Anelka 'quenelle' celebration was reference to anti-Semitism, rules commission

Suspended West Brom striker Nicolas Anelka’s ‘quenelle’ goal celebration was a reference to anti-Semitism, according to the findings of an independent commission that banned him for five games.

But the commission did not find Anelka’s gesture as serious as Liverpool striker Luis Suarez's repeated racial abuse of Manchester United's Patrice Evra.

A 35-page report detailing the three-man panel’s judgment was published by the FA this afternoon.

The commission’s findings resulting in Anelka being suspended by the Baggies, banned for five games by the FA and fined £80,000.

While the commission said it was not satisfied that Anelka intended to "express or promote anti-Semitism by his use of the quenelle", its written reasons said it could not ‘divorce’ the quenelle from anti-Semitism.

The commission said Anelka's quenelle "did contain a reference to anti-Semitism" in that it is strongly associated with his friend, the French comedian Dieudonne.

The report read: "We further concluded that Dieudonne is strongly associated with anti-Semitism and, as a result, we found that the quenelle is strongly associated with anti- Semitism.

"We agreed with the FA that it is not possible to divorce that association from the gesture.

"When Nicolas Anelka performed the quenelle on the 28 December 2013, it had that association; it was strongly associated with and contained a reference to anti-Semitism."

The commission compared the case with Luis Suarez's eight-match ban for racially abusing Evra.

It said that Suarez’s multiple uses of the word “negro” made his offence more serious than Anelka’s one-off gesture.

It also revealed that the FA pushed for a longer ban for Anelka.

Both Anelka and the FA now have seven days to decide whether to appeal.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Comments for: "Anelka 'quenelle' celebration was reference to anti-Semitism, rules commission"

Jackett the Hat

There will still be some naive people out there who think he's innocent !

Jack the Hat

Jackett the Hat,

If you weren't so thick you would realize this is about justice not just about Anelka. Even some-one stupid can see the way this case has been conducted it isn't on the level. Thanks for your puny input.


We Only Need One Half!

Jackett, can you read?

CantelloRocket 78


The commission said they were 'not satisfied that Anelka intended to express or promote anti-semitism' - and as he claimed beforehand that he wasn't a racist, or didn't intend to offend anyone, then his claims appear justified-

what part of your yella and black shaded eyes, and green-tinted skin, didn't understand that....??

It appears nothing new has really come out of this - I've seen a picture of someone performing the 'gesture' outside a synagogue, and I've seen a video of students doing it outside a show in France, and shouting to the reporter that it was 'anti-establishment', because they're rebelling against the 'system'-

it's still all down to personal interpretation, and although I doubt if I'd personally want to even talk to this French 'Comedian', it's Anelka who's on trial, and if he's not happy with the verdict he can appeal against it should he wish to.

Jack the Hat


You may truly consider yourself stitched up by a Kangaroo court. No-one has evidence what the quenelle means, yet this court put its own spin on it. Local police halted my wife in our vehicle ( as there had been an R.T.A. ) with a full Nazi salute.

Now the F.A. can push on and bring Sol Campbell to book for really being racist, then we can all see proper justice done, as the evidence is in black and white.

Waiting with bated breath.


Maxwells Big Ommer

Explain why Campbell is a racist ?


Maxwell, if you can't see that, you'll never understand the answers mate.


Jack: defending the indefensible !!

I prefer your jibes at the Wolves my friend..


We Only Need One Half!

Don't fall into the trap Stokey, open your eyes.

p.s. you've just broken the rules about commenting on another teams boards, I am well aware you may not have realised what you were doing, and I have no evidence to prove you knew what you was doing, because its not recognised in any law, you can pay me nearly £250,000 if you wish in a attempt to prove your innocence, but never the less, you are guilty.

Not a nice feeling, is it?


WONOH: I get your point mate, but as with your clubs' official statement that it could not:

"ignore the offence that his actions have caused, particularly to the Jewish community, nor the potential damage to the club's reputation"

IMO Anelka has done a lot of damage to the Albion, and probably something you could have done without..

We will probably have to disagree on this one.


CantelloRocket 78


to be honest mate, I doubt if any of us are actually happy that this 'gesture' was made in the first place, and it HAS caused a fair amount of disruption - but the most fascinating part of it for me is seeing how a person is judged of an apparent 'offence' in this country, and how fairly they're treated-

TRBH was a Prison Officer for years, and no doubt came into contact every day with people who were adjudged to be guilty of offences-

but I wonder how many were accurately punished for what they were accused of? - did some get off 'lightly', whilst others could've ended up harshly sentenced?

