Google Street View must be banned NOW

Google Street View, the online website that allows burglars to rob your house without even stepping outside, came under fire today as The Daily Mail issued a rallying call to middle-class curtain twitchers to 'Stop it in it's tracks'.

Applauding the heroic actions of the furtive residents of Broughton in Buckinghamshire who martyred themselves at the wheels of a Google 'spy car' so commoners wouldn't be able to look at their lovely mock-Tudor houses and manicured bushes, The Mail asked plaintively why Parliament is taking so long to ban the sick service and protect us from 'The Google monster'.

Sources at Google revealed that the monster, a purple seven bellied frog-like creature with modems for eyes and keywords for arms, is kept chained up deep within the bowels of the Californian company's central lair and fed on a diet of usernames, passwords and internets.

In an exclusive interview with privacy crusader Paul Jacobs, who led the resistance force against the terrifying spymobile as it attempted to photograph his property, luddite Robert Hardman conveyed in vivid detail the epic battle of Broughton as the little Englanders repelled the invasion of their local town for local people by minions of the 'smug California-based cyber empire'.

Finding the 1984 style eye-wagon parked at the end of a cul-de-sac, Jacobs called for reinforcements to force 'matey from snooper command' to turn back and get off their land. The fearless band of men and women - a couple of housewives, a nurse, a Tory councillor and an energy consultant - stood firm as the sneering, dark eyed driver vainly attempted to squirm his way past the resolute human chain. Some witnesses report seeing the driver smacking his lips with a forked, serpentine tongue and scratching at what appeared to be a tail within his trousers.

After an hour and a half fighting with the man and poking him with pitchforks, the residents successfully ejected him from the village and he was forced to drive away in humiliation, as the victorious villagers cheered the removal of another threatening 'out-of-towner'.

Rebel leader Jacobs, who suffers from a lisp, told Hardman: 'I rather lost it, I'm afraid, and I used a word that I don't use very often.' It is thought the word was susurrus.

Hardman, without a shred of irony, described Jacobs as an 'international freedom fighter' and, predicting a forthcoming war against the Google machines, said that 'copycat rebellions now seem inevitable.'

But the Broughton incident has led to threats from cyber terrorists of a day of rampant unchecked photography in the small village as retaliation for Jacobs's successful counter-insurgency.

Organised on the hyperweb site 'Twitter', internet people are planning to descend upon the area to take hundreds of their own photographs in an attempt to force webocracy upon the brave little Englanders.

They have already begun posting pictures of the village online and used the photographs to post burglary masterplans and images of middle-class residents running in fear from the savage glare of their cameras. It is thought house prices have already begun to tumble as a direct result, while crime levels may have risen by a certain amount as well.

The organised orgy of aggressive imaging has led to increased calls for Twitter, which exposes children to pornography, prostitution and drugs, to be banned along with Street View and all other new things.

G20 protests: Good or bad? A succinct appraisal

It was a day of confusion and uncertainty for many.

As simmering collective anger finally boiled over and transmuted into a bellowing cry of rage from over 4,000 demonstrators in central London today, bewildered Daily Mail journalists saw the true face of genuine fury, and were afraid.

One hack, who wished to remain anonymous, said: 'I wasn't prepared for that. I thought I'd seen fury when the BBC launched a Scottish TV channel, or when some school banned playground games because of 'elf 'n' safety guidelines, and that time a video game said some rude words, but it turns out that was actually mild irritation that nobody cared about. I must buy a dictionary.'

Public outrage at the systematic failures of government, banks and big businesses to prevent malignant economic decline reached a climax as world leaders arrived in London for the G20 summit to discuss the global recession and other vital issues such as what to call Barack Obama's dog, and why Gordon Brown does that funny thing with his bottom lip when he speaks.

But, while it was universally agreed that some of the vehicles patrolling the streets around the Square Mile were pretty awesome, many had difficulty in deciding whether the protests were A Good Thing or A Bad Thing.

On the one hand, multi-trillion pound bailouts are undoubtedly bad - primarily because they are paid for by middle-class taxpayers.

