Deputy Labour Leader, Harriet Harman, was forced to make an apology today after calling the Chief Secretary of the Treasury, Danny Alexander, a ‘ginger rodent‘. The reaction from political players has been mixed, but the spotlight has once again been thrown onto the ginger community and whether they should take responsibility for their appearance and their children.

Ms Harman’s quip has re-opened the heated debate around the role of gingers in modern society. Questions are now being asked about how much damage has been done to the progress they’ve made in assimilating into civic life following the emergence of radical ginger youths, a generation that carries a deep seated mistrust of those with higher levels of cutaneous melanin following years of stigmatisation.

History has shown there has been no real consistency in the actual prejudice that those with red hair have suffered. Some of it was positive, with a red shock marking one out as a passionate lover, while at other times it was associated with a violent streak. Today’s uncertain economic climate, increasing hostility to visible minority groups and the new sense of self young gingers have created has seen a rise tensions.

A prominent member of the ginger community, who wished to remain anonymous, gave us his thoughts on the situation:

‘We’ve kept our heads down and worked for years against the sort of discrimination we saw today. [Harman’s] comments are giving us the wrong sort of attention. We’re not defined by hair colour and we’re not all Tim Minchin or Dan Wright. I’m a plumber by trade and that’s how my friends would describe me. Now that this has blown up again, I’m back to being ginger with an uppercase G.’

‘The worst bit is that kids have grown up with a new sense of identity, they’re looking to push forward with it. They were doing great until they found out Simon Pegg wasn’t really ginger. Mind you, if they actually saw his earlier stuff like ‘Spaced’ or what he did on ‘Is it Bill Bailey’ they would have known that. But as it is, they’ve gone completely off the rails. It was an utter betrayal in their eyes and now they are just looking for a fight following what that cow said.’

Following Ms Harman’s comments, Scottish authorities are now bracing themselves for the youth backlash, which is expected sometime tomorrow providing there is adequate cloud cover.


Reports surfacing from the reality TV industry  indicate that ITV has tapped into the popular backlash against public sector workers and is collaborating with the TaxPayer’s Alliance to launch a show that will see members of the community take control of their local authority for a week.

Public Sector Paymaster will give contestants control over the budgetary spend and human resource functions of entire departments, allowing them to redirect funds and re-write terms of employment and working environment policies.

The show will pre-screen all contestants to ensure they have no dependencies on the State. This will automatically excludes all minorities, the disabled, the elderly and asylum seekers from the main show but the selection process will be filmed and will form the basis of an ITV3 spin-off called ‘Stain,  Harry,  Destroy’,  a feature loosely based on an existing BBC reality show.

Fiona McEvoy of the TPA has revealed that seven episodes have already been produced and revealed a tantalising glimpse of things to come.

‘One contestant spent the week redesigning a breakout area around the 9th Circle of Hell, complete with a three-headed devil waist deep ice. Another simply settled for putting tiny pins under the fingernails of desk workers.’

‘We believe that the public know best, and as the sector is called the PUBLIC sector, the public should do whatever they would like to it. It’s their money and that should precede outdated ideas of state intervention, for example why do we need to make sure the elderly get meals on wheels? If they walked to their meals  instead of having their food brought to them they would  feel the benefits of exercise and save the us a lot money. Providing these meals in a huge communal kitchen and serving broth derived dishes would add to the cost reduction.’

The show is expected to be scheduled to slot between Kate Garaway’s cleavage and the inexorable  erosion of Ant ‘n Dec’s psuche.

Today saw the ‘Building Schools for the Future’ programme scrapped by the Coalition. Political analysts are worried that the UK could be on the verge of consequently creating a new Ben Elton.

Historically, the ‘First Coming of the Elton’ was only made possible as a consequence of  the actions of the Thatcher Government and its ruthless assault on trade unions, state owned industries and taxation. Shaun Benoitt, a senior researcher at the British Film and Media Laboratory, explained Elton’s first incarnation to us.

‘Although details are scarce, what we do know so far states that one of Clement Attlee’s pubic hairs acted as a condensation nuclei around which anti-thatcher particles accumulated during the 80’s. The laws of dispersion were unable to dissipate the particles evenly throughout the population due to the high levels of snake skin and alligator being worn at the time. Faced with this, and thick layers of DRAKKAR, the particles were repeatedly repelled until landing on the hair,  reaching a super-dense critical mass, and in the process becoming a fully sentient being.’

