It has been a long, uneventful night for Officer Hugh Jazz. He was just about to sleep on the job when a sleek silver Porsche flew in front of him in an ungodly speed. Hungry for action like a vegetable steamer waiting on a kitchen benchtop, Officer Jazz chased after the speeding car and demanded for it to pull over. When it complied, Officer Jazz approached the car casually. He leaned on the door and peered at the lady driving.

“Young lady,” Officer Jazz said slowly. “I have been waiting for you for a long, long time.”

The driver quickly answered, speaking fast, “I’m so sorry, Officer. I got here as fast as I could!”

Officer Jazz raised an eyebrow and gave a big laugh. “Do you want to try that again?” he asked.

Tears started streaming down the lady’s eyes. “Officer, I’m not thinking right. You see, I’m in a big hurry because I’m escaping a murder. It was horrific!”

“A murder?!” Officer Jazz stood straight. His night was just about to get a lot more interesting. “Are you the witness to the murder? Do you know the victim?”

The lady cried harder, her words barely audible now. “No, Officer. I’m the murderer!”

Surprised, Officer Jazz took a step back. “Show me your licence!” he demands.

“I don’t have a licence, Sir.”

“Then show me the registration papers of this car,” Officer Jazz commands, his voice getting slightly louder.

“I don’t have them either, Sir. I just stole this car,” the lady revealed. At this point, Officer Jazz is already starting to get frustrated.

“Why are you just telling me all of these freely?” he asked.

“I don’t know, Sir. I’m just really truthful when I’m drunk,” the lady replied.

Officer Jazz commanded her to get out of the car as he’s going to search it. The lady refused saying she’s afraid he’ll find the chopped up body in her trunk. Officer Jazz tells her not to move as he calls for back-up. Not long after, a bunch of other officers search her car and makes her blow into a Breathalyzer.

“Ma’am,” one of them comes up to her and said, “Officer Jazz informed us that you’ve just admitted to a murder and left the body in your trunk, that you’re driving drunk AND without a licence, and are operating a stolen vehicle. But you’re able to provide us with all necessary paperwork to prove otherwise.”

“Yeah,” the lady sneered. “I bet that crazy liar also told you I was over speeding, huh?”

From the Complaints Department

November 6th 2008

Dear the television channel,

I am writing to you to express my anger at the broadcast of your new thriller, ‘The Noose’. At the start of the programme I was advised that the following show would contain scenes of a violent nature. However, prior to that moment I had not received any notification that the warning in question would contain the words: “scenes of a violent nature”.

Naturally, upon hearing this warning I immediately imagined a number of scenes that were so unnecessarily violent that I was shocked and appalled to have seen them before the 10pm watershed. Indeed, they were so sickening that I felt quite unable to watch the programme in question, and so was unable to discover which of the eight atrocities I had been forced to envision was eventually inflicted upon the viewing public.

It is bad enough that there are minds out there who could conjure up such depravity for adult viewing. However, did you ever stop to consider what would have happened if one of my children, who I do not have and am unlikely to be able to conceive, should have also come across this provocative message? They may not have understood the meaning of the warning at all, and I would have been railroaded into describing to them, in painstaking detail, exactly what sort of things they could expect to see in this programme. I think we can agree that this would not be appropriate for a child, nor would it be acceptable for them to be forced to re-enact some of those scenes using hand puppets or miniature Kabuki theatre.

Please begin to take seriously your role as a guardian of children’s innocence.

Your sincerely,

Mrs. Teresa Kimble (Miss)

November 13th 2008

Dear the television channel,

I felt I needed to write again to you about the broadcast of your new thriller, “The Noose”. You attempted to better prepare your audience by including the message, and I quote, “The following warning that tonight’s programme will contain scenes of a violent nature, will contain the words ‘of a violent nature'”, while welcome, was ill-advised and only acerbated the problem. Indeed, the additional warnings you broadcast prior to the show nearly tripled the use of this expression, in that it doubled it.

Perhaps this distinct lack of taste appeals to some individuals, but that can hardly be said of my Sunday school class, who I taped it for. What kind of a station readily shows such objectionable material that could so easily be seen by the children of my Sunday school class?

What is more, there were a several potential violent scenes which did not feature as part of your new thriller, but instead appeared only on exclusive and obscure Internet websites, where they can be easily found by any six members of an over-50s reading group spending an entire weekend searching for them. As the warnings you broadcast before the show could only be seen by those watching the show, do you really think they are sufficient to prepare viewers for scenes of violence that they find elsewhere?

Yours sincerely,

Mrs. Teresa Kimble (Miss)

November 21st 2008

Dear the television channel,

I once more felt I needed to write to you about the broadcast of your new thriller, “The Noose”. Last week’s episode, as you know, was heavily edited, leaving only the programme that came on before it, and most of the programme that started after it.

This is the first time I have managed to sit through an entire episode, and I was overwhelmingly struck by how completely violent I imagined it might have been. Despite this, however, there was no warning in advance of the grisly images that were not broadcast. As a consequence, I am sure there were many viewers who tuned in to this programme, only to find themselves unwittingly watching where a barbaric and grotesque plot twist would have occured.

How can anyone manage to explain to their children that the thing that they didn’t just see was only make-believe? How can a child learn to tell the difference between what didn’t happen on television, and what isn’t there in real life?

Yours sincerely

Mrs Teresa Kimble (Miss)

Breaking News: Gay Bishops Break From Anglican Church Over Tolerance Towards Conservatives 

A group of Anglican bishops has today declared it’s decision to form an independent alliance, seperate from the Church’s traditional authority, as part of the ongoing row over the Church’s continual tolerance of conservatives.

