Jump to content

Rebekah Brooks cleared, Andy Coulson found guilty........


Recommended Posts

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it boils down to people just don't like

> proper gingas, especially if they look vaguely

> like a witch.

>

> Thogh beating grant mitchell up is pretty funny.


Yeah, because domestic violence is just such a laughing matter.

Actually I think Grant Mitchell/Ross Kemp was pretty brave getting this out into the open. He risked (and it seems is still getting) a lot of derision from the hypocrisy brigade.


Honestly, I am pretty disgusted with some people I expected better from.

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This was to domestic violence what Punch and Judy

> is to gritty and poignant documentary.

> Equating the two in a snotty fashion is rather

> guardianista shurely?


OK, I'll bite - why do you say that? What is it about that incident makes it so dismissable? A guy being hit by a women? Celebrity - did you find the Chris Brown/Rihanna incident hilariously funny as well?


Or is a punch in the mouth not a high enough level of domestic violence to take seriously?

Ok I'll counter bite .

My understanding was that it was a one off slap in the heat of the moment, the mainstay of the Hollywood romcom for the best part of 80 years.

The humour arises not from the minor violence itself, but from the irony that Ross kemps entire career is predicated on his hard man image.


Sigh, how tedious having to explain that. So do we now need to censor every great Spencer Tracey and Katharine Hepburn moment?


If of course I'm wrong and it was actually part of a cycle of walk into door style abuse I can only apologise for my insensitivity.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jah Lush Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Doesn't make it right though.

>

> Didn't you used to work for a red-top? At any

> point did you get wind that the paper would go to

> illegal efforts to get stories? Phone-hacking or

> anything else? Because anyone I've spoken reckons

> it's rife and you'd have to live under a rock to

> not be aware of dodgy goings on.


I did but not at News International. I know there was always "dodgy goings on" as you say even before my time but I wasn't what you might call in the loop. However, it would not have surprised me in the slightest if phone hacking had gone on where I was based. Most tabloid journalists I've known over the years would sell their own mother to get an exclusive. It's not an honourable job. I can honestly say I've never met a "red top news journalist" I could trust. I despise them. They're all two-faced cunts.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah, really. Because it represents a much bigger issue.


Which is?


Although of course everyone has the right to live free from fear of violence, sexual equality is not about pretending men and women are equally vulnerable physically.

As an older gent I'm forced to agree the Titian haired one has a certain allure


But unlike Grant/Rupert/Tony/Andy and despite my devastating good looks, I could not by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as a stepping stone to success so I don't suppose I'd get the chance

I have no problem with redheads at all. In fact, theoretically I am not averse to the idea of a flame haired, power-crazed, evil witch. Just not this one. No siree.


Now, who will be the first person to be offended by the change in direction of this conversation?

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • Because they have been awful - scoring own-goal after own-goal. You cannot be an apologist for their diabolical first 100 days on the basis that the previous lot were worse - in the same way the whole of the 14 years of Tory rule was tarred with the brush of despair about their very worst behaviour in the latter years Labour run the risk of their government being tarred with the same brush on the basis of their first 100 days. It has probably been some of the worst 100 days of any new government and Starmer's approval ratings aren't as low as they are without reason. You know they are in trouble when MPs start posting the good bits from their first 100 days - it's a sure sign they know they have a problem. And when this government have a problem the frontbenchers disappear from media interviews and they roll-out the likes of Pat McFadden to provide some air cover. Yesterday it was farmers. Today it is the pensioners being pushed into poverty by Winter Fuel payments. It's a perceptual disaster and has been since day 1 - they have to get a grip on it else this leadership team is doomed. You highlight the very problem here. Farmers are not being gifted money. They are being gifted assets. Assets that they don't realise as they continue to work those assets to provide food for the country. Most inheritance is cash or an asset (a house) that people sell to generate cash. Passing a farm to younger family members is very different. On the news they interviewed a farmer whose family had owned the farm since 1822 and he broke down in tears when he spoke about his 13 year old son who was working in the farm to continue it - no doubt in the realisation that his son would be hit by a tax bill when he took it over. Given farmers are not cash rich then the decision would likely be that they would need to sell some of the land that generations had worked hard to build to fund the tax bill - and so many farms are on a knife's edge that it might be enough to send them over the edge.   There are many valid reasons why the government are doing what they are doing but those reasons are not cutting through and they are losing control of the narrative. That is a massive issue for them.  
    • Another great job by Simmonds Plastering. This time he decorated the newly plastered living room and added a pantry cupboard in kitchen.  He is reliable and works really hard.  Highly recommend 07949 180 533
    • Because land has been exempt from inheritance tax wealthy individuals (like Clarkson and Dyson) have used it as a tax avoidance measure. Clarkson is on the record stating that he bought land for precisely this purpose. It is people like him who farmers should be angry with, if anyone, because they have exploited a loophole, which is now being (partially) closed. Yes, I do grasp the concept of inheritance - it's were one is given money, or valuable assets by chance of birth (having done nothing to earn it). As money you have earned, is taxed, it seems odd that money you have not, shouldn't be. I assume you don't disapprove of income tax? Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should? Everyone has to pay inheritance tax over a certain threshold. In my opinion, if you are fortunate enough to be gifted any amount of money (whether cash, or a valuable asset), to quibble about paying some tax on some of it, seems rather entitled. Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part of it that is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate. 
    • Ah yes, good spot! Thanks for the link. It sounds like they are planning a licensed restaurant with a small bar from reading through the application. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...