Similarly, semiotic bankers like Sir Fred 'Shredder' Goodwin receiving enormous pensions as a reward for destroying Britain's economy is plainly unacceptable, mainly because he is richer than you.

Thefore, it would seem reasonable to side with the thousands of protestors expressing their disapproval at the bloated institutions that have squandered so many of our tax pounds on absurd bonus payments and outrageous champagne parties.

But, worryingly, many of the protestors are little more than misguided youths enamoured with the silly, un-British ideals of communism, which is most definitely a bad thing. Capitalism is, of course, the only workable economic system - without it, disgusting poor people would be given more opportunities in life and the middle-classes (that's you) would earn less money.

So the target of many of the demonstrators' ire is in fact a good thing. It is needed to keep all of those work-shy, grubby-finger nailed liberals down, away from your children.

However, the bastions of the great lord capitalism are the banks. Which are bad. But they are also good, because without them we would be left only with horrible, horrible socialism which is one of the worst things in the world.

Should we, therefore, side with the enemies of our enemies to give those dastardly bankers, who are bad, but who work for banks, which are good, a lesson?

Upon first glance, the answer would seem to be no. Many of the protestors are hippies, who are bad, or hoodies, who are entirely responsible for knife crime, which is very bad, students, who take taxpayers' money, a bad thing to take, or homosexuals. To side with such a rascally assortment of devients must surely be a bad thing.

Additionally, anti-establishmentism is a bad thing; without the iron-clad fist of the law to keep immigrants and benefit scroungers in check, Britain would surely go to hell in a handcart, which of course it already has. Therefore, it follows that the front line symbols of the establishment, the police, are good and those who oppose them are bad.

But this is not the case. The police are in fact bad as well. Obviously, criminals like paedophiles are bad, as are burglars and some rapists, which would suggest that we need the police to stop them. But in reality, the police are only out to arrest middle-class white people, hand out fines for ridiculous 'offences' like speeding and littering, and to monitor your evey movement via an ubiquitous network of all-seeing CCTV cameras. This is bad, and, thus, the police are bad, meaning that anti-establishmentism can be acceptable when directed at sections of the establishment we don't like.

This simple to grasp truth would make it appear that it is indeed acceptable to support the protestors, even if swathes of them are ill-advised climate change campaigners and unemployed people. In standing up to the madness of the police and the moral decreptitude of the banks, they must, surely, be a good thing.

Their values, bug-bears and the targets of their wrath, surprisingly, are common with ours.

However, there is one irredeemable feature of the protestors that makes them fundamentally bad.

They are led by this man, a being so inexcusably bad that anyone in his company is automatically beyond reproach. All 4,000 of them.

So bad are they for colluding with this depraved harasser of the elderly that, with one sweeping decision, as improbable as it may first have seemed, we have no choice but to side with those who stand against the hippies, students, foreigners and gays, and cry in strangled, solitary tones: 'Up with the banks! Bigger pensions for the bankers! Long live RBS!'

We encourage you to do the same at the next 'summer of rage' protest. We would join you, but, unfortunately, we're busy rewinding some video tapes that day.

Shock study finds pornography is rude

Explicit depictions of women and, revoltingly, men in various states of undress are being widely circulated across the world thanks to the worrying power of modern technology to display pictures, sound and even moving images, or 'movies', a shock study has revealed.

Experts have warned that children as young as zero are at risk of stumbling across the so-called 'pornography', which is freely available on a number of satellite television channels for as little as £16 per month, plus £15 activation fee. Side effects of pornography consumption include hairy palms and blindness.

As part of special investigation into the seedy world of 'porn', Bafta award-winning documentary maker and fearless investigator of smut Olivia Lichtenstein was appalled to find nearly 100 X-rated television channels hidden on her Sky satellite TV system after selecting the ambiguous ADULT option on the main menu.