While this process had its benefits, the rapid decay of Elton following Thatcher’s defeat and the rising popularity of Nylon meant that his potency was lost by the mid-90’s. Elton’s rhetoric had worn thin and it became apparent that he would be an unparalleled  nuisance and gasbag until he followed through with his threat to emigrate to Australia.

Political scientists are currently examining the Coalition’s recent bout of cuts and fear they have identified similar trends emerging to those that preceded Elton.

While the Thatcher government was content with stealing school milk, it is unknown what impact this government’s desire to steal entire new schools will have.

Speaking through a medium, Joseph Stack revealed to the world his anger and disappointment at the US news media for its slanted reporting. It follows his attempt to change tax law through an act of violence and the deaths of two civilians.

Stack has hit out following Fox News calling him a crazed pilot, MSNBC stating he was a Texan with a grudge, ABC referring to him as a suicidal pilot, and CNN describing him simply as a man that flew a plane into a building.

That’s defamation, plain and simple. A spade’s a spade, a terrorist is a terrorist. I set my intentions out in a letter claiming that actions like mine work better than words when you want to change politics and I shouldn’t have to put up with this whitewash. It’s all there, read the note.

Sh*t I even put a couple of extra drums of fuel in the cockpit, y’know to maximise the impact, and they still don’t do me justice.

The really annoying thing is, I was approached by a terror cell that said they would do my publicity for me for free, y’know, to really make my actions stand out . They claimed they would use face paint to darken my complexion. Provide me with a beard. Get me a camera, a backdrop and a studio to help get my message across. They were even gonna give me four guys in masks with Kalashnikovs. I told ’em that I didn’t need that and that my actions would speak for themselves and my note would explain it all. I should have taken them up on their offer. I should have had a banner on the back of my plane with f**king durka durka sherpa jihad written on it.

I’m up here with the unabomber and he is f**king just as pissed, I wish I was alive so I could sue the f**kers, they work for the controlling elite y’know.

Mr Stack’s comments were put to a lawyer that is representing the networks in case he follows through on his verbal threat. The following written statement was released. ‘The networks have agendas that are larger than the actions of Mr Stack and he should not be upset that his story does not follow the arc of a traditional terrorist attack. We regrettably inform him that as this is the case we are left with no other action than to portray him in the way we do. Any other portrayal of Mr Stack would be at odds with the American psyche and US world view, needlessly complicating issues and adding depth to a story that might lead to journalism.’

Policy makers are complaining that they have been put in a position where they have been repeatedly asked to fix ‘Broken Britain’ but at the same time are being told to ‘f**k off out of the public’s life‘.

Primary analysis of the phenomenon seems to identify that problem starts when two or more individuals claim that ‘someone should do something about this‘. As the problem attracts more attention the media latch on to the story and it becomes a national issue that the public demand should be dealt with. However when the policy makers leap into action they are met with derision, abuse and projectile faeces.

One civil servant, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of retaliatory attacks, related a grim insight into the situation to us.

Any given day we will get x number of complaints and public issues. When we get the ball rolling on solving these problems we get lambasted for being the cloying arms of the Nanny State. My department gets abusive emails, threatening packages, and our car park is vandalised daily. The public demand that we make the country work but it does work, they can’t see it working, I see it working, I don’t have to tolerate this! It isn’t my responsibility! When did people suddenly become the bloody authority on everything!? When!? The man in the street is in the street for a reason! I AM A HUMAN BEING, I AM MAN AREN’T I?! A MAN WITH INSIGHT! I STUDIED POLICY AND SOCIAL DYNAMICS! IF IT WASN’T FOR ME AND MY COLLEAGUES THEY WOULD BE KILLING AND EATING EACH OTHER IN THE STREETS! STREETS WITH POTHOLES AND SH*T PILED THREE FOOT HIGH BECAUSE THEY CAN”T BE ARSED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BUT WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO DEAL WITH IT! BUT THEN THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT ROADWORKS WHEN WE DO! F**K ‘EM.

Meanwhile the Broken Britain debate rages on. Initially starting off as a media trope, it has gained a foothold in the public psyche, cyclically feeding back to multiply in size and gregariousness. Latest linked developments include a 13 year old dad, paedophiles living next to a nursery and a headteacher losing her job for teaching children where food comes from.