The group, called the Furthering Anglicanism General Conference – or FAGCon – comprises clergy who support a progressive interpretation of the Bible, and as such are gay, or in some cases, well gay. The real impetus for the split appears to have be the ordination of the first openly conservative bishop, in 1534.

The split comes only days after traditionalists broke off ties with the more liberal wings of the Church over a long-standing dispute over its teaching of a “false gospel” based around tolerance and equality. There are a number of areas, conservatives Anglicans feel are misrepresented in the modern Church. Most attention, however, has focused on the Biblical teachings about homosexuality, especially where this homosexuality is gay, or even well gay. Conservatives believe the Bible rules out active homosexuality, though its position on passive homosexuality – such as wearing a sports top with your own name on it or using the word “banter” as a noun – is unclear.

They are keen to stress they are not orthodoxaphobic, but rather are concerned with the conservative agenda the Church has recently taken since the abolition of the monastries. Among some of the points causing the rift is the conservative belief that Anglicans should follow a universal doctrine. Gay and well gay Anglicans reject this notion, and hope to restore an acceptance of differing personal worship to all followers without exception. Conservative Anglicans believe that to be an Anglican involves sharing a single common doctrine, as no follower has the right to take unilateral decisions seperate from that consensus, and are willing to split the church in two to achieve it.

The two schisms this week could mean the Anglican Communion now has a much smaller body of clergy – indeed, if it were to comprise all the non-gay, non-conservative members, it would be exactly the size of Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. However, much like the traditionalists, the group insist they are not leaving the Anglican Communion, but that they will no longer recognise the authority of the Dr Williams, who they have criticised for failing to discipline churches for not being women, or even well women.

 

Breaking News: EU bans criticising EU bans 

A new European law has been introduced that effectively outlaws complaining about new European laws which have led to a ban on almost every aspect of British life.

A spokesman in Brussels told Breaking News over the telephone that the new laws were necessary as existing levels of complaining about the EU contained less than 20% of actual truth – far below the acceptable limit – while in the background he silently wiped the sweat off of his brow with a photograph of the Queen.

Rows between British people and European bureaucrats are nothing new. The latest complaint came about last week when it was reported the the EU had banned the acre, an antiquated unit of measuring area that lies somewhere between a metre and a tonne. Not content with simply asking people to use a common unit of measurement for measuring land space, the EU have gone further and outlawed actual acres, forcing local councils to seize any areas of land that span acres and replace them with hectares of new ground, many of which have to come from abroad.

This was too much for critics in Britain, a country, they claim, that was built on the acre, which was much bigger back then. There is also a concern that this move could pave the way for the abolition of other common measurements like the mile. “That could dramatically change the look of our towns and cities and highways” observed Martin Sleaping, a prominent anti-EU campaigner and waltz enthusiast. “When I drive around France I see these signs that say things like, ‘Montpellier 45km’,” he continued, “can you imagine how disconcerting it would be to see a sign like that in England?”

Not everyone is against such regulation, of course. It has been argued that the standardisation of certain measures is desirable as we interact more with different cultures within Europe, as it helps simplify transactions between them. For example, when two countries are arguing about the correct level of farm subsidies, it can cause problems when one side isn’t budging an inch if the other side has to try and remember how many centimetres that means they also shouldn’t budge.

Reaction within the media to the new law has been muted. There were rumblings from one tabloid, but this later turned out to be a semi-conscious cat, and not even a very well-written one. A number of broadsheets did go as far as to describe the new measures as “text-based” and “punctuated”, but for now, at least, no-one has spoken out of behalf of the British public, and mentioned how very excellent they think it all is.

 

Breaking News: Gay Bishops Break From Anglican Church Over Tolerance Towards Conservatives 

A group of Anglican bishops has today declared it’s decision to form an independent alliance, seperate from the Church’s traditional authority, as part of the ongoing row over the Church’s continual tolerance of conservatives.

The group, called the Furthering Anglicanism General Conference – or FAGCon – comprises clergy who support a progressive interpretation of the Bible, and as such are gay, or in some cases, well gay. The real impetus for the split appears to have be the ordination of the first openly conservative bishop, in 1534.

The split comes only days after traditionalists broke off ties with the more liberal wings of the Church over a long-standing dispute over its teaching of a “false gospel” based around tolerance and equality. There are a number of areas, conservatives Anglicans feel are misrepresented in the modern Church. Most attention, however, has focused on the Biblical teachings about homosexuality, especially where this homosexuality is gay, or even well gay. Conservatives believe the Bible rules out active homosexuality, though its position on passive homosexuality – such as wearing a sports top with your own name on it or using the word “banter” as a noun – is unclear.

They are keen to stress they are not orthodoxaphobic, but rather are concerned with the conservative agenda the Church has recently taken since the abolition of the monastries. Among some of the points causing the rift is the conservative belief that Anglicans should follow a universal doctrine. Gay and well gay Anglicans reject this notion, and hope to restore an acceptance of differing personal worship to all followers without exception. Conservative Anglicans believe that to be an Anglican involves sharing a single common doctrine, as no follower has the right to take unilateral decisions seperate from that consensus, and are willing to split the church in two to achieve it.

The two schisms this week could mean the Anglican Communion now has a much smaller body of clergy – indeed, if it were to comprise all the non-gay, non-conservative members, it would be exactly the size of Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. However, much like the traditionalists, the group insist they are not leaving the Anglican Communion, but that they will no longer recognise the authority of the Dr Williams, who they have criticised for failing to discipline churches for not being women, or even well women.