Random News Stories

[Leo Enticknap]

So much so that the British government (in the form of its nationalized healthcare service) now offers official advice on how to stick a foreign object up your bum: "The NHS advises that anyone exploring anal play do so safely ... " !

They could do a public information film about that, on the lines of this one...

[Randy Stankey]

With cases of objects getting stuck in rectum rising in Britain researchers have speculated increasing use of internet porn and access to sex toys, may be to blame.

The real cause is that people who live in places or in social groups that sexually repress people, they have no socially acceptable way of expressing themselves.

That causes people to do things in secret that they would never do, otherwise.

If that guy had been able to say something, to somebody he trusts:

"Hey, I hear that some people like it when..."

The other person might have been able to reply, "Yes, I heard that too but you'd better be careful or you'll end up in the hospital!"

This whole thing never would have happened. Instead you've got people running off and doing weird things in secret. Then, when something weird happens, it ends up in the newspapers and the person gets publicly shamed.

Yeah, we can watch movies and TV shows where dozens of people are mowed down by machine gun fire but video about a big-breasted woman in a leather bodysuit, shoving a dildo up a guys bum is taboo.

That's why stuff like this happens!

[Leo Enticknap]

I bet the porno flick Ms. Duffany was busted for playing didn't include this (from the Daily Wail - where else?!):

Doctors pull out a WATER BOTTLE from constipated Iranian man's bum after 50-year-old's clueless wife took him to hospital

An Iranian man needed a seven-and-half inch (19cm) water bottle yanked out of his anus.

The constipated 50-year-old, who wasn't named, was so scared of his wife's reaction he delayed seeking help for three days.

She had taken him to hospital because she was concerned about his lack of eating, abdominal pain and inability to go to the toilet.

But the man didn't tell doctors that it was because he had a 250ml bottle inside him. It was only spotted when he was sent for a CT scan.

Writing in the journal Clinical Case Reports, they said he didn't want to reveal he had inserted the object inside himself due to 'embarrassment and fear of his wife'.

He had pushed the bottom of the bottle in first, so he would be able to pull it out by gripping the top.

But he was unable to extract the item, leaving the plastic bottle lodged deep inside his large intestine.

Medics at the Imam Khomeini Hospital in Sari did not say if the man explained why he had shoved the bottle inside him.

Although, they noted sexual gratification was usually behind such insertions.

The man, who had a history of depression, was immediately rushed for surgery and given anaesthesia to knock him out and relax his sphincter.

Surgeons then 'carefully and slowly' dragged the bottle back out of his anus. There was no rupture or bleeding.

Follow-up tests found no evidence the bottle had caused him any internal injuries, or perforation to his lower intestine.

Objects inserted into the rectum can potentially perforate the bowel, which can be deadly if material from the digestive tract seeps out.

But after three more days in hospital the man was discharged and also referred to a psychiatric clinic.

One month after his ordeal, the man reportedly has suffered no further problems or had any trouble with his bowel movements.

Discussing the issue of rectal insertions generally, the medics noted that most cases where men get objects stuck inside their rectums are men between the ages of 30 and 40.

They added that items such as light bulbs, bottles, truncheons, body spray cans, and turkey basters had all been previously reported as being found lodged in patient's backsides.

NHS doctors are no stranger to dealing with similar incidents, with data analysis last year finding about 400 'foreign' objects are pulled from English anuses each year.

This was estimated to cost the taxpayer roughly £340,000 a year for things like drugs for performing procedures, and the manpower of NHS staff.

People most commonly shove objects into their rectum for sexual pleasure.

This is partly to do with the number of nerves in the anus making it highly sensitive, and for men it can also stimulate the prostate, an erogenous part of the male reproductive system.

For women it can also indirectly stimulate parts of the vagina.

With cases of objects getting stuck in rectum rising in Britain researchers have speculated increasing use of internet porn and access to sex toys, may be to blame.

The NHS advises that anyone exploring anal play do so safely and use an object with a flared base to prevent it from getting lost inside.

Other reasons for inserting objects into rectums, such as attempting to self-treat constipation or due to psychological disorders, have also been recorded.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Wow! Thanks Jim for all the info on that... Very interesting stuff and the complete article too. The investigating Sargent's last name fits the scheme of things perfectly!

[Jim Cassedy]

☞ Accidental Post- Moderator Please Delete !
("sometimes the mouse is quicker than the mind")

[Jim Cassedy]

Not sure what this was all about... There must be more to the story...

