Frog Sashimi Is A Japanese Dish


Consuming live creatures is the tradition of individuals feeding on creatures that are still viable, preferably than animals which have been discovered lifeless or slaughtered to be consumed. Consuming live creatures is a common tradition in several Asian food customs, although animals are further digested alive for shock value.

Both vertebral or shellfish may be consumed.

Consuming live animals, or pieces of live creatures, may be illegal in some provinces under animal torture statutes. Puritanical bans on the consumption of live animals by individuals are further present in many world faiths.

The Frog sashimi is a Japanese speciality consisting of feeding on a live frog, separating the members of the body that they can’t feed on and the principal idea is to consume the heart of the frog while it’s still beating.

These people would eat their first born. Sickening, heartless and sadistic animal cruelty, what is wrong with these people?

This is sickening, while this dying animal fights and flaps about helplessly. This is gross and inhuman and perhaps this shallow callous smiling woman consuming this unfortunate and traumatised animal should suffocate to death. This is terrible. What is wrong with people? This practice must end.

This is shockingly violent torture, an utterly groundless torment of a breathing animal. Such inhumane and cruel practice is disgraceful. There is a particular level of purgatory maintained for the perpetrators of this despicable ridiculous custom.

It’s a seedy world we live in. Another reason why we should withdraw from going to any country where people exist and who are inhumane, uncaring and really quite sick.



After Tom-Jan Hüsch’s sweetheart split up with him, he chose to take vengeance to an absurd level by violently beating and hitting the hound his lover purchased him as a gift. Worst of all he chose to record it all and upload to Facebook.


This video was since withdrawn from Facebook, yet, the video immediately went viral, drawing the attention of one person who chose to bring this small canine justice by hunting down Hüsch and causing the corresponding injury to him that Hüsch forced on the hapless, helpless creature.

The chap further recorded a video of himself beating up Hüsch, which he next posted online as a lesson to everybody that pet torture and degradation would not be allowed in Germany. Hüsch’s assailant was next named as Josef Guldschmitt. Guldschmitt described his attack in a discussion by telephone this evening.

Guldschmitt stated that he actually wanted him to die and that if he could have located his pliers, he would have twisted his scrotum off.

As of now, no charges have been filed upon Guldschmitt.

People like Tom-Jan Hüsch need to be held responsible for what they do to another life, and it is immaterial if that life is human life or an animal. It does not matter if you have a grievance with your girlfriend, the creature has done nothing wrong and should not have to endure degenerates like Hüsch.

You can’t beat a pet because you have the hump with your ex-partner, and then believe it’s acceptable, that simply makes a person cowardly and contemptible, and it’s despicable that a human being could even behave that way towards a pet.

This is shocking, and people that behave towards their pets in this manner should be put in jail, it should be a serious felonious crime. It would happen if it was a human being, and it should be the equivalent for pets.

Ten Unusual Powers


The Queen can’t get prosecuted. If the Queen perpetrated a grave wrong, could she get arrested and if so, how would the hierarchy change? All court cases in Crown court are “The Queen versus”. The Queen cannot be charged with an offence as she cannot prosecute herself. So in speculation, she could do what she wants. If she murdered somebody, she would not be arrested for it.

As the Crown Proceedings Act only affected the law in regards to actions supported on by or on behalf of the UK government, the sovereign continues individually free from illegal and public actions. She cannot be arrested because of her status as head of state, to charge her, Parliament has to decide to remove her first and eliminate her rights and such, making her not the sovereign anymore. Not very believable.

Can the government constitutionally remove the Queen? Doubtful, even if they did, under the human rights act she can’t be tried for a wrong that was legal when she performed it.
However, the Queen’s protection can be excluded by an act of parliament if they thought it was required. Remember that after Oliver Cromwell, the government is the principal authority. We prefer to let the Royal Family be the puppet heads of state.
Queen Elizabeth II is not like you and me. Did you know she is free from prosecution? That she has her own private poet, paid in Sherry wine? Or that she holds power over British swans and can discharge the whole Australian government? It’s correct that her position as the British head of state is mostly stately, and the sovereign no longer holds any solemn strength from day to day.

As a person, she cannot be contested in any civil or criminal action and actions of parliament don’t touch her except if they explicitly say that they do.


Under the Crown Proceedings Act (1947), civil proceedings can be taken on the Crown in its public role, this normally indicates actions on government departments and agencies, as the selected Government governs in The monarch’s name.

So you can sue her sovereignty government but you cannot sue her.

This suggests that the monarch can kill somebody and not be charged. Of course, if she did so there would be an action of parliament that not only discharged her, but removed any prospective ruler of such immunity but, she still would not face prosecution because it was not prohibited when the action was performed.

