Remember when you were young and the local tough kids used to brag about cow tipping? Well I reckon if they tried it on this Friesian they might bite off a bit more than they can chew.

Standing at 6ft 6ins tall, Chilli the bullock is the tallest in Britain. His owners have contacted the Guinness Book of Records who are currently assessing his credentials and comparing them to other big bovines.

Weighing in at over a ton, and at the same height as a small elephant, he casts a shadow over his companions who average about 5ft.

Despite his massive size, Chilli only grazes on grass during the day and enjoys the occasional Swede as a treat.

The bullock, lives at the Ferne Animal Sanctuary in Chard, Somerset, after he was left on their doorstep aged just six-days-old.

Now nine years old Chilli has kept on growing, and staff reckon the giant will smash a record for Britain’s tallest ever cow.

Naomi Clarke, manager at the sanctuary, said: “As Chilli was growing up we began noticing that he was bigger than our other cows.

“He now stands at 6ft 6ins from the floor to the top of his shoulder and he is massive when he holds his head up.

“We have made an application to Guinness Book of Records and we are quite confident he will get it.”

Over the years, staff noticed Chilli begin to tower over companions.

But it was only when he failed to fit in a standard cattle cage to have his hooves clipped that they realised just how big he had grown compared to normal bullocks.

“He is a very friendly and gentle cow so we hope he manages to break the record - he deserves it.”

At present, the tallest bovine in the world is 6ft 8ins Fiorino, who lives in Italy.

A spokeswoman for the Guinness Book of Records said: “I can confirm that an application has been received for Chilli which is currently under research.”

Six months ago another bullock vying for a record breaking spot was The Field Marshal who weighed in at 3,000lb.

At the time he was on course to over take the current British record-holder, his former stablemate The Colonel, who stood 6ft 5in tall and weighed 3,500lb. He died in 2005.

This morning on the way to work I saw something quite breathtaking, glistening in the sun.

It’s short at the front and long at the back. It terrifies small children and grannies alike. It’s been loved, hated, celebrated and ridiculed. I am of course referring to the only thing that has the Business Up Front and the Party in the Back, the Mullet.

According to urban legend, the mullet dates back to the 19th century, when mullet fishermen wore their hair long in the back to keep warm. The mullet became popular in the 1970s, due in part to the influence of glam rock artist David Bowie, who wore the haircut during his Ziggy Stardust and Diamond Dogs phases.

In the 1980s, the mullet became big and bouffant, and be-mulleted men often indulged in other 1980s hair crazes such as spiked hair and blonde highlights. A wide range of mullets can be seen in loads of 80s music videos by the biggest British pop stars of the time.

Dying out somewhat in the 90s, there has always been a mullet underground. These proud mullet-men generally only come out at night to get to the local bar, start a fight and take home their prize, generally a be-mulleted female.

Cruelly associated with Heavy Metal and receding hairlines, the mullet has many variations. Outlined below are just the few we could legally talk about.

Bus-Mullet: This type of mullet is one that is particularly neatly cut in the front, giving the appearance from the front of a clean cut business person, but is ready for any type of occasion from corporate business to rockin’ it up at the weekend.

Skullet: A skullet is a variation of the mullet. A skullet is defined by a shaved but generally bald head with long hair on the sides and in the back. It’s the look often sported by old guys trying to re-live their glory days. Hulk Hogan, Michael Bolton, Bill Bailey and Ron Jeremy are all proud supporter’s of the Skullet and ensure that it’s legend lives on.

Fem-Mullet: A mullet sported by a female. In the UK, this lady version is more generally referred to as a Fillet, She-Mullet or a Fullet.

Mullet-hawk: This is a different take on the mullet, where the sides of the head are shaven (or at least significantly short) with short hair on the front and long in the back much like a classic mullet. The mohawk mullet is also known as the “Mulhawk” to some. Also known as “The Dream Hawk.”