We just have to hope that we ourselves don't one day end up facing a trial, because WE'LL know the truth, but those judging us will probably just be hazarding a guess.........


Stokewolf, Jack, Rocket, Wonoh. At least we have a judicial system in the UK which mostly tries to do justice. However, on one count it does not. How do you all feel when say a child murderer is given 10 years, knowing he'll do 6 or 7, BUT WE ARE HAPPY TO LET THE INMATES BEAT THE **** OUT OF HIM AS A FORM OF JUSTICE ?

On the Anelka front, I hope he just let's it go.

He DID the sign in front of millions. So that is clear. What he meant is unclear. If he had accepted a 5 match ban, he'd have been around £200K better off now. A form of poetic justice for overpaid egotists ?

That too is up for debate.

We Only Need One Half!

Stokey, thats fair enough, and you are entitled to your opinion, however, personally, I will never accept this charge has been proved.

Interesting reading all the British and Jewish press headlines reporting he got done bang to rights.

Then you look across the other side of the World and the Antipodeans see it like this-

Anelka 'did not promote anti-Semitism'

isn't Murdoch Australian? obviously still reeling from the phone hacking scandal, or him and his press may have shown more balls and stood up to the unstoppable (and seemingly untouchable) Jewish P.R. Department.

Jack the Hat


Your moderators obviously don't or they wouldn't keep binning my banter posts. You have decent preference although I say it myself. Have a word with your mods.



Jack, I would say they are the same moderators.. And I've tried when my posts are taken down, but never get any response, even though they have my email address..


Jack the Hat


Exactly mate, nail hit smack on the head, but some don't know about justice and have a go at us BAGGIES when not knowing the true implications of what has been done. They believe it is just about Anelka. Good job they aren't in the trenches with us as they wouldn't comprehend what they were fighting for.



Well I thought

"no let's sit and read it through again and again till we understand what they mean"

But it hasn't worked!!

Any ideas

We Only Need One Half!

The commission said Anelka's quenelle "did contain a reference to anti-Semitism" well why couldn't you find the evidence to support your case F.A.? where is it? you still have not provided any???

Moreover, if you truly believe what your spouting you could not possibly find Anelka actions did not "express or promote anti-Semitism by his use of the quenelle"

If your findings are followed through to their logical conclusion, anyone, anywhere can be guilty of anything regardless of intent, like opening a boiled egg at the wrong end because it offends some other nation/race. When Jonathan Swift wrote a fairy tale stating as much nearly 300 years ago, he was taking the mick. 300 years on, and your just as stupid has the different sects of Lilliputians who were willing to go to war over such matters.

I had previously said this report was delayed so it could be made to fit the 'crime' I see no reason why I should change that point of view.

F.A., (and Jackett) Lilliputians in a modern world.


yeah yeah blad de blah defending an old french racist yaaawwwnn

It will be 100 halfs before the steve clarke lookalike gets his first win and by that time you will have boinged down to the next level

We Only Need One Half!

Yeah like I told you before tatty, we could FALL into a level you dream of coming UP to, what are you not understanding? blah de blah, surely your not that dumb to understand that even when were crap, we are still so much better than are you?


the championship is a reality rather than a dream for us at this stage old bean

You have 4 winnable games coming up now is the time to show and prove please don't f it up and embarrass the black country

funny old world

tatmon, there's nothing quite as embarrassing as the local council bailing one out.


ancient history

In comparison to our recent demise ( and now startling brilliant re-emergence ) travelling a thousand miles to spain to pay a steve clarke look a like when in comparison we looked close to home and got terry connor in to oversee our capitulation is very bad by comparison

on top of that you get some over paid under achieving politicised old french guy for your attack when again we looked closer to home for our big time charlies.

Yours will be the greater embarrassment to the black country mate if you don't pull your socks up sharpish and at least get some wins from these next 4

its make or break time and yam sweatin like a rapist in a nunnery

Medway Baggie

Whether he meant it as an anti-semitic or an anti-establishment gesture only Anelka really knows. However I really would like those in the media to get their facts right before reporting, although I realise that if they did it wouldn't help their case any. Sky Sports News had a reporter who quoted that M'Bala had been convicted nine times on anti-semitic charges. He also said that the commission viewed a video of one of M'Bala's shows and found it anti-Semitic. Mmmm.

