Welcome to AJ's...

Time to reflect on all those who have lost their lives in wars, wars about power, about religion, about hatred.

Not only those on our own side but any man, woman and child over the centuries who have been forced into wars for their "leaders".

I wonder if Derek Acora actually believes what he does, in which case he's hearing voices and having hallucinations and really should get some professional mental help.

Or, like most fraudsters preying on the unfortunate and potentially desperate psychics, does he just wake up every morning thinking "this is great, I get PAID for this shit".

Whatever Jackson might have done in his life does he REALLY deserve the money grabbing sensationalism of a live seance just to eke Every. Single. Quid. from his early death?

At least it means I'm a Celebrity... ISN'T actually the worst piece of TV in November for the first time in years.

...was astounding last night.

...for the journey...

Now, I understand minimalism and all that but I'm not sure I'd describe removing functionality as new and improved...

We're going to make a feature better... by limiting it.

Even though I never tag my posts (and frankly get pissed off by the "are you SURE you don't want to tag" screen on posting) I have on many occasions used profile tags etc.

No offence guys, hopefully you know I'm normally happy to try and see the reasoning behind changes and be positive, but this time I don't see any reason or benefit to the users.

I'm afraid it smacks as something that might benefit the site itself but not those using it, in which case it's more understandable but most of us would rather simply be told that as opposed to... creative reality painting that tells us it's for our own enjoyment.

...as you've never seen them before.

A question if I may. Hands up (in the context of the question perhaps I should say BOTH hands up) if this picture seems excessively titillating to you...

Feel free to click it and something bigger should pop up... as it were.

This is a shot they're using at the moment for the stageplay of Calendar Girls in the West End. For anyone not in the know it's about the first Women's Institute group to bare all for a nude calendar as a fund raiser.

So, anyone feeling a paroxysm of lust?

Anybody had to stop reading for a quick application of a groinal ice pack?

Have all my readership had to nip off to "fix something" in a more private location?

Nope, me neither.

I think I can admit Miss Brook is an averagely attractive woman and there was a touch of cleavage on show there. But in this world of freely available porn, red-top newspapers with a higher nipple-per-square-foot ratio than a beach in the south of France and late night Channel 5 programming isn't this picture a tad... tame?

I've looked at the image and as it stands my nether regions have a tumescence quotient of zero. I'm not suddenly feeling flushed or excited. I don't feel the need to save said image on my computer for later perusal.

It's an advertising shot for a play about the WI getting their kit off, the general comedy stance of the image means it's less sexual than a lot of the underwear or perfume ads around these days, how many Calvin Klein ads have men in their pants showing off their freakishly bare chests for all to see?

But Transport for London has decided that it's an inappropriate image for Tube advertising and has forced them to make the Brookal buns larger.

Now you and I will take a look at that picture and basically say "all they've done is stretch the buns out to the exact shape of her breasts, and with the cherry nipples it's just as bad as it was."

Well, some of us are saying "TfL are a company that specialises in driving cylindrical objects into mildly damp tunnels until they drop a load on a nearby area" but most of us are saying the first thing.

I find it hard to tell the difference between the two shots, they've simply made it more about the suggestion of breasts than the breasts themselves... which to my definition makes it more titillating (if it does it for you) rather than less. That is the point of titillation to my mind after all, the suggestion as opposed to the actual baring.

What seems even stranger is that customers are free to read their red-tops on tube trains, pushing their multitude of nipples into the faces of anyone near them.

They're also free to wear almost anything, I have in the past seen women on the Tube wearing things that show off a lot more even than the first picture.

The thing with all of these items however is for them to be sexual you have to go LOOKING for it.

I would suggest it's a major minority of tube travellers who would see the first picture and feel the need for a quick fiddle (especially as if you're THAT person then there's better to be had with some good old fashioned frotting).

If you're going to panic about this stuff it's going to have to be one thing or another, not simply suggesting that the second image is fine for us to see because there's a touch more bun covering the boob.

Or just be fecking logical and realise you're not going to end up with Tube travellers openly fondling themselves over a comedy shot of Kelly Brook advertising a ruddy West End show.

Actually... I think I'll write it tomorrow...

...THIS is...