The famous privilege rule of the monarch has been devolved chiefly to government delegates. Yet, this still means that when the British government advocates conflict or oversees the civil service, or signs an agreement, it is doing so only on her authority.
Technically, all unmarked swans in open water belong to the sovereign, though the monarch exercises her right only on some stretches of the Thames and its nearby rivers.
The “Rule, Britannia, Britannia rules the waves,” goes a traditional British ballad, and this custom continues below the waves, too. The monarch has power over a diversity of water creatures in British waters. The monarch still technically owns all the sturgeons, whales, and dolphins in the waters around the United Kingdom, in a practice that dates back to a law from 1324, through the rule of King Edward II.
According to the section, this law is still correct today, and sturgeons, porpoises, whales, and dolphins are seen as fishes royal when they are caught inside 3 miles, about 5 km of UK coasts or washed ashore, they may be claimed on behalf of the queen. Usually, when taken into the harbour, a sturgeon is marketed in the normal way, and the buyer, as a sign of solidarity, asks the honour of its being received by Elizabeth.
The legislation is still followed.  In 2004, a Welsh fisherman was investigated by the police after catching a 10-foot sturgeon.  The Scottish government further issued guidance on the law in 2007, writing that the right to claim Royal Fish in Scotland enables the Scottish Government, on behalf of the queen to claim stranded whales which are too big to be carried to ground by a ‘wain pulled by six oxen.'”
Driving licenses are distributed in the monarch’s repute, although she is the only person in the United Kingdom who doesn’t legitimately require a license to drive or a number plate on her vehicles. Despite not being needing to have a license, the monarch is happy behind the wheel, having learned to drive through World War II when she operated a first-aid vehicle for the Women’s Auxillary Territorial Service. As a result of the monarch’s training, she can further replace a spark plug.
Monarch Elizabeth II isn’t scared to show off her driving ability, either. In 1998, she dazzled King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, then still a prince by running him about in her homeland seat of Balmoral. Once British Ambassador Sherard Cowper-Coles recounted the encounter. As directed, the crown prince climbed into the front seat of the front Land Rover, with his interpreter in the seat behind.
To his astonishment, the monarch climbed into the driving seat, turned the ignition and started off. Women are not yet permitted to drive in Saudi Arabia, and Abdullah was not used to being driven by a woman, let alone a monarch.
His agitation only intensified as the monarch, an army driver in wartime, hastened the Land Rover on the narrow Scottish farm roads, talking all the time. Through his interpreter, the crown prince urged the monarch to slow down and focus on the road ahead.
When you’re the British head of state, one birthday just isn’t enough. The Queen’s official birthday is observed on a Saturday in June, although her real birthday is on April 21. Formal celebrations to mark a monarch’s birthday have frequently been held on a day different than the real birthday, especially when the real birthday has not been in the summer.
Both birthdays are observed in proper style, too. Her actual birthday is marked openly by rifle tributes in central London at midday. This involves a 41-gun tribute in Hyde Park, a 21-gun fanfare in Windsor Great Park, and a 62-gun salutation at the Tower of London. In 2006, Her Majesty observed her 80th Birthday with a walkabout in the streets outside of Windsor Castle to face well-wishers.
Less a power and more a perk of the position, a private cash machine for use by the royal family is placed in the basement of Buckingham Palace. It’s provided by Coutts, one of Britain’s most prestigious and elite banks.  The poet laureate is a privileged status in British culture elected by the sovereign to a poet whose work is of public importance. When first the role was introduced, the nominee was given £200 per year plus a butt of canary wine. Now the poet laureate is awarded a vessel of Sherry.
The monarch’s approval is required to change any proposal into a tangible bill. Once a recommended bill has passed both houses of Parliament, it makes its way to the mansion for permission, which is called Royal Assent. The most current British sovereign to deny to give Royal Assent was Queen Anne, back in 1708.
Royal Assent is different than Queen’s consent, in which the monarch must agree to any bill being discussed in Parliament that concerns the sovereignty’s interests, such as changing the prerogative or tax laws that might influence the Duchy of Cornwall, for instance. Without approval, the law cannot be discussed in Parliament.
Queen’s permission is used only on the recommendation of ministers, yet its existence provides the government with a weapon for preventing discussion on some matters if laws are delayed by backbench dissidents or the opposition. It has been used at least 39 times, according to documents published under the Freedom of Information act, covering one instance in which the monarch effectively denied the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member’s proposal that attempted to give the power to allow armed confrontation upon Iraq from the sovereign to parliament.
The monarch has the ability to select Lords, who can then assemble in Parliament, the upper house in Britain’s parliamentary system. Like several other powers, this is used solely on the word of selected government representatives. The monarch does not have to pay tax, but she has been willingly paying income tax and capital gains tax since 1992.
The monarch previously exercised the power to dismiss Parliament and request a general election, although the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act put an end to that in 2011. Presently a two-thirds majority in the commons is needed to end Parliament before a five-year fixed-term is up.

