspicion of distinctiveness. The naked hatred of anything, and anyone, that dares not conform.”
Read full article

After forty years of watching Labour drift from being “the people’s party” to now being the “millionaire, academic and elitist party” why are you surprised that a Blairite fool like Hodges does not understand the working class.
I’ve employed a fair few working class people over the years, they are a very mixed bunch, far from the stereotypes Labour elitists like Hodges would like to apply to them. What they do have in common however is a strong feeling of having been totally abandoned by government and the political parties, of their concerns being ridiculed and derided and of their social class being as despised by these new elitists as the old peasant classes were by the gentry.

It is because the left is now the new elite and Labour are their party that the working class vote has become more volatile and the atmosphere across the nation is so angry.

And when our police are such wusses they have an emotional crisis if someone calls them plebs, is it any wonder that vigilante law, with all the prejudices and injustices that contains, is becoming the law of the streets.

It is not that Bijan Ebrahimi to whom Stanley refers, a totally innocent man from what I read of the case, was suspected by the mob that led to this horrible crime, it is that the people who carried out the attack and those who stood by and did not intervene, suspected the authorities, from the local police to the highest in the land would do nothing; that the man would be protected by his race, just as Jimmy Savile was protected for decades by his celebrity status and the fact that he did a lot for charidee (which he never talked about but made sure others did) as well as the tendency of all elites to close ranks and protect their own.

It was widely rumoured from the 1960s onwards that Savile was a paedophile, everybody in the north west knew from the 1970s that Stuart hall was a paedo too (though as least hall was a good broadcaster). The media luvvies and lefties in broadcasting and the press, for whatever reasons, saw fit to cover it all up.

The victims were not part of the elite so they did not matter, their lives and feelings were worthless.

And that is why the working class have turned against labour (although they will still vote for the party because the guilt tripped posh boys and girls will keep the benefits flowing). Prof. Tim Stanley knows absolutely nothing, Dan Hodges MA knows even less.

RELATED POSTS:
Labour Real Agenda

Paedophile Former BBC Chauffeur Implicated In Jimmy Savile Scandal Found Dead

Candle In The Wind (the original version) was IMNSHO one of Elton John’s best song and Bernie Taupin’s poignant lyric really made the tragedy of Marilyn Monroe, the first victim of the Hollywood MK Ulta mindfuck, vividly real. One of my favourite lines from that song was “You had the grace to hold yourself while those around you crawled.”

What did it mean? To me it meant Marilyn understood what had been done to her, the abuse, drugs and booze had destroyed her and by taking her own life she held her dignity rather than becoming and increasingly pathetic figure.

So what does that have to do with former BBC employee and driver to paedophile, serial sex monster and BBC created icon Jimmy Savile? Did Smith, due to give evidence in court, hold himself? He was already a convicted paedophile with over sixty abuse offences on his record so there was little dignity to be salvaged.

Or was there a more sinister aspect to his death.

It had been widely anticipated that in court smith would reveal information that would implicate Judges and senior lawyers, front line politicians and wealthy, powerful businessmen and media figures in the paedophile ring Savile was at the centre of.

So we must wonder one again was this the suicide of a lonely, frightened, disgraced individual or was Smith’s death assisted by agents of the state because what he knew posed too great a threat to the establishment. It will be interesting to see what emerges in the next few days.

I have always seen the law as the protector of the privileged and that is as it should be. In this politically correct nightmare however, while blacks and gays are treated as superior castes and celebrities and elitists are above the law, an ordinary citizen is hounded to hell and back for parking his car on a yellow line for a couple of minutes or failing to pay the television tax to fund the Stalinist propaganda pumped out by the state propaganda machine known as the BBC while privileged people like Savile and company can get away with repugnant crimes for years, protected by the very people and organisations that scream most loudly about equal rights.

And what about the rumours of big names in the political establishment being involved? Everything has gone hush puppies hush hush about that yet several prominent Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem MPs must have a lot of explaining to do. Like these people? or maybe these people.

Not one MP, Peer or high establishment figure has even been questioned about their close relationship to Savile,not even the home secretary at the time Edwina Currie who not only made him ‘ head of an enquiry ‘ into Broadmoor even though he had absolutely no qualifications for such a role but also allowed him to have his own set of keys to Broadmoor so he could come and go as he pleased to have cosy little chats with notorious serial killers?