There is a famous phrase which states "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and it basically reminds us that there are at least two sides to every story. What I find funny someone else could find offensive. I, personally, do not like Roy "Chubby" Brown, but others find him hilarious. The past is littered with people who used comedy as a vehicle to change opinions, whether right or wrong.

I am not concerned whether Anelka is innocent or not, what concerns me is how justice seems to be playing second fiddle to pressure groups. I used to believe that if I was ever charged with something I didn't do then I stood every chance of being found innocent. History showed me that wouldn't necessary be the case and now pressure groups have been added to the mix.

I just hope that I never find myself in trouble with the law or religion.

Golf One Charlie Bravo Kilo

West Drayton Baggie

I read the whole report today and I thought it was handled very well. Angela didn't cover himself in glory but what he said seemed to ring true and the specialist professor they got in to defend him actually stitched him up a bit. Having said that the quenelle in its first instance mean 'up yours' or 'eff you' which means that Anelka was guilty on the first count. With Dieudonné's obvious anti Semitic stance it had obvious anti-Semitic connotations so he's guilty on the second count regardless of his understanding of the quenelle - they proved that Diedonné had a long history of antisemitism.

However, I think the commission showed integrity by taking Anelka at his word that it was a nod to his friend. In terms of the 5 match ban I think they got it spot on - the commission cited the Suarez case and terry case where they said that Suarez had committed 5 aggravated breaches within the Evra complaint and Anelka only breached the rules once. Also wasn't aiming his gesture at anyone, he has a clean record and has no history of racist behaviour. Using Suarez as a top end and Terry's 4 match ban as a 'low' marker (pre minimum 5 match ban) meant that Anelka's had to fit in the middle.

On a side note, seeing as the politicians are wading in to the debate to get their 'fair share' of the publicity where's the uproar about Israel firing rockets into Lebanon 2 weeks ago and killing Lebanese citizens? Where are the people standing up for the Palestinians being treated so unfairly by Israel? Seems to be a news black hole where that's concerned...weird.

No doubt Anelka was stupid to do what he did. No doubt he has caused offence. Who knows what was in his head? Can we just drop the whole thing now and move on to something else?

West Drayton Baggie

Apologies for the autocorrect on this 'ere iPad... I meant Anelka of course, not Angela (unless he's changed his name recently)...

We Only Need One Half!

Well thought out piece Drayton, I have just three questions.

When did it become an offence to associate with, and ergo be responsible for another persons actions (other than a minor) in England? are we all guilty by association of vandalism because of the Albion fans who daubed the Wolves training ground? or are all the Wulfies guilty of assault because some bricked a coach full of pensioners or attacked O'Hara?

Secondly, if the French are so outraged by the Quenelle, and have no ambiguity about its meaning, why have they never outlawed it like a Nazi salute is in France? or charged Dieudonne with that particular offence?

Do you not believe the English F.A. by bringing the worlds first charge for this "offence" have not some what over stepped their mandate, i.e. to govern English Football, whilst Countries in which it appears to actually mean something did/do nothing at all? Are the English F.A. now the worlds policeman?

What next? send Dyke to Ukraine to sort out their political problems?

West Drayton Baggie


If you can get to read the document I think it's well worth trawling through the jargon to see the commission's points being laid out.

The first rule basically asks whether the gesture could be construed as offensive. As it originally meant 'up yours' or 'eff you' they found him guilty. In the second instance they lay out a lot of examples of Dieudonne's act where he uses that gesture next to something anti-semitic or in the middle of a horrendously anti-semitic sketch (please read the document as it is very revealling!). Because the gesture has ties to anti-semitic comments and sketches performed by Dieudonne it therefore brings religion into the mix - it has offended Jewish people therefore it is an aggravated breach - it's fairly black and white in that respect (no pun intended). They are simple rules and can be interpreted that simply.

They go on to say other things too vast to mention on here but basically Anelka didn't aim the gesture at anyone and that he didn't mean to be anti-semitic. I think you can argue either way on this but for his first and only offence (unlike suarez) I think you have to look past media and political bluster and give him the benefit of the doubt, which they have done and handed him a 5 game ban. They also stated that he wasn't anti-semitic or intended to promote anti-semitism...again, benefit of the doubt.

