http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/tags.php?tag=kirk The NewsBiscuit Community en-US Sat, 18 May 2013 22:31:59 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/search.php http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=20690#post-55922 Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:35:12 +0000 Skylarking 55922@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>"ooh and that's a bad miss..." </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=20690#post-55915 Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:38:34 +0000 Golgo13 55915@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Attempting a long pink into the...</p> <p>...never mind. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=20690#post-55910 Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:19:31 +0000 be reasonable 55910@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>No hints as to whether he prefers the pink or the brown? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=20690#post-55899 Tue, 01 Feb 2011 09:21:58 +0000 Griffin 55899@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Dirk Gently will have to work on that one. </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=20690#post-55858 Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:44:23 +0000 Golgo13 55858@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Different jokes though, surely? Thisisall1word's gag was that the name is given away in the headline (and that he just cut'n'pasted the body from the BBC website, whereas Ostsee was taking the piss put of the non-story surrealness of just using letter combinations in place of actual names. </p> <p>Wasn't it? </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=20690#post-55841 Mon, 31 Jan 2011 16:43:52 +0000 thisisall1word 55841@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>Beeten to it - but I think my story is infinitely more lazy.<br /> Good work Ostee! </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=20690#post-55836 Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:48:28 +0000 Ostsee 55836@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p><a href="http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=20682" rel="nofollow">http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=20682</a> </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=20690#post-55835 Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:35:32 +0000 thisisall1word 55835@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>This is of course a lazy lazy joke &amp; I apologise wholeheartedly to both Steve Davis and David Beckham for any confusion </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=20690#post-55834 Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:29:14 +0000 thisisall1word 55834@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>A well-known sportsman, who obtained an injunction preventing the media publishing details of his private life, has won a court appeal against a ruling which would have revealed his identity.</p> <p>Judge Lord Neuberger ruled in favour of the man, known only as JIH.</p> <p>The Court of Appeal heard that when JIH discovered that News Group Newspapers intended to publish a story based on information provided by ZZ, he began legal proceedings - without revealing his identity - in order to stop them.</p> <p>When the matter reached the High Court, Mr Justice Tugendhat agreed to an injunction regarding the private information, but refused to continue an order granting the sportsman anonymity. </p> <p>JIH appealed against that decision and his lawyer, Hugh Tomlinson QC, argued that by revealing that a named individual had won a secrecy order about his private life there would inevitably be great speculation about the details concerned - and in all likelihood, those details would eventually become public. </p> <p>"The effect of the judge's order would be to put this claimant's life into the media spotlight - a huge intrusion into his private life," he said.</p> <p>Overruling Mr Justice Tugendhat, Lord Neuberger said "the whole purpose of the injunction would be undermined" if JIH's name was revealed.</p> <p>He added: "If we permitted JIH's identity to be revealed without permitting the nature of the information of which he is seeking to restrain to be published, then it would nonetheless be relatively easy for the media and members of the public to deduce the nature of that information; it would be a classic, if not very difficult, jigsaw exercise." </p> http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=2267#post-6647 Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:32:22 +0000 Stan Laurel 6647@http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/ <p>After waiting for “what seemed like centuries”, Starfleet’s flagship <em>USS Enterprise</em> has finally taken delivery of new state of the art i-Communicators. In a special communiqué, broadcast from the transporter room as he waited for the consignment to be beamed aboard, Captain James T Kirk thanked his crew for their patience and paid tribute to the maintenance teams who had managed to keep the old communication devices working against all the odds by salvaging parts from NBC’s dwindling supply base and hovercar boot sales. </p> <p>Kirk had despaired of ever getting his hands on the new communicators. In a recent log he recorded his irritation:</p> <p><em> “Stardate 1376.6: Still no communicators. Starfleet are blaming the latest delays on the universal recession and an unexpected cost overrun on the London to Birmingham high speed train link.” </p> <p>“We captured a Klingon ship two weeks ago and a Romulan insurgent vessel yesterday. All their crews had the latest communicators, yet all we have is crappy 1966 technology. You can’t even text on our useless things; and there’s no camera or MP19 player. There is certainly no way you can visit your Spacebook page on them. I’d boldly use the captured devices if I could; but there isn’t a market stall anywhere to have them unlocked.”</em></p> <p>But the frustrations of captain and crew were soon forgotten as they tried out their new i-Communicators. However, the general consensus that the mobiles were exceptional devices was not shared by Chief Medical Officer McCoy. “There is a major flaw with communicators loaded with the new phaser app,” he reported to First Officer Spock, “if you hit the mute button on a call, the phaser fires as if it were on the old weapon’s “stun” setting. Several of the crew have literally been knocked out by the pesky new gadgets.”</p> <p>Undaunted, Captain Kirk is not letting this irregularity stop him from using the new device, but he has acknowledged that he will have to alter the standard instructions given to landing parties. The next time he beams down to a gaudy planet with a security detail, he will be issuing the order “Communicators on mute, gentlemen.” </p>