Chullet: General term used to describe a child mullet. Otherwise known as child cruelty.

I know what your thinking, and don’t worry. Although I am a fan of looking at the mullet, I don’t think I could ever truly sport one. You’ve got to have courage, dedication and a denim jacket to uphold the mullet’s legacy. I’ll leave it to the roadies and the retired rock stars.

Smug Saturday night takeaway presenters Ant and Dec are in a fit of rage after finding out they were presented with an award they didn’t win at the 2005 British Comedy Awards.

 The deception emerged as media watchdog Ofcom fined ITV £5.68m over its use of premium rate phone lines. The rightful winner of the People’s Choice Award was The Catherine Tate Show.

 ITV used Independent law firm Olswang to conduct an investigation in to the matter after allegations of irregularities.

 Now the, loved by Grannies everywhere, duo have been told they must return their awards (of which they have three) and ITV could offer no explanation as to why Ant and Dec were picked to receive the prize.

 Failed crooner Robbie Williams was invited to present the award, but it is understood he would only do so if Ant and Dec were going to win “. In order to ensure his attendance, this assurance was given.”

The report pointed out that the arrangement was made after the nights main winners had been decided by a jury and “the only award still to be decided was the People’s Choice award”.

 Olswang also found out those viewers were further deceived because the final section of the 2005 ceremony was broadcast with a half-hour delay to fit around the main nightly news bulletin. This delayed segment continued to ask the audience to vote for the People’s Choice Award, even though votes had been counted and the trophy had already been handed out.

 ITV itself will not be subject to sanctions over the incident. This is because a different firm, Channel Television, was responsible for ensuring the British Comedy Awards complied with broadcasting regulations.

 Last year’s ceremony was not shown on TV, but production company Michael Hurll Television told the BBC that 2008’s show was already “in the schedule”. In a statement it said it was “embarrassed and deeply apologetic”, as well as “frustrated” that the Olswang report had added “nothing of material significance to our original internal inquiry”.

I remember when I was a child. My mum and I had this argument every meal time;

Mum – “Eat your Greens”

Joe – “No, they taste horrible”

Mum – “But they’ll help you grow big and strong”

Joe – “Yeah right”

Well mum, I think I owe you an apology because researchers have just discovered something called phytoecdy, a steroid chemical found in the disgusting tasting stuff that good ‘ole Popeye used to love so much – Spinach.

Apparently the chemical boosts muscle protein by 20 percent. Not only that, Spinach is rich in vitamins, can help combat eye disease, gum problems, anemia and is even used as a detox food for fighting Cancer.

The research also high-lighted the green stuff’s benefits for the heart as it can reduce the risk of heart attacks and boost the survival rates for victims.

For those of you who don’t know Spinach is rich in a number of essential nutrients, including calcium, folate, iron, magnesium, vitamin C and vitamin A. Each of these nutrients plays a crucial role in our body’s health, from maintaining bone structure, preventing neural tube defects, assisting in red blood cell production, regulating our heartbeat, fighting free radicals and nourishing good eyesight.

But don’t worry folks, scientists at Rutgers University in New Jersey say that the average person would have to eat around 2lb (1kg) of spinach a day to gain bulging biceps like everybody’s favorite sailor man, Popeye, and no one I know is that brave.

It’s up to you what you eat, but it’s nice to know you can force feed yourself enough spinach to give the Jolly Green Giant a run for his money. That being said, there is no way I’m standing downwind of you, if you do.

Our day was cheered up some what with the news that benefit cheats are going to be put through lie detector tests in fifteen of the UK’s councils. The fraudsters get away with up to £400 million of taxpayers money a year.

 The system, which analyses speech patterns to catch the culprits, has already been trialed by seven councils and has already saved them hundreds of thousands of pounds.

 Critics say that genuine claimants may be put off applying for help for fear of being wrongly labeled a fraudster but surely if you have nothing to hide, what’s the problem?