She was shocked to discover how readily available the mountain of filth was; after telephoning Playboy TV to arrange a subscription, waiting on hold, passing the phone to her husband for him to confirm the purchase as the account was in his name, selecting her package, paying the registration fee, setting up a direct debit, passing a security check, waiting an hour for the service to be activated, and then entering the correct parental control PIN into her Sky box, Olivia was being bombarded by insalubrious images of women exposing flesh above the ankle and shamefully hatless men.

Insconsed in the vulgar menagerie of erotica, she happened across such vile displays as women kissing other women, twisted perversions like 'Girls in Uniform', and even a show dedicated to 'MILFs', or 'Mothers I'd Like to [make] Friends [with]'.

Elsewhere, trailers offered sound bites from presumably half-naked women too unseemly to publish on a family website. With depraved grammatical inaccuracy, one breathed: 'Hi, my name's Verity from Birmingham. I like clits, I like sex toys.'

Sickened, Olivia only managed to sit through another two hours of the grotesque carnival of flesh, and after tiring of the lack of male nudity, switched back to Songs of Praise, cursing her choice of female-orientated pornography.

'In short, what I saw were unlovely people doing unlovely things', concluded the award-winning writer.

Unknown relationship counsellor Chris Diggins warned that pornography can lead to harmful, sexually addictive behaviour that isolates individuals and that men who use it run the risk of becoming addicted to high intensity pleasure, losing the ability to enjoy more depressing past-times such as making love to their wives or washing up.

Lichtenstein added scientifically that: 'I don't know whether this is true, but I'm certain that this mindless filth tarnishes the way in which men perceive women.'

Unfettered by the need for actual facts or supporting evidence, she went on to warn of the possible long-term dangers of porn - 'The problem with pornography, of course, is that degrading acts will soon not be degrading enough. The user has constantly to raise the stakes in order to derive the same thrill. It's no wonder that this kind of porn has been compared to crack cocaine [by me].'

A spokesman for a leading think tank that stands against This Type of Thing said: 'The modern phenomenon of pornography is outrageous. Who needs it anyway, when you've got pictures of topless Hollywood actresses, half naked teens and upskirt shots for free on The Mail's website? It's political correctness gone mad.'

Council worker suspended for being Christian

A mild mannered council worker has been suspended by shadowy council bureaucrats for innocently suggesting that a terminally ill woman facing eviction from her home should go away and 'put her faith in God'.

Duke Amachree was so concerned about the woman, who had been told by doctors that she was suffering from an incurable bowel condition shortly before visiting Wandsworth Council's officesto discuss a housing problem, that he suggested turning to Yahweh instead of trying to resolve her pointless earthly problems like where to sleep at night or how to pay her council tax.

Inexplicably, the woman reacted thanklessly and complained to Amachree's superiors as soon as she got home - even though, Amachree says, she didn't seem at all angry at the time.

He told The Sunday Torygraph: 'It was out of compassion that I said to her: "Sometimes the doctors don't have all the answers".

Shortly afterwards, Amachree - a father of two - was handed an overly wordy, jargon filled two-page letter by faceless council housing officials telling him he was being suspended following a complaint from the godless woman.

He was told he should not have raised the issue of religion at work - probably for fear of offending ethnic minorities and gypsies. Heretical colleagues suggested that Amachree had been previously warned by his militantly atheist bosses not to raise his religious beliefs with members of the public, and that he had 'launched into an aggresive religious rant when dealing with the woman.

Having now been out of work for over two weeks, the dedicated Christian says he is 'very worried' about his future in his position as homelessness prevention officer with the council he has worked for for over 18 years.

Sources say the woman is still dying. It is unclear whether or not she has put her faith in God yet.

UK women politicians not up to scratch, says bookish nerd

Achingly unfunny Daily Mail sketch-writer Quentin 'Wiener' Letts has found himself in hot water with butch feminist PC bigadiers over a light-hearted article suggesting that British women politicians are letting themselves down by wearing trousers and spending too little time applying make-up before leaving the house.

Letts, described by some as 'toad like in appearance', acknowledged that his 'comedic' take on the list of the worlds 50 sexiest female politicians could land him in 'terrible trouble with Harriet Harman and her sisterhood' for comparing a variety of sparkle eyed political hotties from around the globe with Westminster's plain Janes.