She does still perform a part following an election, but, when she calls on the MP extremely competent to create a government to do so. This created some concern ahead of this year’s General Election. It previously seemed as if the Conservatives might not have a majority but would be the biggest party and would attempt to create a government.

Meanwhile, it was possible that Labour could reach a majority, despite having fewer seats, by entering into an alliance with many other parties. In this position, the monarch would have been stuck between a rock and a hard place. Each year, she starts Parliament with the Queen’s speech, which sets out the government’s proposals.

But to give David Cameron’s address would arguably be to tacitly authorise his government whilst staying away would convey the opposing message. At one point, sources said that she proposed to stay away if Cameron declined to obtain sufficient MPs, but the Palace later had an about-face.

Imperial reference verified she would start proceedings, even if there was a chance the speech would be defeated the next week since the Tories had declined to gather enough support from meagre parties.

Sure, they no longer travel around on horseback wooing maidens with their stories of heroism, but Britain still retains knights. Like Lords, they are selected by the monarch and she knights them individually. Knighthoods are typically given to persons who have made a distinct participation to British society, either in industry, the humanities, the army, or elsewhere. After Terry Pratchett was knighted, the legendary fantasy novelist fashioned himself a distinctive sword using remnants of a meteorite.

The persons knighted are selected by ministers, who give her a roster of candidates each year for her endorsement.


All knowledge about the royal family is immune from Freedom of Information demands. The exclusion was made after a judicial action amid The Guardian and the government to have letters from Prince Charles sent to Whitehall ministers made public. The so-called black spider memorandum was recently released, however, the change suggests the equivalent can’t occur in the future.

Whilst the overpowering preponderance of the monarch’s privileged control are devolved to her consuls, there is one exception that permits her to handle control herself. Only in a serious legal dilemma, the monarch can represent adverse to or without Ministerial direction. With no example in recent times, it’s not clear what would really form this, but the opportunity prevails.

As the head of state in Australia, the monarch has some powers over the government. In 1975, for instance, the monarch’s representative in the realm at the time, Gov. Gen. Sir John Kerr, dismissed the prime minister in answer to a government shutdown.

Kerr selected a replacement, who quickly passed the spending bill to finance the government. Three hours later, Kerr removed the remainder of Parliament. Then Australia held elections to restart from scratch. Furthermore, they haven’t had another shutdown since.

In addition to the United Kingdom and Australia, the monarch is further the head of state in Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

All the above are Commonwealth Realms or previous British colonies. The British monarch maintains the seat she holds in the United Kingdom, that of the head of state. As in Britain, this is mostly a formal position from day to day.


Queen Elizabeth II is the leader of the Church of England, Britain’s state denomination first set after King Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church in Rome in the 16th century. Her confirmed title is the defender of the faith and chief administrator of the Church of England, and she further has the ability to select Bishops and Archbishops. As with many of her other powers, however, this is exercised only on the advice of the prime minister, who himself takes advice from a Church Commission.

An interesting side effect of this is that the monarch must be a verified member of the Church of England. Catholics and those of other faiths may not rise to the British sovereignty. If Prince Charles changed to Islam, for instance, he would be unqualified to become ruler after Queen Elizabeth II dies.


Maundy money is a specific variety of silver coin the Queen gives away to pensioners each year at a UK cathedral each Easter in a special ceremony. A number of beneficiaries compare with the monarch’s age. This year, for instance, she will be 89 when Easter rolls around, so she will give maundy money away to 89 beneficiaries.

The money is technically lawful tender, despite coming in unusual 3-pence and 4-pence denominations. Yet given the coins unique standing, they tend not to invade overall distribution.

All prosecutions are carried out in the name of the monarch, and she is both free from prosecution and cannot be forced to give testimony in court. In theory, the monarch is incapable of thinking or doing wrong. While civil and criminal actions cannot be taken upon the monarch as a person under UK law, the monarch is prudent to guarantee that all her actions in her personal position are carried out in stringent accordance with the law.

If the sovereign did perform a grievance crime, he or she would almost surely be compelled to resign. There is at least one example of the Courts prosecuting the monarch. In the 17th Century, King Charles I was tried for treason following the English Civil War. He stated that no earthly power can justly call me, who am your King, in question as a delinquent. The Court objected and had him killed.