YES, Mark- - there IS more to the story.
That old news clip only showed the first paragraph.
Now, (to quote the late Paul Harvey) "Here's the rest of the story" :
ProjectionistArrest.jpg

I can't seem to pin down the exact date of the news clip, but there's circumstantial evidence
that places it in the 1969-1971 time frame. The "New Follies Theater" on 16th St @ Valencia,
was under construction and partially collapsed during the 1906 SF Earthquake. It eventually
opened in late 1907 as "The 16th St Theater". It was initially a vaudeville house, but after a
change of management and the addition of film shows around 1913, the name was changed
to "The Victoria Theater" and it operated under that name for many years, showing mainly
2nd & 3rd run movies, until 1964 when it changed to a policy of 'burlesque & girlie shows'.
and became "The New Follies" theater that's mentioned in the newspaper story;

An Undated Photo From Some Time In The 1960's
Victoria_1.jpg

The Valencia Side Of The Building - When It Was Still The New Follies
Victoria_2.jpg

The Building Still Stands, And Has Changed Its' Name Back To "The Victoria Theater" It's Been
Mostly Restored (Even Those Old Ads Painted On the Building Have Been Re-Done & Saved!)
In Fact, This Entire Block Looks Almost Exactly The Same Now, As It Did In The Late 1900's .
I Used To Pass This Place Ofen On My Way To Work At Dolby's Screening Room Nearby On Potrero St
Victoria_3.jpg

It operated as a soft-core porno flick & "girlie show" venue until 1976. It was almost demolished before before
being saved & restored by a couple of investors and re-opening in 1978. It's currently a "rental house' that hosts
a variety of live local stage & film events. (although I've heard the projection facilities there are somewhat
lacking. Last month they were hosting a film festival & had some sort of a major break-down, causing them to
move several of the programs to other theaters, including one I work at : "The New Mission" (built 1916) )

[ Photos from SF Public Library Online Collection / Historical Info from various sources, many of them
quoting material provided by SF Theater History Expert Jack Tillmany. ]

> Bonus Trivia: The Victoria was one of several San Francisco Theaters that held special performances
for the benefit of widows & orphans of The Titanic disaster in 1912. (I wonder if "Titanic" ever played here?)

[Marcel Birgelen]

I've flown Ryanair before that incident quite a few times without any major incident, but around that incident, I was mostly done with them because of the many shenanigans, like charging absurd amounts of overage for a few pounds extra luggage or charging you like 5 to 10 times the cost of the actual ticket for making changes to a booking. I decided that Ryanair wasn't really suitable for business travel and if you counted for all those little extra costs and frustrations, there was already little motivation to do business with them.

I guess ever since, many other airlines adopted similar practices in order to compete with the low cost carriers. Still. of all the low cost carriers around here in Europe, they're probably the most customer hostile and are seemingly proud of it and customers are still "digging it" as long as it's "cheap"...

[Leo Enticknap]

My last Ryanair experience was in 2001, visiting Trier, for which, ironically "Frankfurt Hahn" airport (as Ryanair called it) was ideally situated (much less so if one is actually trying to get to Frankfurt, which is about two hours' bus ride away). It was ridiculously cheap, including the car rental at Hahn for the short drive into Trier. I guess I must have gotten lucky, because both flights were on time, nothing got caught in any control surfaces, and I'm still here to tell the tale (but not in the form of whining to the Daily Mail that I had to sleep on the floor of an airport terminal for three nights). The only real reason I didn't fly with them between then and when I emigrated is that Ryanair didn't go anywhere I needed to go when I needed to go there.

I'm with you on the height issue, being 199cm tall and with disproportionately long legs. For flights of 1-2 hours or less I can put up with Ryanair/Southwest seat pitches, but longer than that I have to bite the bullet and pay extra for an exit row seat, or else I'm aching all over for days afterwards.

Not sure what this was all about... There must be more to the story...

The more I'd like to know is what the "allegedly obscene film" was. Given the "lady projectionist" description, I'm guessing that this report is from the 1960s at the absolute latest, and likely earlier.

[Marcel Birgelen]

Ryanair's MO is to apply the principle that no publicity is bad publicity. The airline's high profile CEO, Michael O'Leary, has in the past made public comments advocating charging passengers extra to use the restroom on planes, boasting that they have the smallest legally permissible seat pitch, and that he doesn't hire "aerosexuals" as pilots.

My last flight ever on an Ryanair plane took place more than 10 years ago. I saw some piece that looked like a rubber band sticking out between the aileron and the outer flaps, something that most definitely isn't supposed to be there during flight. I told a stewardess and she bluntly told me, that if there would've been anything wrong with the plane, the captain would surely not take off with it and I should not not dare to start a panic. Keep in mind that this was a spot that was possibly not visible from the cockpit and probably also not from below, so it may easily have overlooked during one of those breakneck go-arounds Ryanair usually stages.