Come on,open your eyes people, are we really that dumb?. How did Savile get away with this for so many years ? It seems a lot of people knew what he was like or had their suspicions and yet nobody came forward until after his death. And despite his sexual proclivities being widely known, with colleagues such as Paul Gambaccini and Tony Blackburn among those being told to back off when they raised concerns and comedians such as Hugh Dennis, Alexi Sayle and Jerry Sadowicz openly pillorying Savile as a pervert ( Why did no one listen to Jerry’s howl of rage?) from the 1980s, Saviles cimes were covered up by the most politically correct organisation in the land.

Who was behind the cover up which must be of gigantic proportions.

Could it have been that Savile knew too much about too many people who were too high up the feeding chain to have the truth told about them.

The longer this thing goes on the worse the stink gets.

More

Fry Jumps The Shark

Yesterday, Stephen Fry, a British, talented, gay, Jewish (?) comedian, actor, novelist and all round luvvie provided us with an opportunity to observe most of what is wrong with western society in a single display of self important cuntiness.

In An Open Letter to PM David Cameron and the International Olympic Committee, Fry demanded that The Winter Olympic Games which will be held somewhere in Russia somtime in the future be moved to Vancouver, Canada or some unsuspecting city that has done nothing to deserve having such a load of shit dumped on it in a similarly politically correct nation. (BBC News)

The reason for Fry’s having ‘taken against’ Russia is that Russians are not very nice to homosexuals. Showing typical celebrity arrogance in assuming his fame makes what is nothing more than his personal opinion woth more than the personal opinion of me, you, Joe and Joan Bloggs, Old Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all, Stephen Fry has elected himself as the voice of Britain and equated Putin’s anti gay policy with Hitler’s Jewish hatred. Not only is this wrong, it shows a greater level of historical illiteracy that we’d expect from an American President.

Hitler, according to Fry “banned Jews from academic tenure or public office, he made sure that the police turned a blind eye to any beatings, thefts or humiliations afflicted on them, he burned and banned books written by them. He claimed they ‘polluted’ the purity and tradition of what it was to be German…”

Putin on the other hand has only forbidden mention of homosexuality in schools and banned exclusively gay events such as gay pride parades (quite right too, have you ever witnessed anything quite as cringeworthy as 2000 attention seekers all dressed as Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz mincing through town?) Gays have not been banned from competing in the Winter Olympics in Russia.

And who gives a flying fuck about The Winter Olympics anyway, apart from the kind of nutters who idea of fun is sliding on ice with planks or knives strapped to their feet.

According to Fry, “Putin is eerily repeating the insane crimes of the Nazis, only this time against LGBT Russians. Beatings, murders and humiliations are ignored by the police. Any defence or sane discussion of homosexuality is against the law.“
But those things are not capital offences whereas rational defences of Judaeism did earn a death sentence in Nazi Germany.

That might seem unfair to gay rights supporters but the fact is Russians alone have the right to decide how things are done in Russia. Western politicians would do better to concentrate on running their own nations properly before they start advising other nations.

Needless to say that I oppose any form of abuse of human right against Jews, Gypsies, Africans, GBLTs, Palestinians (and pausing there for a moment I wonder how Stephen Fry feels about Israeli treatment of Palestinians?), women or anyone else. However, I loathe the lame, politically correct culture of celebrity that causes media to treat sound bites from attention seeking luvvies and the empty slogans of spin doctors as if they are important. Stephen Fry has jumped the shark, in future file him in the same drawer as Jordan, Victoria Beckham, Tony Blair and Bono. With a bit of homosexual sefl pity thrown in.

Angelina’s Tits And The Commercial Implications Of Their Absence

Yesterday we reported a different perspective to the “heroic superstar makes supreme sacrifice for the benefit of all women wil a million dollars to spare favoured by mainstream media reporters of the increasingly sick celebrity culture.

