Paris Hilton goes for gold while crims are pretty in pink
Comments Hello and welcome to the last comments roundup of the year. It's been a good one, with many wits and twits showing how wise or otherwise they are. We start with the latest news on a person who has become something of an institution around here (no, not amanfromMars).
Everyone's favourite heiress is reaching for new heights of class. A gilded Paris Hilton has been photographed sprawling naked in a desert. On purpose, apparently. She is also releasing her own line of champagne-like liquid in a can. We applaud this impressive example of entrepreneurial talent.
If Paris is selling it can we assume that it has a salty aftertaste?
Where's the Paris Hilton angle? Oh, no, wait. Nevermind...
Er, Prosecco has been around for a long time in bottles and stands on its own merit (hic, pardon). It's never been one of the johnny-come-lately Champagne clones and is made from the Prosecco grape rather than the Pinot Noir, Pinot Meunier and Chardonnay used in Champagne and its copies (yeah, I had to look that latter up). Describing its not being called Champagne as an effort to avoid lawsuits from France is not only inaccurate but bloody ignorant as well.
I'd expect this sort of thing from PH (who probably describes Irn Bru as alcohol free champagne), but not you guys.
Having said all that, they deserve to be sued for putting it in tins.......
We consider ourselves duly educated. Pass over a tin of bubbly.
The whole point about this well-researched article is to provide us hard El-Reg students and contributers with a little well-deserved and welcome relaxation from decyphering all the rubbish that I type and, more importantly - from wondering when, how many records, about what, are about to be lost from which department next. So, in order to achieve this, the delightful Ms Hilton has chosen (JUST FOR US MIND) to pose seductively with a tin of something remotely alcoholic and leave us with a lingering subconscious message that she's about to pour it over herself and that she'd like us to lick IT off.
(and THAT's the IT angle).
Right, that's that debate settled for at least half an hour.
Police! Police! Someone's stolen the poor girl's nips! Get them back, quick!
And to stick with the subject of booze, a 64-year-old German man made an impressively logical decision when told he could not take a litre of vodka onto a plane as hand baggage: he downed the lot. A doctor found him "unable to stand or function" and he was rushed to Nuremberg hospital to recover, but you had to give him his props:
I do love old people. Go gramps go! Prove how retarded and life threatening their petty laws are!
Allowing him to buy it duty free then not letting him take it on a connecting flight is stupid. It would have cost nothing to entrust the cabin crew with it until landing. But good on him for being able to down that much. I once saw a grizzly biker do a bottle of JD at a party. This was apparently his party trick. Someone told me he was gonna do it but until I saw it I didn't believe it.
I love the idea of this. You can just picture his total defiance, making a big scene of downing the bottle and immediately realising he is heading for air passanger martyrdom.
I think most of us can agree that downing a litre of Whisky is plain stupid, especially at age 64 when you should know better. A boy in 7th grade at my daughters school did the same during school a couple of years ago. Happily (for him), the hospital was fairly close. I was glad to hear that the other children just considered him stupid and not a bit heroic or cool.
But I find the 100ml rules and the way they are handled equally ridiculous. On my last trip to the US of A, I bought a bottle of booze in the tax free shop, which I had no problem bringing on board the intercontinental flight. But when changing planes in Chicago I was likewise told that I couldn't bring it on board. Luckily, I had had to carry my luggage through customs, so I could just open a suitcase and put the bottle there (taking out something else to make room). But if you are just transiting to another international flight, you don't have that option. Knowing this, the tax free shops ought to inquire customers if they will transfer before allowing them to buy bottles. But, of course, they won't, as this will hurt sales.
But tax free sales in airports is really quite silly. Planes carry tons of extra weight to carry goods that you (in most cases) can get in the airport where you land. They should really just let you select what you want before departure and let you pick it up at the destination airport. No hassle for the passengers to carry the stuff, no extra weight, no security issues etc.
If he'd transfered the contents of the bottle into 10 seperate 100ml bottles it would have been ok to take it on board?