Top scientists have revealed that men who wear frocks can be cured. They just have to “reorient” themselves to become non-frock-wearing individuals, reveals Professor Diogenes Swill of the University of somewhere or other.
But the Right, Very, Extraordinarily, Awfully, Frightfully Reverend Dr Peter Forster, Bishop of Chester, UK, in a sermon delivered to the Ladies’ Crochet Guild at Chester Cathedral last week, denounced Prof. Swill’s findings as “utter bollocks”.
“Doesn’t this arsehole realise that we frockists are told by God that this is a perfectly acceptable mode of attire?” the bishop told Infidel in an exclusive interview at the post-service cake-and-arse party. “Why should we be ashamed of our natural orientation towards wearing frocks?
“From our mitres to our sanctuary slippers, from amice to alb, from orphrey to stole, from tunicle to maniple, from chasuble to dalmatic – all speak of the greater glory of God, who joined together man and frock according to his Word. It is unnatural to think otherwise.”
Prof. Swill, however, was unrepentant. “Some people who are primarily frockist can reorientate themselves,” he declared. “I would encourage them to consider that as an option. It’s not difficult: you just visit my excellent website, www.gorgeouslittlestraplesslowcutnumber.com and utter the magic mumbo-jumbo three times while turning around widdershins with your finger up your –”
Thank you, Professor, and goodbye.
Far be it from Infidel to be rude, but if you take the word “Kent” and just sort of mumble the consonants to yourself without the vowel, you get what might be a choice vernacular description of the man leading the county council in that charming part of southeast England.
Two years ago, that council’s Tory leader, Sandy Bruce-Lockhart (or “Ably Shod Nutcracker”, for those with an anagram fetish), warned that this would happen. And it has. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 – which outlawed the so-called “promotion” of homosexuality (“Ooh, look! I’ll have two kilos of that, please, and a small brown loaf!”) – disappeared from the statute book between the last issue of G&LH and now. But not in the county run by Bachelor’s Ducky Rant.
“[We] have seen materials produced by health authorities, gay rights groups and councils which are inappropriate ... [We] want to see traditional values emphasised,” Tuck’s Randy Bachelor is reported as having said.
So, not only will no money be spent on anything that “promotes” the gay lifestyle, but the county council will fashion the spirit of that pernicious and execrable law into the curriculum of its 600 schools. Not that they’re against homosexuality, you understand, but, if you just happen to be a young person in a Kent school who just happens to be “one of those”, you’ll receive a clear signal that might as well be a death fatwa issued by the military wing of the local mosque.
Crank’s Duty Bachelor is unrepentant. “I took legal advice in December [1999] and we are determined to continue in Kent the spirit and commitment of Section 28, irrespective of the government’s intentions,” he harrumphed.
So the works of Sappho are out, then. What about Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon? After all, all a pupil needs to know is that these two outstanding poets were raving poofters and – well, that’s another kilo and a half of homosexuality promoted, innit?
The new Tory leader in Britain, Michael Howard (or A Whirled Macho, if you prefer), whose Folkestone and Hythe constituency is in the county, was the local government minister when Section 28 was introduced fifteen years ago, and in March this year voted against its abolition.
So a right pair of Kents, then.
They tucked into sumptuous food supervised by none other than Nigella Lawson. They strolled together on plush red carpets, gazing into each other’s eyes and at the surrounding glitter. Sycophants cooed. She squeaked, “One is most pleased to welcome you, Mr President.” He, in his customary eloquent, fluent and lucid Klingon, burbled, “Well, Ma’am, I’m most pleasurated and honorified to be in your most majesticalised presence. And by the way: we don’t like queens where I come from.”
He was commenting, of course, on the ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts, which could make the state the first in the US to recognise gay marriage. During his taxpayer-funded, multimillion-pound state visit to the UK, George II pronounced, after an obliging flunky had told the assembled to put their Babel Fish translators into their ears, that marriage was “a sacred institutionionalisationalism between a man and a woman” and that the court ruling violatified that principle.
Oh, right. We’ll stop campaigning, then.