Well hello there, and good tidings! But let’s just cut the small-talk here before things get all chatty-chatty like what those baby lesbians do off Coronation Street. So, Janet Jackson’s awful.  

Hear that, Great Britain? Here that, Janet Jackson’s official fan club underneath all the wild babble?

Oh, quiet down at the front ? JanFan47?! Cease and desist 1nPHATuation! (Amazing.) PIPE DOWN Janhova_Troll_Slayer! Not our words! No! We’d never flirt with incessant mockery and combine that with the Jackson family, what with all that pain and despair they’ve been harboring these past few years.

No, these are the harsh, cruel, ill-judged vibes of PETA of course. That’s the one. Bitch-eyes from the furries. Tut tut. Ohnoshedidn’t. Holy Things That Matter Entirely, Batman. All that.

After designing a (admittedly quite real-fur specific) fashion label BlackGlama, Janet has been called up for her crimes against all the adorable little swans and herons she’s been murdering grumpily whilst rolling her eyes and muttering about glass ceilings, The Klumps, and cardiologists that dawdle, and been told by the PETA to “GRR STOPIT WE DON’T LIKE HOW FAMOUS AND NASTY YOU ARE.”

Or if you’re hankering for something a tad more specific:

‘When Janet Jackson had her infamous wardrobe malfunction during Super Bowl XXXVIII, at least what popped into view of 170 million onlookers belonged to her, unlike the animal skins she drapes herself in, which are as dead as her fashion taste and her career.’

What, Justin Timberlake’s odium? Oh, right her nipples. Oh, let us off, it’s the end of the year.

Hmm. This doesn’t really make sense at all, really. Does she…win? Is that it? Did Janet Jackson win at PETA?

Oh, well in that case, that’s wonderful! Congratulations Janet. Especially when you must have had stiff competition from our own UK genocide attempts.

 *Sigh*

Do you know how they make mink coats? They get a mink and shout obscenities at it – IN MINK LANGUAGE – until it cries. Then, they make then stand on their hindly mink legs until they break before men come in and kick the skin off them.

Then, worst of all, the skinless, frightened mink creatures are all forced to sew their fur together into expensive coats.

COATS DESIGNED BY JANET JACKSON WHO HATES MINKS.

Of course, wearing fur is desperately unfashionable these days, now that most have got a conscience. However, that won’t bother Janet Jackson as she’s been out of the pop-cultural loop for years, right?

Apparently, Janet Jacko has managed to get over the death of her brother Michael, forgotten all about those animals that made him cry when they were mistreated and used, and signed up with a fur firm called Blackglama.

No. We didn’t make ‘Blackglama’ up.

Anyway, Janet is going to create a luxury mink collection, which features 15 items ranging from coats to gloves made from the backs, faces and scrota of mink who have been bullied by men with special mink-kicking boots in lipstick.

Janet, unaware as usual, says:

“The art of fashion is one of my great passions. I’ve worked for years to bring a collection into the world. Partnering with Blackglama is very exciting.”

It goes without saying that Jackson has already come under fire from animal-rights campaigners. Last year, after she modelled various dead mink, PETA went mental.

Spokeswoman for PETA, Amanda Schinke, is on record as saying:

“It’s amazing what celebrities will do when their careers are on a downslide, but we didn’t think that Janet was this desperate.”

Schinke should totally write for hecklerspray.

Morrissey. He’s an icon to limp wristed introverts who hole themselves up in their bedrooms with shelves full of kitchen sink dramas and books of dreadful self-written mewing poetry about being misunderstood and shit. They’re all very individual of course and don’t all flock to Salford Lad’s Club for yet another stupid photo.

Now, as lame as Mozza is, he’s always good value in interviews when he’s in Queen Bitch mode. Now he’s having a pop at Queen. No, not Freddie Mercury’s corpse or Brian May’s clogs. Rather, he doesn’t like Her Majesty the Queen’s liking of fur hats.

That’d be hats made from cute animals. Just in case you didn’t know where fur came from. Imagine Kissyfur. Now imagine wearing him as a nice snood. Appealing eh?

Anyway, Morrissey has urged the Queen to stop British Army Guards wearing real fur hats.

In a letter to The Times, the singer insisted that the responsibility of ensuring the guards do not wear real bearskin falls to the monarch.