How many of us here have been pulled over by the police for being slightly too fast on a road and they've let us off with a warning? It's not a perfect example but my illustration is that there has to be sense in situations and I think they've got it right. Hit him on the field and fine him off the field.

I can't speak for the French but they are a funny bunch aye they? ;)

I think the FA overstep their boundaries pretty much every week. They don't play fair and they do things to be seen to be doing them...I can't understand how Rooney escapes a ban for blatantly kicking another player and yet Bellamy gets banned? Too many of those issues going on. It's a corrupt organisation run by dinosaurs. But that's a topic for another day.

In all this I'd just like to see some parity. I get really angry (so much so that I've had to take a step back from watching our beloved WBA as it has been affecting me too much lately) with the biased decisions, the siding with cheats, the cheats themselves and the inability to police any of it fairly. I'd like video reviews - I think we'd be 11 points better off this season had we had a reviewing system. We've only got 1 point from the GDS - if we stay up by one point that'll be #250K JP won't be moaning about...

Sorry for the long post.

Praying for something golden on Saturday.




You don't have to pray to hard, Walsall will be "Golden" on Saturday..

You're more than welcome to come and join us :o)


We Only Need One Half!

Hi Drayton, and thanks for getting back to me, far too many on these boards these days make statements then do a runner when challenged, very rude.

Anyhow, I did read the official statement when it came out on the F.A.s site, is that the one you are referring too? (

I am guessing from the fact you mention reference to Dieudonne that it is not, has he is never mentioned in the official F.A. release above?

My problem is this-

2.a. In or around the 40th minute of the match he made a gesture (known as the ‘quenelle’) which was abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper, contrary to FA Rule E3(1);

Why is it abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper? Where is the evidence? where is the proof? has far as I can see this is opinion based only. It is not enough to simply state something, if The Commission claimed the sky is green, does this then become fact? course not.


b. That the misconduct was an "Aggravated Breach" as defined by FA Rule E3(2) in that it included a reference to ethnic origin and/or race and/or religion or belief.

Again, why is it abusive and/or indecent and/or insulting and/or improper? Where is the evidence? where is the proof? again, has far as I can see this is opinion based only.

and finally-

5. Charge 1 - the Regulatory Commission found this Charge proved.

Really? why? where is the explanation, where is the case law relied on to reach that conclusion?

I could go on Drayton why I believe this decision is wrong (Cyril has already become a francophile because of it, believing it is for the defence to prove its case, rather the English way which is the other way round)

so I will keep it brief.

Suffice to say, were this case to be presented in a real Court, where facts have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than just a laypersons opinion, I have no doubt it would fail. It has been, from start to finish, run (ironically) like a summary trial from 'The Terror' during the French Revolution. Perhaps that is why the C.P.S. or the Police are reluctant to touch it with a ten foot barge pole.

West Drayton Baggie

Hell again WONOH,

I read the official document and it goes into great detail of the genesis of the Quenelle. The watched video of Dieudonné talking about a dolphin's fin going 'this far' (quenelle) up someone's a*se. They then cite different sketches that they watched at the hearing where the quenelle was used within anti-semitic sketches. So on that basis I understand their ruling and how they reached their decision.

You and I aren't actually in disagreement...hence my comments about Israel attacking other countries.

I for one just want our name out of the mud.

We Only Need One Half!

Hi Drayton, you got a link so I can have a looksee?



West Drayton Baggie. A brilliantly presented argument and one which I feel comfortable with. Your last paragraph is perfect too.

We have a BIG match tomorrow. Anelka can't play. THAT is his punishment for us ! And we didn't do anything. BAN GESTURES and we can get on with playing and watching football. Now we're back to the FA again !

The Real Bully Hoo.


Very good and intelligent post.

The only thing I'd argue with is that you've fallen for the establishment version that Diuedonne is anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitic means that he hates Jews because they are Jews. This isn't the case and never has been.

Do you like Adolf Hitler and his cronies? I'd risk a hefty bet that the answer is no you feel a strong dislike for them. Therefore do you hate the German nation?

An extreme comparison I know but no less relevent for that.

