

It therefore behoves us to listen carefully to bee hives. If we hear a single sneeze from within, we should leave a packet of Benadryl outside, just to be on the safe side.
Diary of a slum landlord
You often hear people say, “I’d love to be a fly on the wall.” This usually means that they’d like to surreptitiously witness some stimulating event or other without letting the people involved actually know that they’re being observed. A good-looking couple shagging, for example, would be a case in point. Or me undressing, displaying my Daniel Craig-lookalike physique.
Whatever, the expression has now given rise to the so-called “fly on the wall documentary”, wherein the subjects go about their everyday business, apparently oblivious of the cameras. In other words, the cameraman and production team are effectively unnoticed, their presence, to all intents and purposes, like that of a fly on the wall.When you think the expression through, however, you realize how ridiculous it really is. As you can clearly observe from this photograph, if you were a fly on the wall, all you would actually see would be the wall, and nothing else. The fly would have to turn round in order to get a view of what’s behind him, and if he did, he’d fall off, as it’s only his feet that are sticky, not his back or wings.
A better expression, therefore, would be “an owl on the wall.” This is because an owl (assuming he could find some sort of perch, such as a picture frame or a light fitting) can turn his head round 360 degrees to see what’s going on behind him.
On the other hand, I suppose you might notice if, mid coitus, there were an owl on your wall, especially if he hooted (unless the sex session was especially noisy). And if you did notice him, I suppose he'd be easier to swat with a rolled up newspaper. That's the plus side.
On the distaff side, if owls managed to avoid being swatted and went on to displace flies on our walls, spiders would have to get a bit more proactive in terms of catching their prey, as I don’t imagine a conventional spider’s web would last long if an owl got caught in it. So they’d evolve to be giant hunter-killers, like that one in the film “Tarantula” with Leo G. Carroll. Which, in turn, would force governments to use the nuclear option to deal with the problem.
This could put people off sex completely. Who’d want to risk a Pershing Cruise Missile coming through their window at the moment of climax?
Cadmore End, Buckinghamshire.
According to official-looking signs displayed on lampposts hereabouts, if you allow your dog to crap in public and don’t then immediately pick up the resultant turd, you could be liable for a £1,000 fine and/or three months imprisonment. As I’m currently cat-sitting in deepest, rural Buckinghamshire and therefore don’t have the dogs with me, this isn’t an issue. What is and issue, however, is what the signs don’t say.
Having now examined the small print thoroughly, it seems that the law is aimed at dogs, and dogs only. Should I, myself, for example, wish to suddenly lower my pants and deposit a load on the pavement, they can’t touch me for it. Leastways, there's nothing on the signs to say they can. Likewise if I allow my horse to liberally defecate (and, judging by the mounds of horse shit that pile up round here every day, hundreds of people do). As for the result of the local farmer marching his cows from the field to the nearby milking sheds, the less said the better.
So why target dog shit in particular? Granted, it isn’t a pleasant experience accidentally stepping in the stuff. But it’s even less agreeable, surely, sinking up to your knees in a cow-pat or being on a bicycle immediately behind a shire horse when he lets one drop. Yet, in these instances, the local council seem totally impotent.This morning, just for research purposes, I went on a shit hunt. I wasn’t disappointed. Within 30 seconds walk from this house I must have counted at least 20 horse turds and three cow-pats. If the council applied the same rules to these animals as they do to dogs, they’d already be up £23K on the deal. So why don’t they?
I suppose official attitudes to the matter may date from the days when all transport was horse or bullock-based. Back in the medieval era, for example, while I don’t expect people were exactly overjoyed at having to deal with the aftermath of 1000 mounted men at arms riding through their village, they wouldn’t have thought it wise to complain too loudly, either. Shouting, “Oi, wanker! Your fucking horse has just shat on my front drive, you tin-plated tosser!” to a knight equipped with a long lance and a broadsword maybe wasn’t a good idea. Similarly, putting up signs saying “500 groat fine and/or beheading if your horse shits here” could have financially crippled any royal army marching through. Possibly this explains Richard the Lionheart’s failure to recapture Jerusalem during the Crusades: his army had been previously decimated by having to pay out all those horse-fouling fines. Today, therefore, mindful of this, and not wanting to be decapitated (and, equally, not wanting the Holy Land to fall back into the hands of the Heathen), council officials are still overly lenient with horse owners.It seems to me, then, that the only way to accord dogs equal status in the pooing stakes is to involve them in the transportation system, too. Mine are a bit small, but could, I suppose, at a pinch, give a ride to Austin Powers actor, Verne Troyer. And, of course, I could harness all three of them together into a team and possibly get them to pull me in a little cart. But in the meantime, if they do take a crap and someone from the council complains, I’ll say it was me, not them. As I said, there’s nothing on the sign prohibiting me from dumping in public.
Time was, an expensive hand-crafted watch was a status symbol, denoting great wealth and refinement. Ownership of, say, a Patek Philippe or a Rolex enhanced one's position in society. Beggars would happily line up to be kicked by such watch wearers, while women from all classes willingly dropped their knickers at the sight of the horological perfection of the timepiece's centre sweep second hand.
Sadly, however, this is no longer the case. Why? It is solely down to the malign influence of the Internet.
Every day, my e-mail inbox is full of Spam adverts promoting the virtues of replica watches which, it's claimed, are perfect in every detail, albeit at a fraction of the price of the genuine article. I've seen a few of these things fake Rolexes, Omegas, and so forth - and they are, aesthetically speaking, very, very good. Indeed, in many cases, unless you actually take the watch apart, it's impossible to tell the difference. As a result, the social cachet of owning the genuine article has been debased or negated entirely. These days, people won't even bother mugging you for one, assuming that your expensive watch is merely a cheap knock-off. In fact, I'm told that the Sultan of Brunei who, 20 years ago, purchased a diamond-studded Omega for about ten million pounds, now regularly has people coming up to him saying, "I'll give you five quid for that, mate." How annoying this must be.
