I know jokes about anal penetration are nothing new around here, but I'm hoping i've done something slightly original by putting a political slant on my sodomy joke.

51179

Repeal, dammnit, repeal!

Here's an old one of mine.

23086

Clause 28 is now repealed in Scotland, by the way.

Damn you Scottish. Always one step ahead.

Enlighten me. Clause 28?

-DH1, Stupid American(tm)

A bizarre piece of law banning "The Promotion of Homosexuality" by schools etc. Which was all a little bizarre, as no school anywhere, even in the more loony left constituencies was going to try to persuade its youngsters to 'bat for the other side'. All it did was make it very difficult for teachers to deal with the issue of homosexuality, and yet it has stuck for a hell of a long time.

To be honest, I'm not even sure whether it still exists in England. Blair's government tried to force the repeal of the clause past the Lords so many times, it eventually stopped making the news. Same with the equalisation of the age of consent.

Still, I thought it provided a good basis for a strip.

Specifically:

quote:

---

28. - 2A (1) A local authority shall not -
(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship

---

A mildly amusing site on the subject

That's just sick and gross.

The site or the strip? I liked the site. It mocked Ol' Mags.

I figure that it was a cleverly-created ploy to cover up their longing for that hot wooly sheep lovin'.

Yeah. That's it!

Then I guess the sheep gave 'em all the clap, so there you go.

-DH1

DH-01 - That was funny

Tom - The strip.

Moo117: If you find sodomy distasteful, I suggest you don't look at any other strips on this site. There are too many butt-rape 'jokes' to mention. Especially involving donkeys.

Actually it was hilarious. Just a bad mental picture.

On a related side note which i find very funny.

While Brian Soutar bankrolled the Keep the Clause campaign , the stock market came to the conclusion that he and his business partner Ann Gloag werent keeping their eye on the ball financially.

And his company lost 83% of its value in the space of 14 months.

Soutars stake in Stagecoach was at one points , approaching £400 million

Today , it stands at £38 million.

\o/

If you're happy and you know it, wear a dress and pretend you're Margaret Thatcher.

...it's what he does!

(Stolen from D*A*A*S)

The House of Lords is the piece of governmental nonsense that should be scrapped. What an utter load of monarchist garbage that thing is. "This law will not be repealed, because a bunch of chinless, inbred born-rich wankers say so." There's democracy at work...

At least the Lords have their uses in preventing some of the excesses of the government. The second house is needed, but it should be elected, not made up of accidents of birth, and people in favour with politicians.

The two houses of the Australian federal government (and state governments) are a combination of the UK and US models. We are basically a Westminster system, so we have the lower house, the House of Representatives, but the House of Lords has been replaced with the the upper house, the Senate, as per the US. The House of Reps has seats allocated by population - each seat represents about 80,000 people. The Senate is allocated independent of population, and was done so to make sure the less populous states were not being constantly overruled by the more populous ones. Both are elected directly buy the people of Australia.

If I remember my separation of powers correctly, the House of Reps is executive, and the Senate is legislative. Any prospective law can be proposed by either house (thought it is usually the lower house which starts them off) but must pass successfully through both to become law. Whichever party holds a majority of seats in the lower house is the government, and the second-place holder is the opposition. The leader of the government is the Prime Minister.

What usually happens is that the government suggests legislation in parliament, gets it through the lower house because they hold a majority, and then has to compromise endlessly to get it through the upper house, because it is very rarely controlled by the government. A party that controls both the senate and the house of reps can do pretty much whatever it likes.

That's Australian Government 101. Hope you enjoyed it.

Well, that's better than what we have here. What we really need to do is replace the Lords with a second house whose members are chosen from the public in a kind of 'jury duty' like system. Then we'll be closer to having an actually, rather than nominally, democratic governing system.

Unfortunately, I don't forsee it happening any time soon.

Had to put my two cents in.

35837

Direct from Texas, The state where you can not buy a dildo unless you state it is for educational purposes.

The comic was funny, although the very last text box (virgin anus) wasn't necesary. The joke would be stronger without I think.

I know this is probably a little late and the discussion is pretty much over, but I just read it because I was bored and had to make a correction. The separation of powers doesn't exist between the Senate and the House. They both weild legislative power. The only way they have to check each other is with the rule of majority. The President is the sole wielder of the executive power and can veto any bill, but that veto can be overturned by another majority of vote by the Senate and House of Reps. And of course, the jury is judicial completing the wonderful triad and keeping 3 as one of the sacred symbolic numbers. That's the wonderful US legal system of checks and balances. Huzzah!

...except that I was talking about the Australian federal government. We don't have a President over here.

quote:

---

Well, that's better than what we have here. What we really need to do is replace the Lords with a second house whose members are chosen from the public in a kind of 'jury duty' like system. Then we'll be closer to having an actually, rather than nominally, democratic governing system.

---

The House of Lords tastes like poo.

Yeah, I guess it probably would have helped if I had opened my eyes and read the part that said "Australian Government 101". Now watch as I take one o' the world's most dangerous snakes and shove it in me knickas! Blah.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well, that's better than what we have here. What we really need to do is replace the Lords with a second house whose members are chosen from the public in a kind of 'jury duty' like system. Then we'll be closer to having an actually, rather than nominally, democratic governing system.

---

It'd probably be a step in the right direction. However, beware of allowing people to make decisions they're not qualified to. If Scotland was a direct democracy, we would still have Clause 28, just because the majority of the electorate had no idea what they were actually voting on.
Prepositions are words I like to end sentences with.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps then a meritocratic house would be better, with members of the public/pillars of industry/whatever being nominated as a reward for good works. A chance to actually serve the country would be better to most people than an OBE, I'm sure. Except perhaps the lazy ones.

---