In fact your point about Jewish actions that kill civilians in the Lebanon is an excellent one as this is what Diuedonne is against and the fact that the Zionist propaganda machine which is much more powerful than many on here would believe continually use the Holocaust to justify there own little holocaust. He is outspoken and controversial because that is the only way to get noticed and importantly he doesn't promote violent actions.

The commission have said.

Anelka didn't intend it as a racist gesture.

Anelka didn't intend to promote anti-semitism.

Nobody in France or the world has yet been able to convict Diuedonne of a crime of anti-semitism (strange that, considering they all keep saying he is anti-semitic, you'd think it would be easy.)

So what did he do? Apparently the gesture contained references to anti-semitism.

That's an awful lot of reference to put into a hand sign. Or is it just the FA hiding behind weasel words to cover their own embarrassment?

And Cyril. If they'd just charged him with making a controversial gesture and banned him for 5 games I'm fairly sure he would have accepted it. What they have done is branded him a racist and just like him I would be willing to spend all the money I could afford to fight anybody that besmirched my character in that way.

CantelloRocket 78


you've looked more closely into Diuedonne's 'clashes' with the French Authorities than most of us, so you have more insight as to what's been claimed, and what's actually happened-

it seems to me that issues can be twisted and stretched into whichever direction someone wishes to take them, and in this case a 'gesture' has been turned into the equivalent of a bowl of spaghetti by a multitude of personal opinions being voiced-

the player's been given judgement, both sides can appeal if they so wish, but most of us just want to put it behind us and move forward-

apart from this, I may know you personally, but in all honesty I still feel you've made an excellent post that I can't really add to, and would feel the same way whoever may have submitted it.



I've also watched clips of Dieudonne's shows, (albeit with English subtitles), and I'm interested in political comedy as a former performer. In one clip he was taking about 'the quenelle' and I was left with little doubt that it is a device to slate 'the status quo' from all kinds of angles.

I believe you and I share the same analysis; I can't claim to know if Dieudonne is anti-Semitic or not, but I do know I've read a lot of ''political propaganda'' on the subject with a clear agenda.

The Real Bully Hoo.

Hi Bob.

I'm not claiming to know that he isn't anti-semitic either but I've read and watched a lot and seen nothing that proves he is. It seems the FA couldn't either yet they've gone ahead anyway.


WDB: good post and well summarised..

Let's get on with the footy!!



I can't believe the support anelka is getting on here. He's as innocent as di canio was when he made his nazi salute in support of his favourite comedy character basil fawlty.

We Only Need One Half!

That comment just goes to show why this debate is way over your head.


The National Front draped themselves in the Union Flag & it very quickly became the 'racist thing to do!'....................But did it really mean that the flag was a racist flag? Should it have been banned from being flown? Should everyone have been labeled a racist for wearing it or flying it?..................Blind panic & fear can cause the most sane of people to come to the wrong conclusion.

We Only Need One Half!

Nice to know there are still some Englishmen left (apologies if you a separatist) who can still see what is justice and what is not.


A thoroughly confusing and unnecessary case.

The commission found that Anelka was not an anti Semite and yet his gesture is connected to it.....

If he had scored and then lifted his top to reveal a picture of this "comedian" as a "hello" gesture would he have been judged the same way because of that person's associations as an anti-Semite ? (I see the wearing of "slogans" under the football kit has also now been banned).

Bottom line is he should not have done it - the opportunity to level this charge was there and he knew it even if he didn't mean it and so I think the 5 game ban (the minimum possible) is about right.

I think the Albion have handled it well and retained our reputation as a fair, decent and honest football club.

Keep politics out of football - COYB !!!!!!

The Real Bully Hoo.

One last point (I wish.)

The FA obviously have extremely strong feelings about the quenelle as they were calling for a longer ban.

Yet there is still no news of when they are taking action against Nasri and Sakho. If it was such and obvious and heinous offence surely they should be pursued as well.

And why aren't the Public Prosecution Service bringing a charge against Anelka? I remember a female Wolves fan with great legal knowledge ridiculing me and telling me on here that that they most certainly would as it was such a watertight case. Well Mrs Perry Mason we're still waiting for that as well. Perhaps it's because it's a trumped up case built on sandy ground with no foundation.


Gentlemen, we have argued this from every standpoint. Now we have a picture showing Anelka with Dieudonné making the same salute AT A RACIST ANTI-SEMITIC gathering ! Whoops !

We Only Need One Half!