Boggart Blog is always ahead of the news but this time we were only a day ahead. Kicks up the arse will be delivered in private to our editorial team. Today we see this:

Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence Supreme Court decision (opinion)

Friday, 17 May 2013 09:19

‘Angelina Jolie’s announcement of undergoing a double mastectomy (surgically removing both breasts) even though she had no breast cancer is not the innocent, spontaneous, “heroic choice” that has been portrayed in the mainstream media. Natural News has learned it all coincides with a well-timed for-profit corporate P.R. campaign that has been planned for months and just happens to coincide with the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision on the viability of the BRCA1 patent.

This is the investigation the mainstream media refuses to touch. Here, I explain the corporate financial ties, investors, mergers, human gene patents, lawsuits, medical fear mongering and the trillions of dollars that are at stake here. If you pull back the curtain on this one …
(Read full story – it’s a bit technical but not too bad)

Attempts by Big Pharma, Big Money and Big Evil (not Google, they are only apprentices) to patent the human genome for profit have been on the cards for some time. Looks like the corporate bastards have recruited the Hollywood A List and the thoroughly corrupt Obama administration to help sell the idea that slavery is a good option to the public.

UPDATE:
Just saw this comment from Johnathan Mason at Anna Raccoon’s blog:

The stock of the company that produces the test Angelina Jolie took has jumped after the announcement. It is an ill wind…

RELATED POSTS:
In The News

MORE FROM THE GREENTEETH STABLE

Boggart AbroadDaily Stirrer homeGreenteeth BitesBoggart BlogGreenteeth LabyrinthAuthorGatherBubblewsAuthorsdenScribdLittle Nicky Machiavelli
Ian Thorpe at Facebook

Why Are We Celebrating Angelina’s Tits (Or Lack Of Them)

The headline read:

Angelina Jolie inspires women to save themselves the agony of breast cancer by having preventive double mastectomies

There were any number of similar headlines in mainstream media this week, all full of praise for A(ish) List Celebrity, A-list barm pot and alleged actress Angelina Jolie for being brave enough to have her tits off because according to “experts” she had an 87 per cent chance of developing breast cancer. Angelina Jolie was not brave, her decision was either cowardly or calculating. It would be uncharitable to suggest the Jolie jugs were sagging unattractively as she nears forty and her ‘people’ came up with a great way of having them lifted and milking maximum publicity out of it, so we will not mention that possibility.

But why are we celebrating self mutilation. If some teenager who’d had a shitty childhood was cutting him or herself would we celebrate that?

Ah no, but Angie had an eighty seven per cent chance of developing breast cancer. Eighty Seven per cent of what, you wonder. We did at the Boggart Blog editorial meeting. Only yesterday I was trying to explain to a science head Daily Telegraph blogger why only nine per cent of people trust statistics. It went like this:

Tom Chivers:

Fifty-eight per cent of Britons between 16 and 75 believe that if you flip a coin twice, the probability of getting two heads is 50 per cent. Fifty-four per cent of Britons are “fairly confident” in their ability to use data and numbers.

If the Ipsos-Mori poll from which this is taken was accurate, it means that at least 12 per cent of Britons think they’re pretty good with numbers but can’t work out 0.5 times 0.5.

I’m not especially brilliant with numbers, data and statistics, in the scale of things, I should admit. But they are important. They’re the only tool we have for assessing the world dispassionately, for stripping it as far as we can of the colour of our own experience. Which is why the numbers given above are not, actually, the most depressing in the poll.

The most depressing numbers are the following. One thousand and thirty-four British adults between 16 and 75 were asked to choose between the following statements:

Statistics are more important than my own experiences or those of my family and friends in helping me keep track of how the government is doing

My own experiences or those of my family and friends are more important than statistics in helping me keep track of how the government is doing.

Forty-six per cent chose the latter. Just nine per cent chose the former.

But how can anyone, using their own experience and those of the, say, 150 probably fairly similar people they regularly come into contact with, possibly gain any sort of insight into the effects government reforms of the NHS, or benefit cuts, or whatever, are having across a nation of tens of millions of people? (read all this post)

My reply:

Tom, you are probably not as deficient in maths and statistics as you think. If you could be more objective about anything that wears a “science” label I reckon you would do fine.

The trick is to be able to discriminate between what is a statistic and what is an interpretation.