The column featured photographs of Lett's personal choice of the thirteen most attractive 'politic chicks', who may or may not know what The Maastricht treaty is but would certainly brighten up the drab offices of any state government.

Sensationally, Italy's stunning Minister for Equal Opportunities Mara Carfagna even showed off that most elusive of beauties, the Side Boob - although, tragically, her nipple appeared to have been airbrushed out by liberal do-gooders. An insider said: 'Pwoar! I'd let her equal MY opportunities!'

French Minister for Overseas Territories, Christine Kelly, managed to look radiant in a white bikini despite being a bit over the hill at 39, while Spanish anti-corruption campaigner Cayetana Alvarez, was included on the list at number 10 despite not actually being a politician.

The titillating shots, which were unfortunately published without any copyright attribution - possibly because they were all found by the work experience boy at Northcliffe House one-handedly using Google image search, leave Britain embarrassed at scoring a shameful nul points as the government attempts to reach out to attractive young people to discourage the increasing problem of voter apathy amongst nubile under thirties.

Mr Letts, described in some circles as 'a misogynistic geek with a profound fear of women that manifests itself on occasion as snide chauvanism', blamed Britain's poor showing on the fact that 'many Westminster women...have drunk deep at the feminist well' and try hard to 'be the opposite of sassy' for fear of undermining their credibility.

Pointing out that Harriet Harman 'is always turned out smartly' and looked 'V. butch' in a dowdy pin-stripe jacket as she hosted Prime Minsiter's Questions last week, Letts concluded that although Britain's female politicians are mostly quite ugly, 'the quality of their debate may be superior' - presumably because of the proven scientific link between attractiveness and stupidity.

It is unclear why Right-wing pin-up Nadine Dorries was not included on the list.

Political correctness prevents psychiatrists curing gays

As many as five out of six psychiatrists are being prevented from curing homosexuals of their deviancy by the New Labour nanny state, it has emerged.

A survey carried out by researchers at University College Hospital in London fround that only 17 per cent - or three in twenty four - mental health experts felt able to treat gays and lesbians for their unnatural sexual orientation, as many fear a militant baclash from politically correct liberal zealots who believe that homosexuals are 'normal' and 'healthy' just like real people.

Commenting on the increasing body of evidence that homosexuality can damage sufferers' careers and make couples incapable of caring for children, Professor Michael King, who led the study, said: 'It is distressing and harmful-and there is absolutely no evidence it works'.

In the past, scientists have attempted to cure people of their gayness using aversion therapy, whereby deviants were given electric shocks to the genitals as images of naked men were displayed.

Another technique was to encourage them to masturbate, using sick pornographic images of men, before switching the filth to pleasant imagery of the appropriate sexuality at the point of orgasm.

But queerness is highly difficult to eradicate and those who attempt to help sufferers overcome their disease often face accusations of 'discrimination' against them, discouraging research into finding a vaccine or preventative therapies.

But BNP supporting, hideous website owning councillor Chris Cooke suggested that, in fact, switching sexual orientation is actually very easy and questioned why only one in six psychiatrists are helping homosexuals fight their rainbow coloured demons:

Another woman cries rape; Man's reputation ruined

Cuh. Women.

Tony from London said insightfully:


237 people agreed that Britain is indeed at risk of falling under the control of extremist right-wing Muslim feminazis who spend all their time asking for it before dragging their unsuspecting victims through the courts in the hope of receiving multi-million pound payouts. 112 fellow commenters also voiced their fury that a sex-crazed female man eating lawyer was able to bring the case to court in the first place.

Six months ago, a victim of an attempted rape wrote an article for The Daily Mail about the issue of rape victims receiving lower compensation payments if found to have been drunk when the crime was committed. The highly personal account of her experience, during which she was picked up and physically thrown down a flight of stairs because she resisted her attacker, concluded that 'there's a world of difference between being incapable and being culpable.'

The 'debate' received zero comments.