Assuming no serious legal dilemma, the monarch’s input into the parliamentary rule is supposed to be restricted in real terms to the power to be advised, to support, and to advise her ministers, the advice presented through assemblage with the prime minister.

Hungerford has to give a red rose to the monarch in trade for its fishing and grazing rights. The Duke of Atholl must pay by way of a rose when the monarch visits. This most recently occurred through the rule of Queen Victoria, so it’s unclear whether the rose has to be any special colour. If the monarch passes near Kidwelly Castle in Wales, the resident has to present a bodyguard in complete armour. This is hindered somewhat by the fact the castle is a ruin.


The Marquis of Ailesbury owns Savernake Forest and is expected to deliver a blast of a hunting horn should the monarch pass through the Forest. This last occurred in 1943. Furthermore, the proprietor of Dunlambert Castle in Northern Ireland has to deliver a blast on an antiquated bugle.

The proprietor of Sauchlemuir Castle must set out three glassfuls of port on New Year’s Eve for the grandmother of James IV of Scotland. The proprietor of Fowlis must deliver when expected, a snowball in mid-summer. The City of Gloucester pays for its holdings of Crown Lands by giving a huge eel pie. Great Yarmouth must provide a hundred herrings baked in 24 pasties to the Sheriff, who then sends them to the Lord of the Manor, who then sends them to the Sovereign.

Great Yarmouth must give a hundred herrings baked in 24 pasties to the Sheriff, who then gives them to the Lord of the Manor who then assigns them to the monarch. The Duke of Marlborough has to offer a small satin flag with a Fleur de Lys on August 13, the anniversary of the Battle of Blenheim.

The Duke of Wellington has to offer a French Tricolour flag before midday on June 19, the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo.


The Crown Estate belongs to the ruling sovereign ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is maintained by the sovereign for the continuation of their rule, by way of their accession to the throne. However it is not the private property of the sovereign, it cannot be sold by the ruler, neither does revenue from it belong to the sovereign.

The Government further does not control The Crown Estate. It is run by a self-governing organisation, set by law, directed by a committee, also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners, and the excess income from the property is given each year to the Treasury for the interest of all UK taxpayers.


It takes lots of dedication to be the Queen I’m sure, her family must be so proud of her, and all her colleagues that she is enveloped by, embracing all that notoriety she has from the British public. With all of her quirky trappings that she dresses in for state events, I question if she is as interesting as her costumes look?

A glimpse of the Queen in all of her paraphernalia, which is quite dazzling, she could practically ignite a Belisha beacon, however, there is no avoiding her Royal obligations, the Queen is the symbol of Britain, and she draws in loads of dough through tourism. The Queen is the method where we make money, and she is the image of this nation, without her, where would we be?

Wow, this nation would be in chaos without her appearance, and over the years there has been a small detachment between the universality of the palace and the people following the passing of Diana, and as the monarch arrives at a new milestone of becoming the UK’s longest ruling monarch, the issue of her value to Britain’s economy has once again been raised.

According to a new investigation by Brand Finance, the value of the sovereignty has been put at an estimated £56.7 billion. This figure covers the cost of physical assets such as the Crown Estate, the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and the Crown Jewels. When these physical assets are removed, the entire value of the sovereignty to the UK’s economy is an evaluated £1.155 billion for 2015, according to their investigation. 

This number has been estimated by clearing off expenses such as the Sovereign Grant, the millions paid on security and the preservation of the palaces against sources of revenue such as the excess produced by the Crown Estate, the improvement in tourism and the value award from labels bearing Royal Warrants. Yet, Brand Finance attributes £152 million in assets to the Kate Effect, which is characterised as an improvement to fashion and additional labels worn, used or otherwise approved.


Furthermore, £101 million is associated to the Charlotte Effect and £76 million to the George Effect, whilst a sum of £114 million has been estimated as the calculated amount of PR. Brand Finance has not yet replied to how these numbers were calculated from cumulative purchases.

Followers of the sovereignty and its worth to the United Kingdom usually use the example of tourism as an area where the Royals bring in business. Brand Finance’s calculations reveal that tourism resources connected to the sovereignty and its legacy has been estimated at £535 million for 2015.

However, the UK’s tourism group VisitBritain said that whilst global tourism is Britain’s third biggest service exportation, with inbound tourism to Britain worth £26.2 billion, only some of that figure can be connected to attractions and events with a link to British sovereign and legacy. These are sites such as the Tower of London, Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey, where the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were married, though no exact figure can be gauged of the contribution of the royals on tourism revenues.