Cyril, the photo has been doing the rounds since all this started, I am only surprised you have never seen it before. Can you tell me where this RACIST ANTI-SEMITIC gathering was? I was under the impression it was just two friends having a photo taken, not a mini reenactment of the Nuremberg rallies.

p.s. in answer to your earlier question, no I do not agree with other prisoners meting out their own 'justice' I have always thought it was just scum attempting to make their selves feel better than other scum. If you truly believe in justice, you could never support such actions. We either have law or we don't, there are no half way houses on this one.


Wonoh, I read this article carefully and I had not seen that picture before. If the article, which has not got a 'comments' column, is absolutely true, then Anelka is guilty without any doubt whatsoever.

If the articles is NOT true, then he would be well within his rights to sue.

My own reaction is, to even associate with this noxious 'comedian' Dieudonné leaves Anelka open to any interpretation one might wish to have. Then Anelka says, he only met him once !

Sorry Wonoh, you have backed him from day one but not convinced me. You can have my share. All of it.

We Only Need One Half!

Cyril, ok, but if I follow your logic, does that mean I can no longer like Mel Brooks (one of my favourite Directors) a Jew, because he has mercilessly ripped the p*** out of every faith from Catholics to Protestants, and by my own admission if ever I had the honour to meet the guy would gladly shake his hand, would that mean I am anti the several faiths he has ridiculed?

May I suggest Cyril (respectfully) you have a read of The Trial, by Franz Kafka, then see if it changes your point of view, the similarities are uncanny. If you don't have the time there is an excellent, short review here.


Ha,ha, Cyril, c'mon, if he'd have gone to watch the 'Life of Brian' 35yrs ago, you & the FA would probably have burnt him at the stake.

We Only Need One Half!

Would that be the same one who couldn't provide any case law, despite (allegedly) working in the Legal Profession?

Never mind the C.P.S. not bringing charges, why have the F.A. not appealed it? Dyke has been telling any publication that would print his words that the sentence was to lenient, so why now that they have the option to appeal are they backing down? Its not like it cost them 1/4 of a Million just to try and prove they were right, is it?

We Only Need One Half!

Sorry, that last reply was for Bully's earlier comments.

The Real Bully Hoo.


If it had been a racist anti-semitic gathering rest assured in the knowledge that he would be in prison now as the French Government have been trying to do this from day one.

Ani-Zionist and anti-semitic are different things whether in caps or not. One means fighting the Jewish state using it's power against others whether this be physically or in other ways. The other means to hate Jewish people. Disagreeing with what America does with it's power is different to hating all Americans.


Maybe when that meeting took place the 'sign' was new, hadn't gathered any significance and to jail someone for a sign or meeting of 6 years back was a step too far ? I do know the difference between Zion and Jew and certainly the former's influence outweighs the size of the country. However, if England were surrounded by a religion hell bent on destroying us, I too might forget I'm a Peace-Lover and always be prepared for war. My creed is, if you are taking me down, then you sods are coming with me ! No winners. All losers.

The Real Bully Hoo.

Morning Cyril.

It's got nothing to do with when the photo was taken, anti-semitism is a criminal offence in France. That means if he'd been proved to be anti-semitic he would have been convicted for it but the fact remains that he hasn't because there is no proof that he is In a democracy you still can't be found guilty of an offence because some people think you are. Unless you're Nicolas Anelka apparently.

As for Israel. There is some substance in your point but two wrongs don't make a right. How would you feel if you were an innocent law abiding man whose family had just been wiped out, to be told, 'we're justified because our country is surrounded by enemies.' A bit P'd off I should think, I know I would.


Hmm, strange there is no reply option for the 'Anelka found guilty of attending anti semitic show' story isn't it? But as it was decided that it was anti semitic by an 'FA commission', then it must be true of course! ha,ha, "Yes, it may look like a duck, walk like a duck & quack like a duck, but we have decided it is a potato!"............

CantelloRocket 78


I ignore all TV adverts because they present - before your very eyes - what they want you to gullibly swallow-

governments, authorities, religions, and the establishment are 'whiter than white', they lead by perfect example, and tell you how to behave, and if you don't fall in line, you must be severely punished, because they're all angelic and behave impeccably-

if you don't believe this, you can make a gesture to 'em that indicates they're all a bunch of puddings-

but however they decide to punish you, the spin doctors will no doubt go about their work........

Now I've got a game to go to.....