He wrote:

“It is difficult not to look to the Queen herself – after all, they are her guards, and she must surely be aware of the horrific process utilised to supply real bearskins for her guards.

“The mere sight of each bearskin hat must surely jab at the Queen’s heart.”

Presuming she’s got one of course.

Morrissey added:

“Yes, animal rights move different people differently, and there are even those who think that animals simply have no right to be, but there is no sanity in making life difficult on purpose for the Canadian brown bear, especially for guards’ hats that look absurd in the first place, and which can easily be replaced by faux versions (thanks to the visionary Stella McCartney) with no death involved.”

Maybe the Queen will reply with… ‘Fair do’s. We’ll do a trade. You get The Smiths back together to appease those wet shits who follow your every word and I’ll stop my men wearing hats that look like Johnny Marr’s head in the ’80s.’

Follow hecklerspray on Twitter

Khloe Kardashian would rather go naked than wear fur, but it’s important not to confuse Khloe Kardashian with her sister Kim.

Because, while Khloe Kardashian would rather go naked than wear fur, Kim Kardashian would rather go naked, set up a video camera, roll around on a bed and boff a man whose tongue looks like it’s being remotely-controlled by a man from The Henson Company than wear fur.

But still, nice try. Meanwhile, some dogs have just started an ‘I’d rather be bludgeoned to death for my fur inside an abandoned Chinese warehouse than see Khloe Kardashian’s arse again’ campaign. Unrelated, we’re sure.

The fur trade is almost as old as humanity itself – with fur first being used to provide vital warmth for man’s earliest ancestors, and then as clothing for the likes of pimps, various queens of Narnia and genuinely awful rich women. And the fur trade is still going strong, despite decades of protest by activists concerned about the awful conditions in which the animals are kept and killed.

But today is the day that the fur trade dies.

Over the years, PETA has experimented with making famous people take their clothes off for its ‘I’d rather go naked than wear fur’ campaign. But no matter who got naked – supermodels, film actresses, actresses who used to do films but don’t do much now and idiots – the fur trade carried on regardless.

But now, finally, PETA has understood exactly who needs to get naked to put an end to this barbarism – the less-famous sister of a woman who’s sole claim to marginal fame is that she had sex on the internet and her dad’s a lawyer or something. Khloe Kardashian, the animals thank you for saving their lives. People reports:

Move over, Kim Kardashian. Your famous rear end may have some competition – from your little sister. In a new anti-fur ad for PETA, Keeping Up with the Kardashians costar Khloe Kardashian disrobes and shows off her posterior. Next to the star, 24, is the tagline “Fur? I’d Rather Go Naked.”

It’s thought that Khloe Kardashian decided to go naked for PETA to try and shame her sister Kim Kardashian, who is still an avowed fur-wearer. But that’s not the only reason, of course – Khloe Kardashian also went naked for fur because it’d get her talked about and, as such, she was also prepared to take her clothes off for the following campaigns:

‘I’d rather go naked than buy ivory’.

‘I’d rather go naked than illegally traffic a prostitute in from Albania’.

‘I’d rather go naked than drop-kick a squirrel into a threshing machine’.

‘I’d rather go naked than give a dog a Chinese burn.’

‘I’d rather go naked than something to do with deforestation’.

‘I’d rather go naked than punch a cow in the jaw.’

‘I’d rather go naked than eat, frankly. Or sleep. I love getting naked, so long as it’s for a good cause. Or a bad cause. Or no cause at all. I’ll get famous if I do this, right? What if I jiggle my tits around?’

Anyway, the sight of Khloe Kardashian naked will definitely get the fur trade on the run. If they know what’s good for them they’ll stop killing animals immediately, because as soon as Khloe convinces her sister to do the same, there’ll be trouble. After all, everyone knows that Kim Kardashian’s vagina is essentially a swirling vortex that nothing can ever escape, not even light, once it’s unleashed.

You! Follow hecklerspray on Twitter!

Fur coats are important to Lindsay Lohan – sometimes they’re all that stop her prematurely withered cha-chas from the elements.