While having a noble family gets us an immense volume of global coverage and available publicity for Britain across the realm, which is priceless, it’s not something we can give an accurate financial value for, and Campaign group Republic, which asks for the overthrow of the sovereignty, maintains that its personal analysis reveals the sovereignty costs the United Kingdom £334 million a year, with various working royal costing the taxpayer £18.5 million a piece.

Republic repudiates the inclusion of excess from the Crown Estate as a reservoir of funds as it is a property investment vehicle managed, not owned, by the monarch through her rule as sovereign on the interest of the kingdom.

It alternatively maintains that costs from a quantity of sources incorporating the Sovereign Grant, costs to regional councils, costs from security and losses incurred by the private holdings of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall amount to £333.9 million.

Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, further acknowledged as the Queen, is set to pass her great-great-grandmother as the longest reigning sovereign in British history.


She has replaced Queen Victoria as a holder of the title Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth and Defender of the Faith for the prolonged period, including any king, following her crowning as a 25-year-old 63 years ago.

Much is understood about her desire of corgis, the pleasure of Balmoral Castle, deemed condemnation of Diana and individual thriftiness if a person whose family and palaces cost the taxpayer £35.7 million last year can be legitimately described as frugal. But what is less well-known?

She is, as is begrudgingly recognised even by sturdy republicans, an obviously duty-oriented woman who has attempted to keep herself educated on technology and development. Her quirkier interests, sovereign virtues and activities depict a vivid life lived.

The monarch, it turns out, was really excited about efforts to hunt down the Loch Ness monster.

Letters in 1962 within the palace and naturalist Sir Peter Scott, son of Antarctic adventurer Captain Scott, stated she would like to stay informed of any progress in finding a potentially new species. They stopped quickly, however, of agreeing the beast should be named after her.

Her assistant private secretary stated it would be extremely regrettable to connect Her Highness in any way with anything which eventually become a deception. The Queen is apparently a big supporter of fact-checking Downton Abbey, according to Royal writer Brian Hoey in his book At Home with the Queen.

In one episode, he stated, she noticed that the decorations on a British officer through the First World War were really from the Second World War, a factual mistake that show’s that the history adviser must have been a little flustered about. A couple in Manchester who summoned the monarch to a wedding in 2012 were shocked when she actually arrived.

The sovereign and her hubby were having luncheon next door in Manchester Town Hall when they appeared to wish John and Frances Manning, who had sent the couple an invite on the off-chance, all the best for the future. The monarch can talk eloquent French and does not require a translator. In that regard, she had more in common with the ex-deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who can speak five languages, than with former premier David Cameron, who can speak some French but apparently not very fluently.

In that respect, she had more in common with the ex-deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who can articulate five languages. Her corgis were all issued small rubber Wellingtons to shield their paws from Buckingham Palace’s shale in 1999. They were purchased from a supplier who had invented them for police canines, and the monarch allegedly questioned whether they could look more like Wellington boots.

When she joined the Army in 1945 as a Second Subaltern, the monarch was a driver and mechanic who took a car-maintenance course before then going on to be a Junior Commander. She is believed to be the only British sovereign in history properly taught to replace a spark plug.

The grand success of longest-reigning sovereign belies a less extravagant sounding location of origin. In 1926 Elizabeth Windsor was born at her parents’ residence, 17 Bruton Street in Mayfair, at a location which is presently a Chinese restaurant.

This has to be food for thought because when she was being born into this world, she had no idea of what her actual existence would be like, or what impact she would have on the human race, and I question if she has really ever considered this? She was formerly the sweetheart of the country, and she was respected by many, she is still revered by many, only in another way, many are now followers, almost like disciples, supporters to her cause.
There are various doubters out there with their denunciation of her, willing to play her down. Perhaps she carries too much freight to govern this country anymore. Maybe she needs to reduce the amount of baggage and simply sit pretty because with all of her accessories and fineries, maybe she is costing this country too much money.
The Royal families finery alone is costing this country too much money, and we know that she has an image to uphold but her attire alone puts a hole in our economy, net alone how many kids they produce in the process.
Some people are not happy having a Royal family anymore, although for most, the monarch is the image of our nation, and without her, I think that the Royal family would be sadly missed, well not all of them perhaps!

The Entire World


We’ve got into the practice of buying fast junk foods which have no real food in them, we purchase tonnes of household toxic detergents when one degradable detergent will do.  We are destroying our houses and spending our hard earned cash for no good reason, why? Because the advertisement entrepreneurs tell us to.

They just want you to purchase stuff, for instance, if a corporation poisons the atmosphere or practices damaging business practices, if you don’t purchase their stuff, they will change.  If you don’t want food with chemicals or GMO’s in it, then don’t purchase it. The moment we begin taking responsibility and using our funds carefully, each politician, each company and leader around the globe will know that we have woken up.