The Conservative Party has put its extensive experience of mangled state apparatus to use by identifying just how much of a battering the UK has suffered. David Cameron spoke out at the launch of the Bolster Britain initiative, which looks to remove gimmicks and sound bites from politics and provide Real Answers. He called for a new scale to be used as the basis for returning Britain to its former glory, one that will be central to all his party’s policy. Consisting of a lateral trajectory between two points of reference, the scale will address how broken Britain really is by identifying key social signs of repair or damage. On the lower end of the scale we can expect to see binge drinking, gypsies and Heat Magazine. On the opposite end, the public are likely to see smiling chimney sweeps, Hovis adverts, a Spitfire and the Queen.

Critics of the system state that the scale should not be taken to be of value as it discounts the bone level malaise, depression and apathy that typify our island nation. They also claim it disregards key facts such as declines in certain types of crime, longer life expectancies, reduced domestic violence and increased education, as well as the historical precedent that dictates the UK has always been a horrible place to live if you are poor or don’t have a job.

There are worries that the actions of Members of Parliament are leading to such high levels of disbelief that the fabric of reality may be in danger of being torn asunder. Voters may become so disenfranchised that they cease to exist.

The new revelations came as the Parliamentary expenses scandal reasserted itself and it became apparent that MPs facing charges would invoke the ancient convention of parliamentary privilege to avoid trial. The uproar that met this news has far greater repercussions than first thought.

Cambridge University’s Applied Philosophy and Reality Preservation Unit (APRPU) has been measuring changes in the essence of being and reached a conclusion that recent developments in the MP’s Expense Scandal are the final straw. The phenomenological foundations upon which many people base their experience of reality are in an extremely fragile state.

Professor Stephen Cornway has stated that the situation transcends the level of mere farce and is grave and unprecedented.

‘Until recently, Consensus Reality had formed a delicately balanced agency relationship with man. It helped us to comprehend the world, and in return man offered comic relief to passing aliens. This narrative allowed the show to go on, because if nobody witnesses something then it ceases to exist.  It is a basic and fundamental Pratchett Law, intrinsic to everything.

There were previously accepted truths such as the popular ‘You can’t trust an MP’ mantra. However, the actions of these four have pushed the boundaries of belief so far, that the public cannot even approach a mindset in which it can incorporate their actions into any realistic narrative of the world. This leads to the inevitable questioning of the grip on reality that these men have and as a consequence the public’s own ability to actually believe that this is happening. This is a hammer blow to the physche. Such a crisis in perception and a mind boggling affront to rational actions could very well unravel the fabric of time and space.’

In response to this harrowing statement an unidentified MP claimed that this was nothing to do with Parliament.

‘We wouldn’t be in this position if the Telegraph bloody well kept its nose out of our affairs. If there are any tears in the space time continuum then it will be on their heads. We have laws that prevent this and protect the interests of rational security and, quite frankly, why they weren’t gagged in the first place is beyond me.’

We sent this statement to the APRPU for analysis and are awaiting the results.

Failed works of art, produced by artists all over the UK, are coming together in search of meaning  and finding it successfully. It probably questions the very foundations of what art is.

The project is being constructed over the next 6 weeks and follows the well travelled creative path of the ‘shit in a place’ spectacle. Comprising of a container with transparent walls, it is the aim of artist Michael Landy’s Art Bin to provide a home for failed art. Landy is no stranger to creating testaments to human failure.

Artists are already queuing up to throw their unwanted works away. So far, a flag by Emin and a skull by Hirst have been thrown in and there is a queue of work waiting to be appraised for submission.

Entry into the bin will most likely bestow the status of art upon any discarded works via the associated glory effect. However this is raising concerns among structural philosophers, who point out that as soon as a piece enters the bin it is no longer valid for it to be in a receptacle for failed art. Some have suggested lining the bottom of the container with trampolines and shooting work in at a high velocity to ensure the swift return of any newly formed art. There are rumours that Anish Kapoor may get involved in the project.

Across the wider art world, critics are worried about how much more mold breaking visual creativity can take. The boundaries of Art have been broken so often that repair has been suspended as the cost of insurance surpasses the value of the content itself.