However, some people – some French people to be precise – don’t approve of Lindsay Lohan’s continued endorsement of animal fur. As such they’ve felt the need to attack Lindsay Lohan, and attack her with a starchy baking ingredient. too. To put it bluntly, someone threw flour at Lindsay Lohan this weekend, and it made Lindsay Lohan sad.

But it also made Lindsay Lohan’s boyfriend Samantha Ronson furious. Furious enough to dash to her computer and thrash out an angry dollop of screed about it on her blog. So it must be serious – Sam Ronson only uses her blog for important matters, like politics and private matters and reality TV shows and that time she totally just spent like six hours playing Guitar Hero until her hands were sore. You know, the big stuff.

As part-reptile – on her mother’s side, genealogy fans! – Lindsay Lohan feels the cold a lot more than regular human beings do. Well, to be fair it’s partly because of her reptilian ancestry and partly because Lindsay Lohan has never worn a pair of knickers in her entire life, but whatever. Lindsay Lohan gets cold a lot. That’s the point we’re trying to make.

And, as such, Lindsay Lohan relies on fur coats for warmth like nobody else. If she can get her hands on a fur coat, she’ll wear it. If she can’t get her hands on a fur coat, she’ll allegedly steal one from an idiot. And if Lindsay Lohan can’t steal a fur coat from an idiot, then this is what happens. And who wants to see that, now, really.

Anyway, French animal rights protesters don’t seem to understand this little fact about Lindsay Lohan. That’s why, when Lindsay and Samantha Ronson went to Paris recently, Lindsay Lohan ended up taking a flourbomb to the head while being called a ‘fur hag’ by local rights activists.

Personally, we think the French protesters were being a little bit ignorant – Lindsay Lohan doesn’t have the luxury of the overwhelmingly hairy armpits, faces and pubic areas that the French women enjoy, and she has to use animal fur to make up the difference. In that sense they’re mocking the disabled. But whatever.

Lindsay Lohan has yet to formally respond to the flour attack, but that hasn’t stopped Sam Ronson from hopping onto her MySpace blog to speak on her behalf. Well, we say ‘speak’ but we actually mean ‘wail like a mental seagull falling down a liftshaft’. Sam wrote:

“It seems lately I am learning that there are too many people who put another species before their fellow man and that’s sad. I don’t wear fur, but I don’t think I have the right to attack those who do. No one has that right… The girl who threw it acted like an animal herself. I take that back, it’s an insult to animals to group her in with them, my dog is FAR more civilised than that person.”

Thank heavens that Sam Ronson took back that bit about the flour attacker being an animal. If Lindsay Lohan actually thought for a second that the girl really was an animal, then we have no doubt she’d have skinned her long ago. And we hear that walking around New York with a French cadaver draped around your neck is something of a faux pas these days. We think we saw that on Gok Wan.

When hecklerspray thinks of PETA, we think of the time they rushed our house and 'rescued' a boa constrictor we were keeping in several shoe boxes we'd taped end-to-end-to-end until it passed our dear old grandmother.

Thanks for that PETA. We only hope you gave her poopy bones a decent burial. Also, we're pretty sure she was holding one of our Wii controllers when the snake done ate her, so if you could sift through that stuff…

Now when Aretha Franklin thinks of PETA, she has a different experience all together. 'Tax saviors' may be the term that first comes to her mind. That's because they've just promised to pay all her back house taxes on one condition… she must kill her only child! With a cheese grater! And meat spices!

That's not true, but wouldn't it be so dramatic? If it was true it probably would have been in the headline.

Think about it.

Aretha Franklin has recently allotted some of her scheduled time away from despising Beyonce, and focused it more on not paying her taxes. Such a lack of governmental interaction is a perk of being a celebrity – just ask that guy from Survivor. Or Marc Anthony. Or Wesley Snipes. Ask them all, actually.

Well Aretha Franklin's big fat fancy house is about to be lost forever because of her tax mishaps. We're sure PETA would rather see Franklin's wardrobe get confiscated by the man, but it won't be. No – it's her house hanging in the balance.

Luckily for Franklin though, PETA is an organisation that can see past her wardrobe sins. They've offered to pay off her back taxes – if Franklin trashes all her furs. Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's evil mastermind, wrote a letter to the hefty singer. Part of which said:

"We would like to help you out by paying the approximate $19,000 in back taxes that you owe – if you'll agree to save animals from hideous suffering and death by promising never to wear fur again and donating your old furs to PETA…Our offer is a win-win situation: You get to keep your home, and animals get to keep their lives. We are rooting for you to please give animals the R-E-S-P-E-C-T that they deserve by giving up fur."

