Another Friday is upon us and, frankly, it couldn’t have come at a better time. This week, Diary’s discovered that the House of Lords may have 99 problems, but publishing 100 recommendations ain’t one and a Moscow zoo sues ad company for damaging ‘borrowed’ racoon.
Why make 99 recommendations, when 100 will do?!
So, as everyone Diary’s sure is aware, the House of Lord’s charities committee is threatening to drop its big, 100-recommendation long report about the charity sector at some point.
At the risk of being perhaps found in contempt of the House of Lords, and thusly dragged from the Tower along the cobbled streets by horses, before being hung, drawn and quartered and scattered across the UK as a warning to others; this column will stay completely neutral and vague about the whole thing.
Yet, Diary can’t help but think that the 100 recommendations figure seems a bit too, well, round. This column thinks the committee actually originally only got to about 93 recommendations, but soon realised collectively that they couldn’t possibly publish a report with such an odd number of recommendations. And, so they brewed up the 10,000th pot of tea, took up their quills once more and bent their ermine-trimmed backs to their vellum scrolls.
Also, one can’t help but speculate what some of these recommendations will be. Sure, there are bound to be good ones in there but, well, you could take a random sample of 100 of anything and you’d come up with a few rotters.
What Diary’s trying to say is, there’s bound to be a bit of padding in there somewhere…
Has this column already gone too far? Is treason afoot?! Is that the sound of an axe being sharpened, and the headsman being called?
On a final note, Diary would like to say thank you to Lord Foulkes for his input into this issue. It may not have been fair, but it was funny. More here.
There’s nothing erotic about a raccoon
To Russia now and, before we start, Diary should add a caveat of sorts to this story. This column is not entirely sure whether there are actually charities (at least, as we know them in the UK) in Russia. Also, this story concerns a zoo in Moscow which, is not in and of itself a charity but it is at least a non-profit organisation and, thus, is fair game.
Anyway, wrap your maculae around this headline, ‘cause it’s an absolute ripper.
“Russian zoo sues advertising firm for ‘traumatising’ rented raccoon in erotic photo shoot”.
Thank you, the Telegraph, thank you so very much.
There’s almost too much to dive into here, frankly. This column could happily spend the rest of today crushing out 4,000/5,000 words on this and what it means for every single one of us, out there on the coalface, struggling to get by day-to-day.
Alas, we’ve not got the time, so let’s just pick out the three best things, in no particular order of preference.
However, a little background to begin: an advertising company approached the Moscow zoo asking to “borrow” a raccoon for an advertisement it was shooting. The ad company returned the raccoon, who they soon noticed seemed… different then when he’d left. The zoo then saw footage from the shoot, which involved a naked woman cradling the raccoon. Now the zoo are suing the ad company.
Now, the first best thing about this story is the caption below the photograph which reads, simply: ‘The raccoon was said to be distressed’. Understated genius.
Second: the fact that the raccoon, named as ‘Tomas’ in reports, was said to be left “traumatised” by the experience of being cuddled to the bare bosoms of a Russian model and, apparently, subsequently developed an unhealthy obsession with human breasts. Incredible.
Quote: “Tomas came back withdrawn, always slept in the corner, and snapped at people,” said Viktor Kiryukhin, a zoo spokesman. "Furthermore, we began to notice that he reached for women’s breasts. We think to perform several takes the film crew lured him onto the actress’ chest with treats. Now he thinks he can always expect a treat near women’s breasts.”
Third: the advertising company have refuted the claim and have, instead, effectively blamed the raccoon for being “unmanageable” and accused it of effectively being a lingerie fetishist who “stole the underwear [of the model] and chewed it”.
Valery Bogatov, spokesman for the ad company, reportedly said: “When the zoo told us they would sue us, we told them we’d file our own suit for the cost of the bra.”
Also, commendation for the journalist who wrote this story, because the last line is worthy of note: “Tomas the raccoon has made a full recovery and is back to his playful self”. Thank heavens for that! Violating animal rights is never funny.
Related Articles