I guess, out of principle, I should've left the plane right there, but the urge to get home, after countless of delays was bigger, so I kept silent... We made our way to the runway and the piece actually fell-off during take-off, probably landing on the tarmac.

It was clear to me that the left aileron was stuck and just after take-off the captain called that we would be returning to the airport, due to a "minor control problem" with the aircraft. After we got back on the ground, I went back to that same stewardess. I only looked her in the eyes, left the goddamn plane, bought a ticket for another flight on an other airplane and have since never ever flown with Ryanair and don't plan on flying with them ever again.

In the end, Ryanair is mostly false-advertising anyway. They try to hide additional costs wherever they can and try to upsell you overpriced stuff whenever possible. They mislabel their destinations, like "Barcelona" (which is in Girona) or "Brussels South" (which is in Charleroi), but the truth is, you're often more than 2 hours away from the actual center of that city.

Like I indicated, I haven't flown with them for ages, but most of their staff usually looked tired, overworked and was generally just rude. For someone like me, with quite some long legs, their seats always have been a horror show, with literally NO place to put them. And dare to try to sleep on their flights, because you'll be awoken regularly by advertizements for their lottery blaring through the speakers at maximum volume. Yeah, there is cattle that gets a better experience during transport than you get with Ryanair...

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

Not sure what this was all about... There must be more to the story...

[Leo Enticknap]

Ryanair's MO is to apply the principle that no publicity is bad publicity. The airline's high profile CEO, Michael O'Leary, has in the past made public comments advocating charging passengers extra to use the restroom on planes, boasting that they have the smallest legally permissible seat pitch, and that he doesn't hire "aerosexuals" as pilots.

If I had to guess, I would agree with Marcel. Relatives who work in civil aviation tell me that airlines sorely resent being made responsible for checking that passengers are legally entitled to enter the country they're flying to, and subjected to heavy fines if they get it wrong: the airline industry's position is that this is a job for national governments, not them. So a publicity stunt designed to draw attention to this is just the sort of thing that Ryanair would do, and mixing in a little of the race card with that (as you point out, the Afrikaans language is strongly associated with Apartheid in popular culture; in some ways unfairly) would simply make it that much more effective, from Ryanair's perspective.

[Frank Cox]

It's my understanding that Afrikaans is a language spoken mostly by white South Africans. So maybe this is a back-door way of saying that we don't want any of those pesky black people riding on our planes?

[Leo Enticknap]

Yes; governments essentially try to pass the costs of immigration enforcement on to airlines, by, as you say, fining them up the wazoo if they land someone who is not legally eligible to enter, and requiring the airline to fly them out again. It's just possible that Ryanair came up with this stunt as a form of protest against that, but I suspect it's just Ryanair being Ryanair.

As for the biometric angle, if the system is corrupt enough that an official can be paid off to program a legitimate chipped passport with phony details, then that solves that problem. Although several generations earlier and long before biometric chips existed, that is the premise of Frederick Forsyth's novel The Odessa File: a low-level processing official in a passport-issuing center identified a weak spot in the bureaucratic process and was able to steal genuine, but blank passports, which were then used to help ex-Nazi war criminals escape from Germany.

And as for Ryanair, I suppose a linguistically skilled Afrikaaner could answer the questionnaire in Irish Gaelic, and ask the gate agent to verify that (s)he understood the answers, just to prove that Ryanair really is an Irish airline!

[Marcel Birgelen]

Afrikaans is a pretty funny language. It's essentially a very old version of Dutch, with some random English thrown in here and there. It should be pretty well understandable for anybody that can read Dutch. Understanding the spoken form may be more of a challenge though.

Getting back to the idea of this entire test itself... Heck, who comes up with something like this? Making your chances of immigration into a certain country dependent on how you score at the latest local Pub Quiz surely sounds "legit"...

The reason they're employing such half-assed solutions is probably, because they'll get fined for every passenger they deliver to port that turns out to be illegal or lacking the proper papers. Otherwise, why should they bother about a problem that should be an immigrations and/or customs issue?

It seems that South Africa started to implement biometric passports more than 12 years ago. Given the fact that most passports expire within either 5 or 10 years and many countries require biometric passports for express entry or express-visa procedures, most traveling with an SA passport will probably have an NFC chip in there, which will be VERY HARD to fake... I guess Ryanair could solve their problems by investing a bit of money into biometric passport readers at the gate. Maybe this, or they should really turn this into an in-flight Pub Quiz, with LOTS of Irish beer...

