Jump to content

Charlotte Church

????

By ????
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

There is some absolute gold in the comments section. My favourite: "Spot on churchy the powers that be are afraid of you because all the grannies love you".


A close runner up was: "Seems to me, Charlotte, that you have more balls than do your detractors. And, being a lass, that?s a scrotal burden you?re not encumbered with."

*Bob*

*Bob*

Posted
Posted

Loz Wrote:

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


'Absolute gold'? You reckon? Low standards, I guess, Loz. They're piss-poor. Cringeworthy. The second one doesn't even make any sense, no matter how many times you read it.


Never ceases to amaze me - the level of basic misogyny meted-out to largely harmless female targets who stick dare to their head above the parapet. Doesn't matter if they're ugly, stunning, razor sharp, a bit dim, have a doctorate or one CSE, common as muck or dead posh, written fifty books or one the first one.. one things's for sure: there will always be a load of arseholes lining-up to tell them to get back in their box, love.

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> 'Absolute gold'? You reckon? Low standards, I guess, Loz. They're piss-poor. Cringeworthy. The second

> one doesn't even make any sense, no matter how many times you read it.


Erm, yes. Piss-poor and cringeworthy are why they are 'gold'. The first one didn't make a lot of sense, either.


You're the last person I thought I'd have to explain that to.

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

*Bob* Wrote:

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


> Never ceases to amaze me - the level of basic misogyny meted-out to largely harmless female

> targets who stick dare to their head above the parapet.


Considering your baiting of the "largely harmless" Louisa last week, you might be on a bit of dodgy ground there, *Bob*.

Blah Blah

Blah Blah

Posted
Posted
I'm with Otta. I like that Church is fighting her corner. And some women ARE given a raw deal for having opinions. Is that sexism? Misogyny? (that word always seems to get the most guilty of men riled up). At the end of the day she has an opinion. We may agree with it, we may not, but sneering because of her background or gender isn't clever. Like I said before, I like her style.
JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> I'm with Otta. I like that Church is fighting her

> corner. And some women ARE given a raw deal for

> having opinions. Is that sexism? Misogyny? (that

> word always seems to get the most guilty of men

> riled up). At the end of the day she has an

> opinion. We may agree with it, we may not, but

> sneering because of her background or gender isn't

> clever. Like I said before, I like her style.



I hope it's not because she is a bit Futurama Welshie


It's too easy to laugh at the intensity/excitability/passion

sometimes but it is a trait sorry to say and it's so nice

that she does seem to care :)

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
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • Sephiroth
      Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

      By Sephiroth · Posted

      It's nothing to do with being a cheerleader for labour - it's about starting to address some of the problems inherent in the economy. Many many many other essential groups of people have contributed fair share or had industries eliminated before so it's not some attack on Farnmers "If 500 farms sell off 20% of their land each year (the PMs estimate on the back of a Rizla paper)  then how long before we lose large chunks of farm land "?  "As for giving away land, sure providing they live 7 years afterwards " - is that so unlikely? Of the 500  farms in the example, how many would this help? Most I'd say I just haven't seen anything like the same "but what about the nurses/the police/the miners" as I have about the farmers - it's quite extraordinary    
    • alex_b
      Internet /ISP in SE London

      By alex_b · Posted

      Andrew and Arnold are very good. They have UK based techies and are proactive in managing OpenReach as the copper supplier. 
    • Earl Aelfheah
      Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

      By Earl Aelfheah · Posted

      We're not talking about people who've bought farms. We're talking about people who have inherited multi-million pound estates, having done nothing to earn it. Why should they not have to pay some tax on that.  
    • Spartacus
      Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

      By Spartacus · Posted

      If 500 farms sell off 20% of their land each year (the PMs estimate on the back of a Rizla paper)  then how long before we lose large chunks of farm land ?  As for giving away land, sure providing they live 7 years afterwards  Stop being a labour cheerleader and put yourself in farmers wellies for a moment.  Farming is a necessity, doesn't make Massive profits and after you consider the 7 days a week often 14 hour days, I bet most farmers don't even earn minimum wage per hour.  You will soon be whinging if there's no fresh veg on the shelves to go with your non existent turkey at Chrustmas.     

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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