Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Atila,


I've never been on the football thead (amongst others) so if you've got history on other theads then I really wouldn't know - I based my post on this thead alone so any past scraps have gone under my radar. I am truly sorry if you have been unfairly treated though.


If you think you're being baited then don't take the bait - ignore them - it will really wind them up. I have a really lovely friend whom I met on the forum, who is having a really hard time right now. She gave me (and herself) some really good advice last year, she said "to take the fight out of the fight". Brilliant stuff. It's not about turning the other cheek - it's different. If someone means you harm nothing will piss them off more than you refusing to take their malicious bait (in whatever form that bait takes). You win. End of.

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> That's good advice from the giggirl but if you look back to when the insults start flying. Guess who starts it? I'm sure don't have to tell you the answer.


Hypocrite.


Pot and kettle eh?

It is all highly subjective because I personally believe that JK Rowling is someone who just got lucky. And don't get me started on Dan Brown. I wouldn't exactly say that they don't work hard for their money but, let me put it this way, they've made a little bit of talent go a long way and they've had some major lucky breaks.


We could all draw up a list of people who we don't think deserve their dosh - there's an idea for a new thread. What's the should be the criteria for getting on the list though? Having little or no talent? Not working hard enough?

I don't know about not deserving it, as you say some people just got lucky and ain't that just sometimes the way.

Good luck to them I say, it's just sometimes a bit depressing that things are held up somehow.


Dan Brown was standard airport fare that somehow got itself talked about enough to be self marketing. JK Rowlong, well

it's not her fault and good luck to her too, it's just if anybody tells me to read it, ofthat I have no imagination, or that it's great she's encouraging reading amongst the young, I'm going to wish very hard for a piano to drop from the sky on to their heads.

Alan Dale Wrote:

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

> Luck is the single biggest determinant in any of

> our lives. It doesn't pay to recognise this as

> it's then hard to be motivated.

>


I agree with you 100% on that. I would add though that sometimes (not always) you make your own luck. Positive thinking, setting things in motion - that sort of thing.

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> I don't know about not deserving it, as you say

> some people just got lucky and ain't that just

> sometimes the way.

> Good luck to them I say, it's just sometimes a bit

> depressing that things are held up somehow.

>

> Dan Brown was standard airport fare that somehow

> got itself talked about enough to be self

> marketing. JK Rowlong, well

> it's not her fault and good luck to her too, it's

> just if anybody tells me to read it, ofthat I have

> no imagination, or that it's great she's

> encouraging reading amongst the young, I'm going

> to wish very hard for a piano to drop from the sky

> on to their heads.


Absolutely. I think the success of JK Rowling's books has done much to put books in the hands of those that did very little reading until she came along. You can't fault that. She got very lucky though - I only read one and it wasn't the best written children's book I've ever read.

I'm kind of 'meh' about Jonathan Ross, but then I'm not a fan of chat shows and not interested in celebrities, so that's a pretty favourable rating. I'm still not covinced that ?6 million p.a. was a genuine market rate way back when, and it will be interesting to see what offers he gets now - don't expect figures to be published, because I suspect it will be a lot less.


I think the original deal dated from a time when the BBC, despite not having the commercial pressure of the ITV stations, was pushing the market pay for 'talent' ever higher just because they had the dosh and wanted to win the ratings war - not really the best use of public money.


More generally, there's a clear difference between people who make money on a royalty basis, and others. Dan Brown, J K Rowling, Spice Girls, Nickelback? Millions of people freely bought the books/albums, so as much as anyone 'deserves' the dosh, they do. Footballers, on the other hand, benefit from a completely dysfunctional market fuelled by a combination of debt, public subsidy (in Spain and Italy), ego driven patronage and the incurable madness of fans.

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

    • I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.
    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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