Monday 3 October 2011

Goodbye, common sense! Wanker 1 and Wanker 2 complain about sensible changes to passport form

Today the Daily Mail published an article titled ‘Now Parent 1 and Parent 2 appear on PC passport form’.  This is obviously the news that the form which is required for a passport will be changed so that it has ‘Parent 1’ and ‘Parent 2’ on it. What does this mean? Well, in the past applicants have had to include information on their parents and the form has always had ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ on. In the article by Jack Doyle (wanker 1) it says ‘they will be given the option of naming ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’.’. I presume this means that either  the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ will be replaced with ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ or that ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ will be given as an option as an addition. Why are they doing this? Well it’s obvious really- with the number of children being adopted by same sex parents increasing it is probably quite awkward to fill in the passport form if you have 2 ‘mothers’ or 2 ‘fathers’. But maybe it should be awkward for these parents? Maybe children with gay parents shouldn’t be allowed passports? I mean what if they go on holiday and give us normal British people a bad reputation? I am obviously joking but I wouldn’t be surprised if the silly twats from Family Education Trust (FET) thought these ridiculous things.

The director of FET, Norman Wells (wanker 2), said: ‘Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable but have quite distinct roles to play in the care and nurture of their children.’ What an archaic view this man actually has. It is true, however, that there are some things which a mother can do which a father cannot, such as breast feeding. But not all mothers can breast feed. Do babies just die? No. We have milk you can buy for babies and with this milk fathers, or anyone else really, can feed a baby. So what then are the distinct roles? Well I could draw on my own personal experience but that would be pointless because that would just be explaining the roles which my parents had and not actually addressing what the distinct roles are. Surely it changes from one set of parents to another. Not all men are good at doing male things and not all women are good at doing female things because everyone is different. Why can’t people see this? The angry voice in my head is saying “it’s because they are twats”.

The FET twat went on to say: ‘To speak of “parent 1” and “parent 2” denigrates the place of both fathers and mothers.’ What the fuck does that even mean? Well I looked it up, ‘denigrates’ that is, because I haven’t seen that word before. According to Collins English Dictionary ‘denigrate’ means:

1. (tr) to belittle or disparage the character of; defame

Eh? So Norman reckons that putting ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ on a form so that everyone can fill it in belittles the place of mothers and fathers? Norman Wells’ existence denigrates the place of our species. If you thought Norman couldn’t get any worse then read on: ‘Much as the equality and diversity social engineers might wish it were otherwise, it still takes a father and a mother to produce a child.’ Yes Norman you are quite right it does take a mother and father to produce a child but what the fuck does that have to do with this form you stupid cunt? It doesn’t take a father and mother to raise a child though - and that is what this change of form relates to. Also, isn’t it really weird that he talks about ‘the equality and diversity social engineers’ as if they are a bad people? Isn’t a social engineer just someone who wants to change society? So an equality and diversity social engineer is someone who wants more equality and diversity? How can that ever be a bad thing?

Jack Doyle also clearly disagrees with the changes and that they are being made because of ‘pressure from the gay lobby’ seems to irritate him. He actually calls gay rights groups ‘the gay lobby’ how mad is that? Well Jack Doyle must be in the twat lobby.

Now back to Norman, who also said: ‘It is high time ministers started to represent the interests of the country as a whole and not capitulate to every demand made by a vocal and unrepresentative minority.’ I would fully agree with this point if the form was going to be changed to ‘gay parent 1’ and ‘gay parent 2’ because that would be specifically making the form for a minority only. What it boils down to is that Norman Wells is angry because a form is being changed to allow more people to fill it in easily. Even if that change only helps a minority it still doesn’t make it harder for the majority so why is he even bothered? It’s so annoying that people like Norman Wells think we shouldn’t change things for a group of people just because they are considered a minority.  But even if that minority is 1% of the population it would still mean over 600 thousand people! By the same argument we could remove ‘black’ from the ethnicity section of a form because it would only affect a minority.

If this Daily Mail article made you as angry as it did me then you will be fucking fuming when you read this:


Twat (Peter Mullen)

It’s basically some twat’s opinion on the story, a bit like my blog really, except this person is a horrible, horrible man, still a bit like my blog I suppose. Well he’s definitely a different kind of horrible twat, he’s a dangerous horrible twat. He is Revd Peter Mullen (wanker 3, funny (but accidental) considering his ‘slippery slope’ argument) and the link above is to his blog. I can’t believe how much of a horrible twat Peter is. To analyse this horrible twat’s arguments would be even more of a waste of time as the analysing I have already done because their ridiculous thoughts and rationale are so blatantly stupid. But I will give you a flavour of what the Revd Peter Mullen is like:

‘I am against prejudice of all sorts. But there has to be some sort of normality according to which minorities can be tolerated.

If this made you want to punch something or someone do not go on to read his blog. Bet you will though.

No comments:

Post a Comment