Manchester United won 30 out of 37 matches played this so far season.

Chelsea won 22 out of 37 matches played so far.

These are statistics and are easily verifiable.

Now if we say (using mental arithmetic) Manchester United won 80% of games played this season while Chelsea won 60% we’re still OK but will alienate many people because percentages are used in statistics to deceive and deflect.

If however we come over all Brian Cox and say Manchester United win rate 80%, Chelsea win rate 60% therefore Manchester United are 20% (or 33% depending on how you calculate) better than Chelsea, that’s statistical bollocks and people are a lot more adept at seeing through it than media type, politicians and academics are willing to accept.

You see, statistics are not always numbers, more often they are interpretations of numbers. And when government or big business is involved they are interpretations that are deliberately skewed towards the outcome the sponsoring organisation wants.

Angelina Jolie did not have an eighty seven per cent chance of developing breast cancer, according to figures from the U S National Cancer Institute fact sheet she had a 12.4% chance of developing cancer. Or maybe an eighty seven per cent of twelve point four percent. Like candidates in a mathematics examination, scientists and big science shills should always be required to show their workings.

from U S National Cancer Institute
What is the average American woman’s risk of developing breast cancer during her lifetime?

Based on current incidence rates, 12.4 percent of women born in the United States today will develop breast cancer at some time during their lives (1). This estimate, from the most recent SEER Cancer Statistics Review (a report published annually by the National Cancer Institute’s [NCI] Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] Program), is based on breast cancer statistics for the years 2007 through 2009.

This estimate means that, if the current incidence rate stays the same, a woman born today has about a 1 in 8 chance of being diagnosed with breast cancer at some time during her life. On the other hand, the chance that she will never have breast cancer is 87.6 percent, or about 7 in 8.

In the 1970s, the lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer in the United States was just under 10 percent (or about 1 in 10).

The last five annual SEER reports show the following estimates of lifetime risk of breast cancer, all very close to a lifetime risk of 1 in 8:

Someone close to me has recently undergone treatment for breast cancer. In her case neither her mother or her aunts or either grandmother ever had any sign of breast cancer, in spite of them all living beyond the average lifespan for their generation. Statistics mean nothing, reality is what counts.

So Angelina Jolie was caluclating that by having her tits off she had a one hundred per cent chance of grabbing front page headlines in ninety five per cent (I made that up) of the worlds print and broadcast media of she was so terrified of having an eighty seven and a half per cent chance of not developing breast cancer.

Or as many American experts are agreeing with a more sceptical view of the statistics that informed Angelina’s assault on her breast tissue that in fact her chanches of developing breast cancer based on the fact that she has two genes active that have been idientified in studies funded by the reconstructive surgery industry, she had a far smaller probability than my crude statistical calculations show. Did Angelina Jolie Make A Mistake By Acting On The breast Cancer Gene Theory

Here’s a teaser:
The ‘prophylactic’ removal of women’s breasts due to BRCA1/BRCA2 status has become a disturbingly popular trend, and increasingly it is being celebrated in the mainstream media and medical establishments as a reasonable choice. But does the scientific evidence itself refute this approach?

Angelina Jolie’s recent announcement in a New York Times op-ed that she had a ‘prophylactic’ double mastectomy due to her BRCA1/BRCA2 status has disturbing implications, some of which we covered late last year in connection with Allyn Rose, the 24-year old Miss America contestant who announced she would be undergoing a double mastectomy to “prevent” breast cancer.

Whatever, you can bet if there is a sudden rush to private clinics by rich, egotistical silly tarts wanting their tits off “like Angelina”, Ms. Jolie will be well, if indirectly rewarded for her sacrifice. In fact the publicity she has had already must be worth enough to pay for ten double mastectomies.

The irony is our forebears who did not have technology, modern medical techniques, designer drugs and all the rest and just had to catch what life threw at them and run with it seemed to suffer far less stress and anxiety than we do. I can’t help feeling that the plague of progress in the 20th century has robbed us of more than Angelina’s tits.

As for Tom Chivers, I hope his blind faith in statistics does not induce him to go and have his tits off.