 The equipment detects changes in the sound of the claimant’s voice which could indicate they are not telling the truth about their circumstances. Staff can then able for further evidence to support any suspicious claims.

 Harrow Council has been using the technology for a year and has saved £420,000 partly because a third of the people had received a phone call quizzing them about there need for benefits.

 More than 90% of people claiming benefits were honest, but “often people changed their stories part way through the conversation” said Harrow councilor Paul Osborne. He reckoned that some of the claimants realized their answers didn’t add up and chickened out for fear of being prosecuted for fraud.

The system seems very simple; an operator sits in front of a computer, and makes phone calls to claimants. He or she asks set questions, and the screen flashes red if the software detects a change in the modulation of the voice which could indicate the claimant is not telling the truth.

 The lie detectors will be rolled out nationally, with the government claiming they should save the taxpayers millions of pounds a year with no mention of how much the scheme costs….

Proving that once again the legal system plays favorites with celebrities, troubled rock star Pete Doherty has been released early from his 14 week stay at Wormwood Scrubs prison.

  Leaving the prison at 7:10am this morning Doherty was looking forward to the quiet life after apparently beating his drug habit. “Buzzing” after his release the Babyshambles frontman said, “I feel great – I’ve walked out and I don’t feel like I want to score…I feel like I want to go for a nice walk in the park instead.”

 The singer found the medical facilities difficult as he started his sentence. “Well, I knew it was going to be a bit rough to start with“, he said, “with the overcrowding and the medical facilities. Although the do their best – they are god, they can’t really cater for the average junkie”.

 He added, when asked what the worst part of being in jail was he joked, “Gangsters and Radio 4”.

 Doherty showed off his prison diary that he had kept, complete with letters from fans, drawings and written diary entries. Borrowing a phone from a reporter to call his managers he jumped in a car with popular music’s ‘friend in a high place’ NME magazine to get a lift home.

 So is this just another case of a celebrity getting away with murder? What’s it going to take to keep this guy in jail? The answer is sadly unknown. Maybe if Pete was unmasked, in a Scooby Doo style, to be Osama Bin Laden he might be incarcerated for good.

 In 2003-2004 it cost the UK £27, 320 per prisoner per year. If you were to look at the case of Pete Doherty’s 29 day stint you’re looking at a total of £2.170 not to mention the massive amount of time consumed by the courts, police and any one else involved in bringing him in. It’s nice to know your tax money’s well spent huh…

 All I can really say is ‘hats off’ to Pete’s Management Company. They really know how to get their special guy to the front of every newspaper each day thus keeping him in the public eye but come on people, do you really want to see some greasy haired, spotty mess of a human being whilst you have your breakfast.

Over the last couple of years we have heard more and more about bio-fuels and how they are set to save the world from dependence on oil, but is it real? Or is it the biggest con trick of all time?

We hear today that the UN have called for a halt to the growing of bio-fuels which they say are leading to massive rises in the price of food around the world. As well as the UN call for a halt to the production of bio-fuels we also hear that the energy used to produce the bio-fuels is substantial more than the energy created from the fuel, i.e. it is not anywhere near as efficient as the “experts” would have you believe. So what next?

While there have been many against bio-fuels from day one, in theory they do offer an interesting alternative to our dependence on oil, the price of which recently hit $120. There is no doubt that the rise in the price of oil has added greatly to the cost of food (increased transport expenses are added into the end price) but the fact that bio-fuels are produced from crops which are common in the food markets has increased the demand and the price for such crops – adding yet further to the cost of food.

Why are we even considering bio-fuels?

The fact that we are so desperate to find an alternative to oil has pushed us down the road of bio-fuels, but the headlines do not always reflect the underlying picture and the real situation. The added expense and costs which bio-fuels are bringing to the party are mounting up and it is starting to look as though the billions of pounds spent on research and development may be counter productive when the whole picture is considered.