[Leo Enticknap]

From metro.co.uk:

Ryanair forcing South Africans to do Afrikaans tests to prove passports are real

South Africans have said being forced to take tests in Afrikaans to verify their passports is ‘discrimination’.

Multiple South Africans have recently had to answer general knowledge questions in Afrikaans to enter the UK or Ireland, despite this not being a rule officially enforced by either country.

The seemingly new policy is Ryanair’s effort to combat a ‘high prevalence in fraudulent South African passports’, the airline told Metro.co.uk.

It comes after government officials were arrested for allegedly running an illegal operation to sell fake passports for £258 (R5,000).

Afrikaans is just one of the country’s 11 official languages and is spoken daily by about 14% of the population.

Dinesh Joseph, 45, who speaks English, told Metro.co.uk the test felt like ‘profiling and discrimination’.

His flight from Gatwick to Lanzarote, in the Canary Islands, on May 18 went smoothly but he ran into problems when he tried to return home in north west London on May 22.

He said he was told ‘this is your language’ when he asked for a form in English.

Dinesh ended up using Google Translate to complete the test and he managed to make his flight but said it was ‘an awful experience’.

Some were not as lucky, including Catherine Bronze, 49, and her 11-year-old son Kolby who were not allowed to to get onto their flight to go back to their home in Essex.

When Catherine got to the Ryanair check-in desk at West Knock Airport in Ireland on May 22, she was handed the same Afrikaans test.

She explained she did not speak Afrikaans, but was reportedly told to ‘try her best’.

When the English-speaking mum got some of the questions wrong, she and Kolby were denied boarding passes.

They were only able to get home without doing a test after Catherine’s husband, who has a British passport, came to fetch his family and travelled with them from Dublin Airport two days later.

Catherine, who is a ‘nervous traveller at the best of times’, said: ‘It was the first time I felt like I was being discriminated against for something out of my control – because it was immediately assumed that my passport was wrong.

Similarly, Petronia Reddy, 36, was told she could not fly from Stansted Airport to Dublin to spend the bank holiday weekend with her friend – because she got some ‘basic questions wrong’ in the test.

Petronia also told Ryanair staff she does not speak Afrikaans but claims she was told: ‘The test is only available in Afrikaans and if you can’t provide the answers, it proves you’re not South African.’

She tried her best but could not understand all the questions and was barred from boarding the plane on Wednesday.

Petronia stood her ground and eventually convinced a supervisor to let her onto the next scheduled flight, as she had missed her original flight by this point.

But Petronia stressed the issue is not just about the inconvenience, but the ‘trauma Afrikaans brings up for a lot of South Africans’ for its role in the country’s racist apartheid history.

One of the biggest anti-apartheid catalysts was the Soweto Uprising on June 16 in 1974 – when young people protested against, among other things, a new rule forcing students of colour to take classes and exams in Afrikaans.

Petronia said: ‘I was getting really emotional because of our history. As a brown person, these things happen more often than they should.’

Petronia’s Xhosa-speaking friend, who does not want to be named, said she was ‘horrified and shaken as a black woman from South Africa’ when she was forced to do Ryanair’s Afrikaans test.

Both British and Irish governments confirmed to Metro.co.uk that the test is not part of either of their border policies.

Ireland’s department of foreign affairs said: ‘South African citizens are not required to do a test in Afrikaans before boarding a flight to or from Ireland.’

Ryanair said in a statement: ‘Due to the high prevalence of fraudulent South African passports, we require passengers travelling to the UK to fill out a simple questionnaire issued in Afrikaans.

‘If they are unable to complete this questionnaire, they will be refused travel and issued with a full refund.’

The airline has not responded to any other questions.

afrikaans_1.JPG
afrikaans_2.JPG

Do you think that if I proved to the gate agent that I could recite the lyrics to I've Never Met a Nice South African from memory, that they'd let me on the plane?!

This is beyond stupid, even judged by Ryanair's standards. Thanks to having dated a South African lady in the distant past, I picked up a bit of the language. I was able to understand all of the questions, and answer all but three correctly (the international dialing code, the President - I thought it was still Jacob Zuma - and the name of the highest mountain; I bet there are many legitimate citizens of many countries who could not answer that question in respect of their own nation correctly). So even if I did have a phony passport, I'd probably have gotten through. And of course the language is so similar to Dutch that anyone who is even tourist level proficient in that language would likely have little difficulty with this test, too.