This is the 21st century if we use our resources carefully, there’s no reason why anybody shouldn’t have what they need. There’s no reason whatsoever why people still perish to death on our planet. Plus the average man or woman whether they are Israeli or Palestinian, Protestant or Catholic, or Iraqi or American, the simple man just wants to exist in harmony, in fairness and a sanitary environment.

When we look around the globe, when we see that is not the case, we know the will of the majority is not being listened to, that’s the first sign that our system, is broken. The government won’t make these adjustments for us, yet again it’s down to the common man.

No company will continue a practice or a commodity that you the customer will not purchase. It’s vitally important that you know this because this gives you the ultimate control to shape the environment you exist in. Companies are very sensitive about you purchasing their commodities because if you don’t purchase their stuff, they go out of business.



Establishment Manager Defends Autistic Waiter


A restaurant proprietor has come to the defence of one of his waiters after some clientele stated they did not want to be attended by him as he was autistic. Mike Jennings, who works Grenache in Walkden, Manchester, took to Facebook after being appalled at the way a table of patrons criticised his crew member.


They requested not to be served by an autistic crew member and asked Mr Jennings, why he would hire him in such an establishment. The waiter, Andy, 45, who has autism, joined the establishment three weeks ago. He shuffles his career with his position as a designated carer for his mum, who suffers from Alzheimer’s.

They used the day restoring the confidence of one of their team, after being disrespected and socially victimised by a table that was dining with them. Mike Jennings describes his recruiting, and that they hire workers based on their skill, experience and enthusiasm for the work. Not the tone of their skin, or the way they look, how many tattoos they have, their dress size, religious views or disabilities. They do not segregate.

Ultimately, he conveys a distinct message: “If you DO [discriminate]… Then please do not book a table at Grenache. You do not deserve our time, effort or RESPECT!”

This should be a prompt reminder that people with disabilities are no different from everyone else, and they should be treated with the reverence that they deserve. They are not a victim that people appear to believe they can ridicule, and just because a person has a disability does not mean that they have no social manners.

It does not indicate that they are illiterate, in fact, most people with disabilities are quite smart. However, other people cringe at the unknown and need to be extra grown-up about people with disabilities, and I am certain they would think differently if it was their child that had a disability and went to work and got mocked.

These people that ridicule the afflicted are bullies, and I find this all very distasteful, and I wince at the thought that somebody could make this person feel victimised because he is Autistic. My own son is Autistic, and he has been browbeaten by people all his life, and it makes me sad that this sort of thing still goes on, even in today’s society when prejudice is supposed to be against the law.

There should be much more stringent regulations opposing prejudice, particularly where a person has a disability through no wrongdoing of their own. After all, they don’t ask to be born this way, but that is life, and that is the way life goes, but that does not imply they should be victimised for it.

To abuse another person for being different from somebody else is completely shameful, that people think they can band together to obtain brownie points, and when these people do these terrible things, they must understand that it completely annihilates the spirit of the person they are doing it too, particularly if they have a disability.

They have plenty to deal with on an everyday basis, net alone having to put up with ignorant people assuming it’s entertaining when they do this and behave in this way towards another human being. These people are just rude and uncouth, and their conduct is far from reproach.

If they think the disabled people are imperfect, then they should take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror from time to time. At least disabled people have the capacity to overlook and the courage to disregard the cowardice that some people have in them. These are brilliant people, they are not oddballs of the community, and they can be victorious and challenge anything that is facing them.

If people have a distaste for disabled people, then clearly don’t visit the restaurant that they work in or any workplace they work in, it’s as plain as that. Prejudice is a disturbing thing, and should be abolished altogether, no ifs or buts, and it should be sanctioned by a law, not just for some, but for everybody.

We should be able to feel comfortable in our society, and not have to be cautious of what we say or do, how we look, how we dress, what colour hair we have, how many tattoos we have, whether we are disabled, a different tone of skin, it should not matter because beneath our skin we are still all the same.

Offensive Voicemail From Job Centre Staff

Mother-of-three, Cecilia Garcia, was left this hateful voicemail from two staff, one by the name of Ann Goode, at Bromley’s Job Centre office. Goode failed to hang up correctly following leaving a message and was caught on tape. The Job Centre operator left a startling voicemail for single mother-of-three calling her a scrounging bastard that was popping out kids like an animal.

The single mother-of-three was left enraged after a Job Centre operator left a voicemail on her telephone calling her a ‘scrounging bastard that’s popping out kids like pigs. Cecelia Garcia, 44, from Beckenham, South East London, was left feeling nauseous after she got the offensive message which the staff member left by error.

