Egypt parliament debating law to legalise Necrophilia

AckwelFoley

So, there was a new apprentice mortician starting on the job, and on his first day of the job he was finding his feet when just before lunch the van pulls jn with a victim of a road traffic accident.
The victim was a young woman in her early 20's, not a mark on her body apart from a knock to the head that killed her.
As it was close to lunch and the other morticians on the job were eager to get their lunch break they asked the apprentice to prep the body for embalming right after dinner.

Right, what do you want me to do? He asks, oh just remover her cloths and footwear and make sure all orphasis of the body cavity are clear and unobstructed and well start the embalming when we return. When yiu are finished join us in the resturant.

Right says the apprentice.

3/4 of an hour passes and there is no sign of the apprentice, the morticians are confused as to why he is taking so long, and just at that point he ckmes in the door of the resturant.

Well, how did you get on?

Fine he said.

It took you rather a long time though?

Yea, all was going wel, until i was working on the body cavities when i found a rather parculiar thing..

What was that they ask,

Well he says, i found a prawn stuck between her legs!

A prawn?? And with that they went back to see how there was a prawn there,..

So when the mortician gets there he opens her legs looks and sees nothing unusual, hesays to the young apprentice, i dont see a prawn there? Where did you see it?

Pointing to her fanny he says, its there! The mortician says thats not a prawn thats her clitorus!!

To which the apprentice sighs and says..

Well it tastes like prawn.

Biggins

Here's what you get for trusting The Mail:

On 13 July, the PCC published details of a complaint against the Mail that seems to have actually been resolved at the end of May.

MailOnline added this to the end of an article:

This article has been edited to deal with complaints that our original was inaccurate. We apologise to readers who were offended by our first story.

What was the 'first story'?

Outrage as Egypt plans 'farewell intercourse law' so husbands can have sex with DEAD wives up to six hours after their death.

That article claimed:

Egyptian husbands will soon be legally allowed to have sex with their dead wives - for up to six hours after their death. The controversial new law is part of a raft of measures being introduced by the Islamist-dominated parliament.

Except it wasn't. The headline of the MailOnline article now reads:

Egypt's 'plans for farewell intercourse law so husbands can have sex with DEAD wives' branded completely false

'Branded' false. Not is false. And the story says:

The controversial new 'farewell intercourse' law was claimed, in Arab media, to be part of a raft of measures being introduced by the Islamist-dominated parliament.

And indeed the claims did originate 'in Arab media'. But the MailOnline (and others) repeated them without much, if any, fact-checking. There's background on the story here and here.

But, as Dan Murphy pointed out in the Christian Science Monitor:

The problem is that there was never any such proposal, at any stage of consideration, in the Egyptian parliament. Ms. [Mervat el-Tallawy, the head of Egypt's National Council for Women] issued a statement today that says she's concerned about legislation that may harm the position of women in Egypt, but that there was never any "sex after death law" under consideration, let alone one she complained about. Arabiya followed up as well, quoting Parliament Secretary Sami Mahran as saying no such piece of legislation ever existed.

So MailOnline has now apologised. Not for getting it wrong, but 'to readers who were offended by our first story'.

Source (with additional links) : http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/mailonline-and-egypts-sex-after-death.html

Quality paper - NOT!