A mid-week Magpie's trivia trinket - mainly just for laughs, including a photograph Kylie Minogue wishes had never been taken.

We also look at the Townsville City Council's bid to be part of the Nanny State, and Typo hurls the toys out of the bassinet (again) over 'cowardly bloggers'. Who could he mean? So hop into the nest for your mid-week quickie at www.townsvillemagpie.com.au

The Magpie has long been of the opinion that there was be something in the aldermanic waters in Australia that makes elected councillors go barmy quite quickly. 

In Sydney, there was the Marrickville Council mayoral dingbat who declared a council boycott on Israeli goods as an expression of support for the Palestinians. The said mayor was a Greeny, so she had a headstart in the dingbattery stakes anyway, and new Liberal NSW premier Barry O'Farrell swiftly threatened to sack the council if she persisted with the idea.

And The Magpie recalls have his flabber well and truly gasted years ago when signs - bloody expensive permanent signs - went up all over the landscape of inner Sydney's Balmain - the spiritual temple of the peace, love and vegetables crowd - declaring the municipality a 'nuclear free zone'. A resolution had been passed that nuclear materials were not to pass through their hallowed turf. 

In both instances, it was obviously a clear over-reaching of local government responsibilities, and was clearly pandering to the touchy-feely and/or dominant ethnic block of voters. No one ever seemed to point out that the whole thing was laughably unenforcable.

So The 'Pie was bemused when he recently received Townsville Council's modest entry into this field of boofheaded political correctness.

This sign was spotted during a recent event on The Strand, and for the life of him, this old bird cannot fathom what it's all about. He had a look through the council's Privacy Provisions - which are state provisions anyway - and several questions arose. 

First of all, what possible use is this information to anyone except the odd escapee on the lam from either the cops or the missus? 

Last time The 'Pie heard, he was under the legal riding orders that so long as a photographer or journalist (or PR flack for that matter) was on public property, there was no restriction of photographing anything, even if the subject was on nearby private property. Nor, broadly speaking, was there any restriction -except perhaps taste - on it's ultimate reproduction. Does the sign mean folks who flinch at their own shadow should get in touch with the council and insist their image not be used? Now there's a recipe for nightmarish bureaucratic bumbling. Or does it mean people of such a mind should actually pack up the kiddies and piss off, because they may be snapped against their wishes? 

The impossibility of the whole thing is an expensive waste of ratepayers money, and wouldn't we love to know who voted for it in the first place, if it came before council at all. And when? It smacks of Labor's usual PC social engineering humbuggery. C'mon Mullet, was it you? Maybe not, it could easily be some simpering, middle level council shiny bum who managed to sneak it through. 

We'll probably never know, but feel free to post an explanation, someone.

Incidentally, in France, the sign would make sense; it has long been enshrined in law over there that an individual owns his or her own image and controls whether or not it can be published in any form, in cases like this one on The Strand.

But in this neck of the woods, The ' Pie is of the mind that this just a steaming load of old merde du chevaux.

You can bet that one Kylie Minogue wishes she had the French law on her side when this snap was taken.

Usually, photographs rarely need a lengthy explanation, but perhaps this shot of Kylie Minogue coming to grips with the gift of a big teddy bear needs some close examination.

Yes, in case your eyes arer dimming in your twilight years, that is a microphone she is holding, although the bear's surprised expression of unexpected delight could lead to mistaken interpretation of what is going on.

Down at The Astonisher, Typo's been at it again, ripping up his nightie about 'cowardly bloggers'. In a confused and confounding editorial last Saturee, our boy sprayed volleys left right and centre in a performance of whimpering self-praise that would seem to confirm that The Magpie and couple of other blogging chums have really got to him where he lives. Thanks for the recognition, mate. If it's not that, why bother with 'cowardly bloggers' and their  'poisonous agendas' that are 'irrelvant'. (So much for free speech for everyone, and one supposes we should all bow to News Ltd's superior performance in this area).

And why would Typo forget the old truism that self praise is no recommendation and dash off a wheedling, Uriah Heep hand-wringing paean of self-stroking, taking credit for 'crucial lobbying' in all recent happenings in this community short of Jenny Hill's hairdo. Typo also remains fixated with the alleged anonymity of bloggers. C'mon, get of the grass, Typo, you know very well who this blogger is, and you also know the author of www.bloggingtownsville.com.au, so why not name them and really apply the blowtorch? Unless of course, it wasn't you who wrote the editorial ... it wasn't signed in other words, it was anonymous. Maybe Shrek Wilkins dictated it to you.

But one particular line cannot go unremarked: 'We simply reflect the views of our readership and we pull no punches. If we are seen as adversarial, so be it.'  

Reflect the views of the readership?  Err, listen, me old dear, let this old bird fill in the bit you missed when you ducked out the back for a fag during ethics class. Despite the Murdoch Method, serious journalists always have and always will report the facts in a balanced, unbiased  manner - often in spite of the views of the readership. And the proprietor's. Indeed, reporters (and editors) doing their job properly should not reflect anyone's views. That's what it all about, geddit? Comment is for commentators, editorial comment for editorials but the news columns are no place for an adversarial agenda. Otherwise, credibility and circulation suffer. Don't they, mate? 

For a genuine belly laugh, read this daft and dizzy spray here, and make sure you read the last sentence, it wins the Ambiguity Chortle Award of the Week. Or could Typo have just read the Astonisher's latest circulation figures?

What's that, the reference to Uriah Heep? Taken from Charles Dickens' character in David Copperfield, this is how Wikipedia sums him up: 'The character is notable for his cloying humility, obsequiousness, and insincerity, making frequent references to his own "'umbleness". His name has become synonymous with being a yes man.'

Enough now, it is away to Poseurs' Bar, where The 'Pie will perhaps meet a comely young thing who, after enough be-bubbling, will mistake him for a teddy bear and, emulating Our Kylie, get a good grip on the situation.

  \