The harangue of degradation was recorded after the operator decline to hang up and went on to scrutinise claimants with foreign sounding surnames to a co-worker in her office. Mrs Garcia, who has turned to benefits to top up her salary after separating from her partner last year, was left reeling by the recording left last Friday afternoon.

She had checked her messages to discover a voicemail from a woman alleging to be from the Bromley Job Centre, who requested her to call back next week.


Received Friday, July 29 at 4.23pm.

‘This is a message for Cecilia Garcia. Hello, Cecilia, this is Ann Goode from the Department for Work and Pensions at Bromley Job Centre. Could you please call me —- urgent call. I’ll be leaving at 5, but if you can ring me Monday I’d be very much obliged, you do need to speak to me. OK, thank you, bye bye.’

‘Her cap, her cap is £253.26 a week, that’s over £1,000 a month.’


‘That’s almost £1,000 a month – £12,000 a year.’

‘This is Cecilia Garcia. None of them are English names.’


‘I don’t, I just don’t, why are we running around for these people? Do you know I resent even doing this work because if I had a person that said I really want a job, I want to go on your case load, yes, all the time, every day of the week.

‘But not some scrounging b*****d that’s popping out kids like pigs. I’m going to get very, very politically incorrect this afternoon.’

‘You are, aren’t you? And I don’t blame you one bit.’

‘Now this one is working, the next one, but they’re obviously getting other help, so I need to ring them. But they’re a little bit different because they’re trying.’

However, rather than hanging up, the message proceeds, and communication was caught among team members who were oblivious they were being recorded.

One female begins to giggle and laughs: ‘I’m going to get very, very politically incorrect this afternoon.’ The other then responds: ‘You are, aren’t you? And I don’t blame you one bit.’

Mrs Garcia, who has a dual Mexican-British citizen, said: ‘I got sick, I was so upset over the weekend. It is really offensive all the things that she says on the voicemail. And it sounds like the other person totally agrees with her.
‘The fact that they say things like “oh they aren’t even English names” – this goes beyond everything, saying I pop out kids like pigs. I have dual nationality, we did everything right, I’m not illegal.

‘She shouldn’t express this about people from other backgrounds.’Mrs Garcia said she never wanted to turn to benefits but was forced to when she could no longer afford the rent to house her children, who are eight, six and four.
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson informed MailOnline today: ‘We are taking this incident extremely seriously, and we have launched an investigation.’

Each person who works in a Job Centre should be charged with atrocities opposing Humanity and told it’s up to them to demonstrate their integrity. The most depressing thing about being out of work is going to a job centre with their ridiculous levels of intimidating security, more than you’d find in night clubs. Anyone relying solely on a Job Centre for their employment is going to find themselves out of work for a long time or in work for a very short time.

Practically everybody gets jobs from employment agencies rather than the short hours, low-paid drivel jobs in job centres. The workers themselves have twaddle jobs with despicable salaries and on top of that, they have targets from this wicked government to penalise people on the most flimsy pretence. They are told to wind people up on purpose to make them kick off so they can sanction them. Everyone likes to feel a little bit superior to someone else no matter how humble they are. The only job fulfilment Job Centre staff get is looking down their beaks at Jobseekers.

They are told to wind people up on purpose to make them kick off so they can sanction them. Everyone likes to feel a little bit superior to someone else no matter how humble they are. The only job fulfilment Job Centre staff get is looking down their beaks at Jobseekers.

People who whine they don’t get £1,000 per month should perhaps work full time, perhaps retrain or get a better position.  We should quit judging single mothers. A £1,000 a month is not a lot, and it’s not like this particular lady is a scrounger, she openly said that she fell on difficult times.

Isn’t that what the benefits scheme is designed for? Plus most people are more than content to pay taxes to implement a safety net.

There are a number of people having kids for benefits, for some, it’s the only opportunity they have of getting a home to live in. It’s a disgrace since various people in this country are struggling when they are in full employment. There appears to be this idea that a person is rolling in dough when they are in work, it will just continue until there are jobs that are well paid, and give people some kind of hope.

Jobcentre workers are there to hinder not support claimants, it’s no wonder that they treat people with such contempt. It’s called the job centre but actually, it is simply a checking station. Monitoring you have ticked all the boxes if you haven’t, you get sanctioned. That’s their duty to penalise claimants. They seem to get a huge thrill out of it too.

Although I would have no idea who would get such enthusiasm out of sanctioning people so that they have no funds, existing on nothing, it must be some sort of arousal tactic to make people fall into the depths of poverty. If you want to destroy somebody else’s life, I am certain there are many ways that it could be done, other than taking their money off them.

