How thick do you have to be not to understand irony? :O:OQuote:
Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds
Printable View
How thick do you have to be not to understand irony? :O:OQuote:
Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds
But you do ‘use’ the BBC don’t you? You just choose to avoid paying your 43p per day and go down the parasitic route of watching via YouTube.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds
The comparison with NFFC is a nonsense. As I’ve said before the existence of an independent, responsible and largely impartial national broadcaster is beneficial to society as a whole. The existence of NFFC is (occasionally) beneficial to about 25,000 Nottingham folk.
Now...if you could actually answer the question about value for money, rather than asking another irrelevant one we might get somewhere.
Tricky are you ill or something Nobody is "forced" to buy a TV licence in this country if you don't want to buy one don't watch simple. It's never been compulsory . If you don't like paying road tax drive. Don't you pay your council tax because don't like paying it ,you can't pick which parts of that you don't think the council should be spending it on. I've hated paying Osbournes 20%VAT for the last 10yrs but because I like buying stuff I have to pay If you chose to live in a democratic country in afraid that's what you have to do Maybe your in the wrong country Contribute 50p a day to NFFC I would have bought your club by the end of the weekQuote:
Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds
Tricky ( can someone explain to me how Lineker being paid a fortune by Walkers whilst contradicting the BBCs conflict of interest policy ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trickytreesreds
Well I can't really help you doesn't seem right when your being paid by other people's money
I have the same problem with Johnson surely a conflict of interest with being paid by his writing his column in the Telegragh much of his ramblings being political Plus his main job is being paid by tax payers
You really do despise your fellow man don’t you, your disdain for ‘ordinary joe’ would be annoying if more folk actually took notice of youQuote:
Originally Posted by swaledale
At the risk of being called Swale’s ‘tail gunner’ or ‘apologist’ - he doesn’t need either - I really don’t see it as ‘disdain’ but ‘concern’, Andy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_Faber
There can be little doubt that both the UK and the USA are currently under the ‘rule’ of the two most right wing, dishonest and divisive ‘leaders’ for decades...possibly ever.
Both, imo, delight in making controversial statements which are regularly either verging on, or more overtly, homophobic, mysoginistic or racist.
Unfortunately their is a section of society which supports such views. They tend to have much in common with those who seek short term, knee jerk, ill thought through populist ‘solutions’...blame the blacks, blame the ’Pakis’, blame Jonny Foreigner, blame the gays, blame the pensioners, blame the homeless etc.
I think I only have genuine disdain for bullies and bigots but I do share Swale’s concern.
God forbid anyone should ever accuse you of being Swale's tailgunner rA...I think it was rear gunner.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
But that 'section of society' (which I would say is in the majority or at least a significant minority, and growing) are no more influenced by the incumbent administrations (not sure why you keep bringing Trump up, there are small c conservative adminstrations the world over) than they are by a revulsion for what I (apparently quaintly) call PC but has now gained a new moniker, 'woke'. The word, originally defined as 'having a social conscience' is progressively being hijacked from a positive to a negative meaning 'social conscience gone mad'. An observation by me, not a stance
Perhaps if your ‘observations’ include some examples of ‘social conscience gone mad’ it would further the debate.
There are things we all find irritating but those I can think of are a far cry from the ‘hijacking of social conscience’.
Your correct I despise people who seem unable to think for themselves and take simplistic falsehoods and spew them out as if they are sensible factual comments. I despise people who use lazy stereotypes, who pretend they are only "broadly racist" who lay claim to being part of a forgotten, victimised group because it justifies their lazy uniformed views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_Faber
Far from despising "ordinary people", I despise the views of all such people that I've described. In my experience they are not defined by income, social status, education nationality, job or whatever you care to label people by.
I don't make a judgement on people due to their perceived social status, their income, their job, their accent or their education, in the same way I don't make a judgement on a persons race, ethnicity, nationality.
Thats precisely why I'm not bothered as you seem to be by BAME people appearing on TV, I judge a person on what they say and how they preform their job, who or what they are is irrelevant, in fact I don't give it another thought. If they speak crap and are ****e at their job then why would I respect them?
I know people who you would presumably class as "ordinary" who do not parrot *******s from dubious sources, but have views that are well founded and actually their own. I know very intelligent, people earning six figure sums who spout crap! I know people who have significant power, who are complete and utter ****s.
Neither am I threatened by people who are "different" or who have different views, some of my closet friends have completely opposite views to me, there is always an opposite and opposing view, sometimes several but they do all need to have one thing in common, they need some basis in fact and a demonstrate some individual thought. I mean its not too much to ask is it?
"Ordinary Joe"? Mm more broad brush assumptions about people - and me it seems, just who is this "ordinary joe" and what about "ordinary jill"? Doesn't she count? Its so simplistic to apply a label like this, in real life it does not apply and of course people aren't one dimensional.
This is another simplistic way of grouping people under a handy convenient label, presumably because your too lazy or too thick to think beyond such simplistic concepts? I notice you haven't explained who the "PC Brigade"are either, mind you thats kind of your style, not answering questions and making observations which no doubt you think are "clever" and sharp, unfortunately they don't come across as that, just clumsy and dull witted!
Its interesting that you think folk don't take any notice of me, I wonder quite how you reach that conclusion or is it just another lazy assumption. Or is it that your comforted by the thought that its the select few who post on here don't?
Ah well never mind keep taking the tablets because I couldn't give a ****! :heart::heart:
WOKE is used as pejorative term by Right Wing commentators who are just stirring the ****e because they know unthinking people will jump on the bandwagon. In the same way that the supposed dropping of the words to Rule Britannia at the proms by the BBC was basically manufactured by an article in the right wing press and then a couple of right wing commentators because it suited their BBC bashing agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
Manufactured indignation over absolutely nothing.
Quite how he perceives this section of society to be a majority (or a growing minority) is puzzling! Who are this growing homogeneous mass of people who he knows think and feel this way? How does he know this? what evidence can he produce to support such an assertion?