Hurrah!

Paris Hilton's Grandfather is to give 97% of his $2.3-billion net worth to the charity foundation started by his father.

Paris is going to have a rather smaller inheritance, maybe she'll even have to get a job - and more than for about ten seconds in The Simple Life.

Although apparently she has "built her own moneymaking empire with a popular TV reality show, movie cameos and a hit single, plus appearances shilling perfume, burgers, books and canned champagne." Los Angeles Times...

There is no word on what Miss Hilton thinks of this generous act by her grandfather.

I think she should follow his lead and start doing more for charity and more than just going to a charity ball, I'd really like to see her get her hands dirty.

But maybe that's the morality films talking again...

Something pongs...

I am going to scream if I see another celebrity perfume!

Though it's Christmas now so I might be safe.

Why does anyone think that I want to smell like Sarah Jessica Parker, Kate Moss or even Kylie - and I used to kind of like Kylie Minogue...

And Nicole, I think you're great but I see that damn Chanel ad one more time..!

Why would I buy a celebrity perfume?

What do celebrities knonw about perfume?

Apart from how to put it on...

I put on perfume that doesn't mean I can design a sodding fragrance!

Ok, I'm obviously more pissed off about this than I realised.

I don't even use much perfume I keep my bottles for years, ok maybe that was giving away too much.

Thankfully no one bought me any, the only smelly thing I have is a Lush box.

And no I don't buy B's perfumes, though I have been tempted by Lady Boy - and that's not advertised.

Funny that.

Christmas viewing

There is something about Christmas that makes me suspend my gag reflex.

I've been watching endless amounts of Christmas movies (ok one of them was Die Hard) and I'll probably be watching more.

Now while I can stifle the sickness invoked by the very forced heart warmingness I find the moralising a bit much.

Perhaps it's because I'm feeling a bit vulnerable at Christmas.

All the Oxfam ads and charity appeals is making me question my own lack of scroogeness.

Apart from Christmas cards I haven't bought any ethical or charity gifts, despite doing an article on them.

One of my friends is buying nothing but charity gifts this year, but I will gladly bow out and say she is a better person than me.

But does that leave me being good enough I wonder...

Well if I get a visit from my dead gran and three spirits I guess I'll know for sure.

Time to bolt your food.

It has been revealed in the paper today that McDonalds will be setting a time limit on its drive-in customers.

They have already slapped a fine on a man that took one hour in their car park finishing off his coffee and donut.

I could maybe understand if people were staying in the car park for three or four hours.

But one hour, that's a standard lunch break.

I've never liked McDonalds, except for when I was a kid and I couldn't understand why my mum wouldn't let me go there, but this puts the nail in the coffin.

I eat slowly and I doubt that I'm the only one.

A £125 premium on eating slowly is ridiculous.

Although perhaps it tastes better if you eat it fast.

Are you a paedophobe?

Finally a think tank that has thought some sense!

The Institute for Public Policy Research have suggested that we rethink ASBOs.

They are concerned that we are becoming a nation of Paedophobics - afraid of our young people.

The ASBO culture has been concerning me for a while.

I have two younger brothers and they have a friend that is frequently round our house who is in his teens.

And yes he's a bit of a tear away, but he's got better.

And you know what?

He's got better on his own, no one had to smack an ASBO on him he simply grew up.

But even at his worst he wasn't really dangerous.

Yet he's just the kind of kid I can see being slapped by an ASBO because he's gobby and troublesome.

My own brother has twice fallen victim of the trap of not looking 'desirable'.

He's been chucked out of Woolworths because he looked like he might, might, shoplift.

My brother has never shoplifted in his life.

On another occasion he was searched at the tube station.

Now he doesn't like going to Woolworths and has a suspicious view of the police.

Nice move there authority types.

The best broken dog collar

The Arch Bishop of York has cut up his dog collar in protest.