People are simply begging to be helped, not hindered to the position where they just want to take their own lives as they can see no other way around a situation. If they want to expand hunger, they are going the right way about it, and whilst they are doing it, they are also being extremely biassed.

People do not want to be jobless, though I do acknowledge there are a few out there that just don’t want to labour, however, parents are not one of those, and people who serve for the job centre should be impartial when serving in that sort of setting, and if they can’t be unbiased, then they shouldn’t be working there at all. We have lots of bullying outside of the workplace, we don’t want it inside, after all, all of those that do work there are assumed to be grown-ups, obviously not in this incident.

Kicked Out Of School

A teenage student has been forbidden from school because teachers stated her dyed hair was an unnatural colour. Fern Burke, 14, was told she could not return to classes at Middleton Technology School in Rochdale until her hair was darker.

Fern’s mum, Tracey Burke, has tried to darken it twice, however, following being told Fern’s hair was still too bright she declines to use a darker black colourant since she worries her daughter would be browbeaten.

Fern, a true brunette, dyed her hair red over the summer, however, maintains the colour waned over the summer. But inside moments of returning for the current school term, her mum got a telephone call stating Fern’s hair was too bright.

Mrs Burke then deepened it with two bottles of brown dye, however, teachers stated that it still wasn’t natural enough. Fern, who lives in Searness Road, Middleton, with her mum, father Patrick, brother Dion, 17, and sister Grace, is presently missing lessons.

Mrs Burke, herself a primary school teaching assistant, stated that Fern had always wanted to experiment and dye her hair red. As her mum knew this was not permitted in school, they waited for the summer holidays to dye it.

After seven weeks off, the colour had waned significantly and Fern returned to school. However, she was told that the colour was still too red, so at the weekend they dyed her hair twice with dark brown.

Mrs Burke stated that she refuses to dye Fern’s hair any darker, and said that the last time she dyed her hair black she was bullied. Naturally, she doesn’t want to endure this again. She said, that she didn’t believe this was right considering there are teachers at the school with purple hair or highlights which are not true colours.

Fern appreciates the necessity for rules inside the school in preparing for the working environment, but you tell me a job where you would be sent home or fired for the colour of your hair. Her mother said she needs to be getting on with work.

Fern’s mum said that she’s now begun Year 10 and needs to concentrate on her GCSEs. The Headteacher Alison Crompton refused to discuss the situation, I question why that might be?

There appears to be an enormous disparity on the colour of a person’s hair whilst in school, but shouldn’t teachers be extra receptive to their students, and recognise that people are individuals, and as individuals should be able to attire and have their hair how they require.

Clearly, teachers can’t say that violates on anyone, or what should and should not be, and if so, does this suggest that we all have to look the same, wear the same, and have the corresponding hair colour, or are we to one day grow up to be the Stepford Wives?

Does this suggest that if students are not permitted to wear their hair how they want, or have the colour that they want it, the teachers should be obeying the identical custom? If one rule is suitable for the pupils, then clearly it should be the same for the teachers?

Opinions have diminished considerably since I was at school towards the way that students should be clothed, and what colour their hair should be, and shouldn’t we as individuals be entitled to be who we truly are, rather than how a culture thinks we should be.

An individual is a person or a particular thing. Identity or selfhood is the nature or essence of being an individual, especially of being a person separate from another person and controlling his or her own needs or goals. The specific interpretation of an individual is essential in the areas of biology, law, and philosophy.

Individualism makes the individual its focus and so begins with the basic premise that the human individual is of prime consequence in the fight for freedom. The most powerful kind of freedom is to be what we really are.

If you feel uncomfortable with who you actually are, and hide the way you truly are, you’re letting society shatter your existence. You should stand up for the freedom to be yourself.

At times, schools handle students negatively. Students need to be different from another person in their own individual way, and there is nothing incorrect about that, it simply indicates that person has decided to be an individual.

Though, sometimes it is simply to fit in with others so that they do not get bullied, which can generate an adverse environment for the whole school population. People don’t start off understanding who they are as an individual, and through all the steps of growing up, teenagers are told how they should act in various circumstances.

The way a person sees himself/herself is discovered over a span of time and comes from seeing himself/herself acting in various settings. That persona is developed over a period of time until individuals come to identify themselves as themselves.

It is common for people to attempt to show themselves as if they are more beautiful and popular than they actually are. A man will pretend to be suave, and mature, and poised, and a woman puts on lipstick carefully to improve her image.

In a sense, a person should not settle for just being himself. People should not feel guilty for being who they are, and for whatever the reason, many people think like they have to struggle for the freedom to simply live as they want.