Sunday, November 09, 2003

Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks. We deserved at least a draw, possibly even a win. But it wasn't to be. You can read the BBC's version of events here, but suffice to say they are a mite blinkered, that they "deserved a win" bit could only have been someone of the hun persuasion and as for Lovenkrands being "bundled off the ball" well I am sorry but that was a poor impression of Petrov. The only world class players in evidence in their team are Klos (M�nchen bound?) and Arteta, with Arveladze possibly chapping at the door. Emerson looked pretty useless, just doesn't cut it without Lake and Palmer methinks.

Overall a much better performance from Killie but with some work still to be done in the midfield. Young Stewart got some excitement though seeing a couple of Killie goals for a change.

Finally what is it about their fans and their peculiar allegiance to that banjo plucking gaggle of parasitic European inbreeds that is the British Royal Family? Its bizarre. No less bizarre than the current speculation over prince Charles. The Italian press have published the following extract, kindly but poorly translated by Google, from La Repubblica:

LONDON - Whichever thing is, prince Carl says that it has not made it. It will remain more in annals of Buckingham Palace like the refutation bizzarra than all the times: "I want to assert frankly", ago to know the heir to the throne through its secretary, "than circulated chiacchiere recently regard me, but they are completely false".

What says in concrete that to chiacchiere, Carl not if it feels to tell it it; and up to now the average local has not been able to speak of liberations because of the strict British law on the defamation. But it is a history that circulates the same one for a long time, on Internet, in the references of the English newspapers to that the foreign press writes, and in monito the more times express openly from all the average here that the vicissitude, if came to the light, could "make to fall the monarchy".

Well, hour is coming to the light, is pure in oblique way: it is said in fact (presumed) sinner, not the sin, but enough the same one in order to understand nearly () all. We reassume, in three actions. First action: in 1995, George Smith, valletto of prince Diana, reveals to them of to have been stuprato two times from a dependent of court and of then to have seen the sodomita one to bed with a member of the real house.

Diana records the testimony on one video cassette, then guarded from its butler Paul Burrell, therefore seized passing or from the police. A scene, second the indiscretions made subsequently to trapelare from the butler, would have gone therefore: Smith opens the door of a room and discovers one of the Windsor under the sheet, between the arms of its violentatore.

So future King allegedly shags personal Valet. Who cares?
posted by timesnewroman at 8:14 PM  

0 comments