He has sworn that he will not wear one again until Robert Mugabe leaves office.

I have to say if I had a dog collar I'd do exactly the same thing.

Maybe I could cut up my bra, no wait that's been done hasn't it.

Well I'll just stand on the side lines and cheer the Arch Bishop on.

I hope you'll join me.

What a nice Christmas present it would be to see Robert Mugabe gone for Christmas...

Well I can dream.

I still hope the Arch Bishop will be putting his dog collar on again soon.

State sponsored football

I was watching the Newcastle United versus Arsenal match last night and I was struck by the Newcastle strip.

Newcastle are sponsored by Northern Rock.

Ironic I thought given Northern Rock's woes.

Then I thought about it some more: Northern Rock are getting loans from the government.

So, by extension Newcastle are receiving money from the government.

The government are supporting Newcastle United, but even better than that the tax payer is supporting the government.

So all of the country are now supporting Newcastle United.

England have let us down, so now we're all getting behind Newcastle United.

I'm off to buy a Newcastle strip.

We'll take your sperm and your money.

I have been somewhat perturbed by the story of the man who gave his sperm to a lesbian couple so that they could have a Baby and is now having to pay child support.

He gave the sperm on the understanding that he would not be involved in the child raising process.

However now the couple have split and for some reason that means that he now has to pay child support.

It is not clear from the article whether the parents had anything to do with the firefighter being asked to pay child support, but the fact remains that he has been landed with this responsibility.

The law is apparently to be changed to stop something like this happening in the future, but I'm surprised that a little bit of discretion couldn't be exercised in this case.

Essentially he offered his sperm to help a couple who couldn't otherwise have a baby to have one, but because he didn't go through the official donor system he is being made responsible for a child that for all intents and purposes isn't his.

He has no say in how the child is brought up, he is just being asked to stump up the cash for it.

The change in the law can't come fast enough to my mind and his case should be reconsidered.

The Daily Mail would, but Oxbridge wouldn't.

After the revelation that the Daily Mail will be sponsoring a city academy, Oxford and Cambridge have come out and said that they won't be sponsoring any.

So you can have your children educated thanks to a right wing publication, but not to one of, reputably, the greatest universities in the country.

University College London, Liverpool, Brunel, London City University, Imperial and Manchester University are all willing to invest in future University students.

However Oxford and Cambridge have got cold feet.

They are worried what will happen if the school fails.

So let me get this straight they can educate students to an extremely high standard, but they are worried that they won't be able to run a school..?

Are they admitting that running a school is harder than running a University?

Their official line is that they want to continue to play a national role, but surely it helps the nation to have more good schools.

So maybe it just proves that these other Universities are willing to put their reputation on the line, the old guard are just too chicken.

How to throw up in ten new ways...

I've been being good this weekend and staying in to do work, which means my breaks are taken up by T.V.

So it was that I found myself in front of How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days.

I never really know where I stand with romantic comedy.

Sometimes it hits the mark, sometimes I want to strangle myself.

This fell under wanting to strangle myself, but finding myself with nothing else to do I sat through right to the very end.

The premise of the film is fairly simple: lead man makes bet that he can stay in a relationship for ten days, he hits on a girl who is writing an article about how to lose a guy in ten days.

Excited yet?

Lead girl proceeds to commit all of the dating faux pas known to man: being clingy, talking in a ridiculous baby voice, naming his member princess Sophia.

But, what's this?

The lead sticks with her, he smiles through all that she throws at him with the intent of winning the bet.

And here's a bit of a spoiler (if you're too dumb to have worked it out already): the girl and the guy fall for each other, despite her driving him nuts.

WHAT?!?

At what point does she prove herself anything but irritating: the one weekend with his parents?

This film fails to be particularly funny, it's all a bit to obvious and it's too absurd to be romantic.

So perhaps they should give it a new category: love starved tragedy, perhaps.

Don't watch it.

I feel the need for a shower now.