Sitting here tonight I have just witnessed the might Glasgow Rangers scrape through to the UEFA Cup Final with a penalty shoot out against Italian giants Fiorentina. Earlier this week we saw Manchester United see off foreign opposition to make it to the Champions League Final, with Liverpool and Chelsea battling it out to join them – Chelsea eventually came through in extra time. British football is on the up and we are seeing the headlines we want to see at last!

The last few months have been dogged by police arrests, possible charges against the owners of Birmingham City Football Club and in-fighting at Liverpool between the two former friends who own the club. Until this week it had all been doom and gloom and much of the good work done on the pitch had gone unnoticed. Now is the time to sit back and take stock, British Football is back!

However, maybe we are getting a little carried away with the whole situation. League football is on the up, but each of the National teams of the UK have failed to qualify for this years Euro 2008 tournament which will see no British interest for the first time for many many years. We still need to get our National teams into gear!

While it would be hard to criticise Scotland, yet again they have fallen at the final hurdle when qualification seemed to be staring them in the face – even a double over France was not enough. All of the other National teams, including England, were struggling from day one and fell away badly at the end. So what can we do? How can the National team benefit from this new found hope?

The hope is that an all English Champions League Final and Ranger in the UEFA Cup Final will see many young boys return to football, boys that have been lost for some time. Let us use this success to plant the seeds for the future, to bring on the home grown players, and let British Football be great again!

If like me you have followed the story of the father in Austria who kept one of his children locked up for 24 years in a cellar, had 7 children by her and kept some of them locked downstairs with her and brought some up as his own, you must think the same as me. What kind of a world do we live in?

What kind of a sick man can actually keep someone hidden underground for 24 years, abuse them and when found out, act as if nothing has happened and what he had been doing was not wrong?

The police involved in the case say that the “father” in question does not think he has done anything wrong and is being very arrogant during questioning. While the case speaks for itself, with the discovery of a labyrinth of rooms under the main house, it was heartbreaking to hear about the children’s first glimpse of sunlight, first look at the moon and first car journey. They have been deprived of the things which we take for granted every day of our lives, their immune systems are said to be at breaking point and they cannot actually communicate in the traditional way. What hope is there?

The doctors associated with the case have been amazed at the way the family have adapted to life on the outside, how well educated they are and how balanced they seem to be. This is all testament to the courage and ability of their mother to look after and protect them even in the most horrendous of situations. How must she be feeling now? Guilt, relief, you name it and she must be feeling it.

Sadly it has not all ended happily as one of the children is fighting for their life at hospital in a coma, their immune system under attack and the chances of survival very slim. What kind of a world is this we live in?

I have just taken a cold call on my mobile phone and while I did not recognise the number, they hung up after just two rings. Concerned that something may have happened and one of my family were trying to get in touch I called the number back.

“You called me” I asked, concerned….

”Oh yes, that would be one of my colleagues……”

The man at the end of the phone then suddenly slipped into his sales script :-

“Yes, we can help you reclaim your bank charges after the recent ruling in the high court……”

“Hold on I replied, Where did you get my number?”

I then found out that recent changes in the law now allow cold calling companies to call your mobile, but they don’t actually know who they are calling. I was informed that they have a machine which works its way through every mobile phone number in the UK, one numerical change at a time, and the lucky person that answer will have the chance to “claim back some money”.

Now, I don’t mind someone making a living but I do mind someone calling my mobile phone when I know that only a handful of people have the number. The fact it is an unknown number will no doubt cause as much alarm for others as it did for me. So is it morally right to pester someone with a cold call, hard sell?

While we are all able to add our numbers to a national database if we don’t want to receive a cold call, in my view we should be made to opt in if we want cold calls and opt out as a default option. What right have these people got to call us, claiming to help us, when all along they are only “feathering their own nests” and trying to make money for themselves. The name of this company, RECLAIM, so beware!