We're pretty sure PETA's trying so desperately to help Franklin because in her old age she looks like a beluga, and if those things aren't endangered they should be. You hear that congress? Put belugas on that one special list you guys always add on to. They're such sweet animals! Do it now!

So demands hecklerspray!

Read More:

Aretha Franklin's PETA Payout – Monsters & Critics

Aretha Franklin can't help being badly dressed – when you swell up as large as she has, fashion is just a case of cutting a head-hole in the prettiest tarpaulin you can find.

And it gets worse, because animal rights warriors PETA have now declared Aretha Franklin to be the worst dressed celebrity of the year, thanks to all the fur she wears.

It's a fair title too, because Aretha Franklin is easily crueler to animals than any other celebrity. Look at it this way – if Eva Longoria wears a fur coat then maybe 40 animals died to make it. But when Aretha Franklin wants a fur coat, hunters have to kill and skin every single furry animal on the face of the planet – and shave off their own pubes – just to almost stretch over half of one of her gigantic wobbly upper arms.

More than anyone, Aretha Franklin should know about animal rights. That's not because her important role in the civil rights movement imbued her with a sense of love for all living creatures, but because any time she gets too close to the Japanese coastline people try to harpoon her.

It looks like the whole world's got it in for Aretha Franklin at the moment. For instance, the Grammys managed to deeply offend Aretha by calling Tina Turner by a made-up title that some people occasionally use when referring to her. And, to make it worse, Aretha's currently at number one on Beyonce's Dad's shit-list.

And now constantly-angry animal rights group PETA has got the hump with Aretha Franklin, too, for the amount of fur she wears. Silly PETA, doesn't it know that Aretha Franklin needs to wear fur because her surface area is so vast that bits of her snap off if they're not covered up properly? The Associated Press reports:

PETA thinks Aretha Franklin is no queen of soul when it comes to wearing fur. Franklin was crowned this year's worst-dressed celebrity by the animal rights organization. Her crime: wearing "yet another vulgar fur" at the Grammy Awards. "… you looked as if you were going to perform `I Am the Walrus' by the Beatles," People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said Wednesday of Franklin's appearance. "You might be a queen, but you don't know jack about compassion. How 'bout some R-E-S-P-E-C-T for animals?" PETA added.

Other names on PETA's worst-dressed list include Eva Longoria, Kate Moss, Lindsay Lohan, Kylie Minogue and Marilyn Manson, for owning some leather trousers. Human corpses? That's just dandy, but leather trousers? What an evil bastard.

Aretha Franklin joins the likes of Nicole Richie and The Olsen Twins as celebrities that PETA doesn't like, but the organisation has another thing coming if it thinks that Aretha is just going to roll over and stop wearing fur like everyone else. That's partly because Aretha Franklin physically can't roll over any more without the aid of two cranes, a forklift truck and a specially-trained crew, and partly because Aretha Franklin is a formidable opponent to have.

Honestly, look at how shitty she got when someone didn't call her 'the queen'. And PETA's got the nerve to say she doesn't dress well? If we worked for PETA we'd be terrified that Aretha Franklin would punch our offices to smithereens with her bare club-like fists any time now.

Read more:

Aretha Makes PETA's 'Worst-Dressed' List – Associated Press 

You know Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, the young twins who you've barely ever thought about in your entire lives, especially recently?

Yeah, PETA bloody hates them. Although Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen are just living the sort of life that people of their youth and wealth are expected to – riding around in carriages made of knitted saffron, employing small Taiwanese children to cling onto the soles of their feet and act like super-chic screaming shoes, eating spacedust through straws made of the spines of deceased international dignitaries, that sort of thing – PETA has singled the pair of them out for the full brunt of their abuse because they wear fur coats now and again. That's right, PETA doesn't call them Mary-Kate And Ashley Olsen any more – it calls them Hairy Kate and Trashley Trollsen.

And that's fighting talk right there.

