Jump to content

Politics


Christmas Tree
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

:lol:
Other than being named after him? 

Except that isn’t a definite, the first time Earl Grey tea is mentioned in print is 1880. It’s probably named after him but that doesn’t mean he has anything to do with it. Like St James probably wasn’t a Newcastle fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

Except that isn’t a definite, the first time Earl Grey tea is mentioned in print is 1880. It’s probably named after him but that doesn’t mean he has anything to do with it. Like St James probably wasn’t a Newcastle fan.


The ground isn’t named after one of Christ’s apostles to be fair :cuppa:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

14 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

Except that isn’t a definite, the first time Earl Grey tea is mentioned in print is 1880. It’s probably named after him but that doesn’t mean he has anything to do with it. Like St James probably wasn’t a Newcastle fan.

Hey, howay man :lol: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just seen on the news there that Little Britain's been taken off iPlayer and Netflix. I had to google to find out what the offending character was. Yes it's shit and has aged poorly but ffs. It's fine apparently to have Dafyd the only gay in the village, the chav Vicky Pollard, and the disabled Andy Pipkin, etc, but God help us if we have a minor character with brown make-up on.

 

Two problems with this. First, where does it stop. Second, it's just going to fuel a gammony backlash and all this culture war shit. There are much more important things happening right now. 

Edited by Renton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only assume these apologies are about getting ahead of the issue before they become the target. I’m not sure there’s been much outrage about these programs? Though there were demands for Sacha Baron Cohen to apologise for portraying a black character in Ali G. :lol: 
 

These programs weren't about getting laughs out of the fact that the characters were black, they just happened to be black. Being black was not the joke.

 

It’s a bit like these demands that gay or disabled characters should only be played by gay or disabled actors. It’s acting ffs. 

Edited by ewerk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye John Barnes was on the news last week saying that Francis shouldn't have apologised cos he was taking the piss out of Craig David and Michael Jackson just as individuals, not because they were black. 

 

Basically said he's got fuck all to apologise for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ewerk said:

I can only assume these apologies are about getting ahead of the issue before they become the target. I’m not sure there’s been much outrage about these programs? Though there were demands for Sacha Baron Cohen to apologise for portraying a black character in Ali G. :lol: 
 

These programs weren't about getting laughs out of the fact that the characters were black, they just happened to be black. Being black was not the joke.

 

It’s a bit like these demands that gay or disabled characters should only be played by gay or disabled actors. It’s acting ffs

Woah woah woah- are you telling me the lads in Father Ted weren’t real priests? 

Down with this sort of thing. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason the film Grease was discussed on 5 live this morning. Apparently a lot of people want it banned. Not because it doesn't feature any black characters, but because Danny gropes sandy at the drive through! FFS!

 

Be afraid @Monkeys Fist, your days of letching are gonna catch up with you! 

Edited by Renton
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Renton said:

Two problems with this. First, where does it stop. Second, it's just going to fuel a gammony backlash and all this culture war shit. There are much more important things happening right now. 

 

This particular wing of the left is the one that the culture warriors on the right use to discredit the rest of us. So you're right. Having said that, these guys are the first left wingers to land some actual blows on the right for quite some time now so I'm having a hard time not enjoying it on some level.

 

What I find remarkable about this with statues coming down, TV shows being cancelled etc, is that it appears to be happening with no due process. The seas are just parting before the protesters.

 

The implication of this is that the police and the government are running scared, that the BBC knew Little Britain was racist but we're only prepared to do something about it if 1m people started protesting through cities, that Sadiq Kahn needed widespread protests to awaken himself to the notion that statues in London needed review, etc.

 

Now from the protesters POV it's a total win. From society's its a complete mess IMO. We can't have such flimsy governmental and institutional structures that they yield the first time a big protest comes onto the scene. They should have procedures in place to correct for this stuff through proper channels. And if they don't do it, we have to accept that this is the outcome dictated by the society we live in. Not taking action until a mass protest is carried out just makes them look weak as shit.

 

I saw police running from collections of white 20 year olds throwing bottles and shit at them yesterday. What the fuck is the point in them then.

 

We're seeing a mass discrediting of a number of institutions and I don't remotely understand how they've allowed themselves to get to this point. Why is it just now news to them that black people are angry? It's not. It's been news for fucking decades.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post. We're now finding out what piss poor leadership, sustained over time, can do to a country. Plenty of precedents an ultimately British exceptionalism won't change the reality we're facing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing the police could rely on was the Tories having their back. As that has eroded over the last decade and a bit to the point where even the thickest copper can see they don’t give a fuck about them then you can see why they aren’t prepared to put their bodies on the line anymore. That’s an observation rather than a defence of them. 

Edited by Alex
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both posts true. This genuinely is a consequence of a total absence of leadership, and a breakdown of social trust not only between people and institutions, but between institutions and government. The Tories have been such an unmitigated disaster on so many fronts that it is simply astounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listened to that James O'brien the day after Johnson backed Cummings and he repeated a comment he'd been told from someone who said they knew Trump and Johnson were liars and shit leaders but they supported them simply because they made people like him and other lefties so mad. I think that goes a long way to explaining it. 

 

Saw his comment today that the Mail and their readers thought they'd won control with brexit and the GE which is why they're now so angry about the slave traders - it's all about their views being held as the right ones. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.