RELATED POSTS:

St Angelina, save us from ourselves! – Brendan O’Neill, Spiked
The beatification of Angelina Jolie for writing about her mastectomy confirms that celebrity culture has reached new and hysterical heights

Celebrity Menu

MORE FROM THE GREENTEETH STABLE

Boggart AbroadDaily Stirrer homeGreenteeth BitesBoggart BlogGreenteeth LabyrinthAuthorGatherBubblewsAuthorsdenScribdLittle Nicky Machiavelli
Ian Thorpe at Facebook

I’m sure he used to be somebody funny.

Eddie Murphy has been named the most overpaid actor in Hollywood by business magazine Forbes. When we saw the headline everyone in the Boggart Blog office felt sure Eddie Murphy used to be someone who was funny before he disappeared up his own arse.

A number of significant flops, including ‘Imagine That’, ‘A Thousand Words’ and ‘Meet Dave’, have ushered him to the top of the list of stars who make back far less for their studios than they should considering their substantial pay cheques.

Is Eddie Murphy’s A Thousand Words the worst-reviewed film ever?

Over his last three films, Murphy made $2.30 (£1.40) at the box office for every $1 (62p) he was paid.

The ‘Shrek’ and ‘Beverly Hills Cop’ star beat last year’s winner of the dubious title, Drew Barrymore. Barrymore has now dropped out of the top 10 completely.

Will Ferrell, who has topped the list twice in the last four years, is also out of the top 10 this year.

Here is the list in full:

1. Eddie Murphy – made $2.30 at the box office for every $1 paid
2. Katherine Heigl – $3.40
3. Reese Witherspoon – $3.90
4. Sandra Bullock – $5
5. Jack Black – $5.20
6. Nicolas Cage – $6
7. Adam Sandler – $6.30
8. Denzel Washington – $6.30
9. Ben Stiller – $6.50
10. Sarah Jessica Parker – $7

As we reflected on who in this list might have become has beens before they had ever been, someone pointed out that a loist of overpaid footballers would be even longer.

I’m A Television Viewer – Get Me Out Of Here

For those of us who can’t get out as much as we would like to television ought to be a lifeline, not a form of medieval torture. Last night however one of the most cruel medieval tortures ever devised by the evil fanatics of the inquisition returned to plague us for another season, I’m A Z List Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here.

This years motley crew of hapless victims include several people who used to be somebody, a posh boy who has always been nobody, an ex darts player who might be useful for spearing some insects to eat when there is no food, a Tory MP and a soap actress named Helen Flanagan who plated a Coronation Street character named Gloria Stitz.

FFS, I might have to watch the football.

I’m not a celebrity, throw me out of here

A lot of meeja people are getting their kickers in a twist this morning about Tory MP Nadine Dorries’ participation in the upcoming unreality television show I’m a Z list celebrity, get me out of here.

They are complaining that while Ms Dorries is out of the Doris Day, eating Wichetty Grubs for breakfast the self righteous brigade are bothered about her constituents being deprived of the services of their MP for four weeks. Like anyone would notice. And anyway it is not going to be four weeks, an MP is bound to be the first one thrown out.
With Nadine and regular hosts Ant and Dec will be a motley crew including former racehorse trainer horsefaced East Enders actress Charlie Brooks, former heavyweight boxer David Hay who is a real celebrity and so must be doing it for a laugh, a bloke who used to be Doctor Who in the 1980s and hasn’t worked since, The Rock (of Gibraltar?), Darts champion Eric Bristow (well he’ll be able to spear a few grubs for lunch) and Coronation Street actress helen (nice tits) Flanagan.

What more reason do you need to buy a couple of good books?

RELATED POSTS:

Report Predicts Everyone Will Be a Sexy Millionaire by 2050
History is full of failed predictions from the Oracle at Delphi through Nostradamus, Mother Shipton and just about every twentieth century stargazer and futurologist who ever found an audience.
Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]…[Little Nicky Machiavelli]… [ Ian’s Authorsden Pages ]… [Scribd]…[Wikinut] … [ Boggart Abroad] … [ Grenteeth Bites ] … Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] … [ Tumblr ] … [Ian at Minds ] … [ The Original Boggart Blog] … [ Authorsden blog ]