PETA – the organisation that promises to keep showing us pictures of naked women until the fur trade has been stamped out entirely, the bastards – tends to only deal in black and white. If PETA likes you then it'll call you sexy. But if PETA doesn't like you, then you should expect a right rough ride from the group.

If it's not dumping horseshit on your doorstep or spoiling your dinner or – worst of all – making Heather Mills chase you around dressed in a great big telly, then PETA is destroying your credibility by making a vaguely substandard Flash game about you on its website. And that's the hell that Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen are going through right now.

PETA's new campaign to stop people wearing fur or eating meat or wearing leather or torturing rabbits or smiling or having fun involves two characters named Hairy Kate and Trashley Trollsen, obviously based on Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen – two people who PETA has got the hump with because they won't stop wearing bits of dead animals when they go out. According to PETA:

Some say that Hairy-Kate and Trashley are guilty of offending their fans with some major fashion boo-boos, but here at peta2, we think that's the understatement of the year! The twins' heartless decision to wear fur and include it in their new fashion line, The Row (more like "Death Row"), is worse than a fashion no-no—it's cruelty to animals. The Trollsens have ignored our pleas to stop wearing fur—and have since added horribly ugly fur items to their new clothing line. It's obvious that we need your help to convince them that wearing fur is wrong and hideous!

And it doesn't stop there – PETA has also made a video about Mary-Kate and Ashley that's based on a sitcom we've never watched and full of references that mean nothing to us. It's hilarious… 

All very clever, we're sure. But none of these dreary tactics endear us to PETA at all – in fact, if anything it just makes us feel sorry for the Olsen twins. After all, it's easy to judge and mock them for wearing needlessly cruel pieces of outerwear, but one of them is doing it with Lance Armstrong, for God's sake. Lance Armstrong! Haven't these people suffered enough already?

Read more:

Meet The Trollsen Twins – PETA

Eva Mendes doesn't love animals as much as a normal person does, you know – Eva Mendes loves animals so much that she's compelled to get her bum out for them quite a lot.

Animal rights group PETA has just revealed Ghost Rider star Eva Mendes as the latest face, spine and bare arse of its 'I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur' campaign, in an effort to show the world how foolish and disgusting people who do wear fur-based clothing are. So – on the basis that Eva Mendes will stop being naked when the inhumane fur trade realises how cruel and irresponsible it's being – we're going to outside, chop up a monkey with a pair of scissors and turn it into a nice pair of furry slacks.

When Eva Mendes was at her very first movie premiere, her stylist sent her big fur wrap that we believe was made of a mixture of Lassie, Benji, Black Beauty and the hairiest parts of Free Willy. This, like most things, got animal rights group PETA all narked off, and they sent Eva Mendes a letter telling her what a gigantic bitch she was being.

Eva Mendes learnt her lesson there and then, and a beautiful friendship was struck up between the actress and the red-eyed animal-protectors. Now, several years later, Eva Mendes has decided to repay the compliment by taking off her blouse and covering up her boobies with her hands. For the animals.

Following similar campaigns by Alicia Silverstone and Sadie Frost, Eva Mendes has become the latest star to try and encourage people to wear less fur by going naked. It's thought that Eva's naked campaign will be more successful than the others because – unlike Alicia Silverstone – people have heard of her, and – unlike Sadie Frost – people don't dislike her so much that they'll skin a chinchilla just to spite her.

But just how much does Eva Mendes love animals? Quite a bloody lot as it happens, because in the accompanying PETA Q&A, Eva reveals all. Emotionally, that is. We're not talking about her tits this time:

"We Own The Night is a crime thriller set in the late 1980s about two brothers on opposite sides of the law. I play the girlfriend of Joaquin Phoenix, a manager for a club involved with the Russian Mafia, whose brother (played by Mark Wahlberg) is a cop targeting the Mafia for drug involvement. It's a great cast, and it was such a thrill to play opposite actors like Joaquin, Mark, and Robert Duvall."

No, wait, that's the part of the PETA Q&A where Eva Mendes shamelessly promotes her new film. Oh well, there's another bit in it where she says faux fur is quite good. Trust us.

And if you think Eva Mendes loves animals a lot now, just wait until you see her in We Own The Night – she actually puts her fingers in her fanny right at the beginning. For the animals.

Read more:

Eva Mendez Reveals All – The PETA Files