But there could be worse to come. Having effectively rendered expensive watches apparently valueless, the Internet could soon do the same for sexual super-studs. I refer, of course, to all those "Give yourself an extra six inches" and "Make the bitch howl in orgasm all night" e-mails. If what they declare is truthful (and, given that the watch ads are, why shouldn't these be, too?), anyone can now effectively become an insatiable sex-machine. And if anyone can, how are women now to distinguish the genuine article from a cheap knock-off?
Gone, I suppose, are the days when, over dinner at an up-market restaurant, one could casually mention to a woman that one had a 12 inch dick and could go at it all night like an industrial-strength sewing machine, thus guaranteeing a shag. Today, she'd most likely say, "So what? Can't everyone?" (You can't even impress her with your degree certificates, either, because, nowadays you can get those over the Internet, too.) I suspect that, just as with watches, the only way to tell the difference between the fake and the genuine article is to take it apart. But I don't relish the idea of allowing a woman to take a scalpel to my penis merely in order to satisfy herself as to my bona fides. Yet, this may soon have to be incorporated as a regular feature of the sexual act.
I just thank the Lord that, if all else fails, I am still able to impress women with the quality of my cooking. But how long will it be before the junk e-mailers cotton on to this, as well, and start, and start promoting "Fantastic Replica Slavko Evening Meals" over the Internet?
I have seen the future, and it droops.
A typical replica Cartier
Why, I wonder, is the penis the only major human organ that expands and lengthens to any noticeable degree when we get excited? Surely, for example, when we're stimulated by the smells of cooking, our tongues ought to similarly lengthen and expand. Then we could flick them out and grab the food, lizard-like, from a distance.
Then again, I suppose, such an ability might have its downside, too. Lingual impotence is one condition that could arise. If, say, you were overly worried about how the food was going to taste, or whether you were going to be able to chew it properly, you might not be able get your tongue to expand at all. Then, I suppose the only satisfaction you'd be able to get would be by just thinking about food, while simultaneously rubbing your tongue along the roof of your mouth.
Maybe people - young people, especially - who dreamed a lot about food would wake up in the middle of the night with their tongues stuck to the ceiling. And, no doubt, first-time eaters, and those who'd been without food for a long time, though they would be able to get their tongues to expand, wouldn't be able to maintain that expansion for more than a couple of seconds. Thus they'd only be able to eat one tiny morsel.I suppose, given such a scenario, the world would divide into two groups. Predominant amongst them would be good, morally upright carnelinguals - those who ate meat. But there'd also be an alternative lifestyle sub-group called vegelinguals. They'd no doubt frequent salad bars in Old Compton Street, dress in distinctive leather outfits, and attempt to promote their perversion as being in some way "natural." And wives of apparent carnelinguals might discover that their husbands were actually bilingual and therefore swung both ways.
How humiliating for the poor women.
Today is Palm Sunday, when we commemorate Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, mounted on a donkey that a couple of His disciples had previously nicked from some bloke living in Bethphage, just up the road from the Mount of Olives (Matthew 21:2).
According to The New Testament version of events, when Jesus went through the city gate, the population called out, as one, "Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest." And so on and so forth, as you do. Simultaneously, they threw down palm fronds on the road before Him.
What the Bible doesn't tell us, however, is if they already had the palm fronds to hand, or whether they had to cut them down especially for the occasion.
The fact of the matter is, Succot aside, palm fronds are basically fuck all use for anything else except chucking down at the feet of Messiahs. Consequently, they're not the sorts of things you're going to keep in your store cupboard just on the off-chance that one is going to turn up. Usually, therefore, they have to be cut down, fresh, as and when required. And, as it would be uneconomic to keep professional palm frond harvesters on 24-hour Messiah Watch, you'd probably need to go out and do the job yourself as soon as any sort of Lamb of God made His presence known.
I imagine that, on the day, this would have caused quite a few logistical problems. Given that His donkey was stolen, Jesus must have been travelling at a fair lick in order to put as much distance between Himself and Bethphage as possible. So, people wanting to put palm fronds down before Him wouldn't have had the time to travel very far in order to gather the things. Rather, they'd have had to go for the ones immediately to hand, most likely those right outside the Eastern gates of the city.
The thing is, though, as I recall from the time when I lived there, while Jerusalem does indeed have palm trees outside its Eastern wall, there aren't that many of them (they'd probably undermine the foundations if there were). So on the first Palm Sunday, several thousand people shinning up and plucking, at most, a dozen and a half palm trees must have done a shitload of damage. I'd think that, by the time they'd harvested sufficient fronds to cover the distance between the Golden Gate and Jesus' ultimate destination, the Temple, there'd be fuck all left of the trees except for their trunks and maybe a few withered coconuts or palm olives.
Coconuts and palm olives are inherently dangerous. I'll bet that by exposing them in this way, it encouraged Jerusalemites to chuck rocks at them in order to bring them down and then sing stupid songs about having lovely bunches of the things. Which, given the inherent sexual innuendo elements of such songs, can't have gone down too well with either the Roman or Jewish authorities. Almost as dangerous are palm olives. The oil you get from them is extremely high in saturated fats. But the Jerusalemites of the time didn't know this. Doubtless they harvested them, turned them into what they believed were healthy spreads, and then died shortly afterwards from congestive heart failure. And all because of Jesus.
It's therefore not surprising that Jesus, rather than Barabbas, got crucified, is it? What is surprising is that it took them as long as a whole fucking after Palm Sunday week to get round to doing it.
Not good for palm trees