Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sabisky decides to go of his own accord

13

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,383
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:


    So the story was to get new legs, and hence we know why he was sacked
    Just goes to show that adopting the same 'wait for it to blow over' tactic does not always work - they should have guessed there'd be more coming that would force them to act, and in misjudgement have made it worse for themselves. Whatever the rights or wrongs they've sustained at least minor political damage to no gain.
    The journalists will have known that somebody who has made outrageous comments in one place on the internet surely has more to be discovered, if they go digging for it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429
    This is, after all, a Boris honeymoon we’re talking about...
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,073

    Alistair said:

    MaxPB said:

    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.

    What exactly is the shame?
    That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.
    Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,284
    Locke was, of course, talking about one's freedom to boast about one's collections of incest erotica
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    Right, I know I'm somewhat invested in all this - but is the latest press release by Bloomberg pointing out a whole bunch of err... inconvienent truths about him is the strangest tactic I've ever seen.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 13,542
    He's in his twenties, it's not exactly a huge length of time ago he said this stuff.
  • EPG said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.

    Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.
    The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.

    There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.

    I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.

    Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
    BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.
    BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

    You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

    LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 12,582
    edited February 17
    Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?

    We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.

    Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 543
    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.

    There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance. And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.

    Eugenics, sterilisation, trying to stop a so-called “underclass” from breeding have all been tried - in Germany, in the US, in Sweden, for instance. The results are there for anyone with the intelligence to see and understand, though not apparently to this ignoramus with an inflated idea of his own intelligence.

    His comments on FGM showed total ignorance of the fact that it is a crime and why.

    It is not provocation which is needed or, at least, not just that on its own. What we need are well-thought through ideas and, above all, judgment, common sense and some ethical sense. Plus some idea of what problem exactly is being addressed. Sabisky was, based on what we have learnt, utterly lacking in all these qualities.
    'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'

    If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,383

    Alistair said:

    MaxPB said:

    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.

    What exactly is the shame?
    That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.
    Boris is on the Left now?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 13,542

    Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?

    We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.

    Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?

    It's loud and bumpy.
  • A little known but brilliant comedy:



    Was shown on BBC4 a few years ago.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,383

    Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?

    We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.

    Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?

    I’ve been on tons of European continental ones and they’re not like that. The worst you get is occasionally being shunted about in the middle of the night.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,284

    EPG said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.

    Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.
    The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.

    There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.

    I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.

    Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
    BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.
    BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

    You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

    LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    BBC is comparable to part of Google (YouTube). They both spend tons of money to make the good things everyone likes, and don't make a lot of money. It's not comparable to DWP or a motor tax office that way.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,867
    If Dom is as good a game theorist as he seems to think he is, then he would be advised to shut the fuck up for a week or two.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,073

    Cyclefree said:

    MaxPB said:

    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.

    There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance. And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.

    Eugenics, sterilisation, trying to stop a so-called “underclass” from breeding have all been tried - in Germany, in the US, in Sweden, for instance. The results are there for anyone with the intelligence to see and understand, though not apparently to this ignoramus with an inflated idea of his own intelligence.

    His comments on FGM showed total ignorance of the fact that it is a crime and why.

    It is not provocation which is needed or, at least, not just that on its own. What we need are well-thought through ideas and, above all, judgment, common sense and some ethical sense. Plus some idea of what problem exactly is being addressed. Sabisky was, based on what we have learnt, utterly lacking in all these qualities.
    'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'

    If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?
    Ask a supporter of the Labour Party. There are plenty of them on here.

    And it’s not “the” standard. It’s my standard.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 543
    Cyclefree said:

    Alistair said:

    MaxPB said:

    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.

    What exactly is the shame?
    That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.
    Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”
    Boris Johnson is the exception that proves the rule - but only a partial one in that his ideas are far from crazy.

    I'd like him to use his influence to allow those on the right the same freedom as the left has to do off-the-wall thinking without losing their careers.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,368
    IanB2 said:

    Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?

    We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.

    Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?

    I’ve been on tons of European continental ones and they’re not like that. The worst you get is occasionally being shunted about in the middle of the night.
    I had a very noisy and bumpy sleeper between Krakow and Budapest. Very noisy brakes and uncomfortably hot too.

    Not as bad as the laughably titled Acropolis Express in the early eighties mind you!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,073
    Alistair said:

    He's in his twenties, it's not exactly a huge length of time ago he said this stuff.
    Some of his advice on sex and Christianity can be found here - An unkind person might wonder whether he is one of those persons who talks rather more about sex than actually experiences it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 12,582
    IanB2 said:

    Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?

    We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.

    Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?

    I’ve been on tons of European continental ones and they’re not like that. The worst you get is occasionally being shunted about in the middle of the night.
    Thanks - maybe we will give them a try then and hope for a better experience.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,867
    Meanwhile, at the other end of the bonkers forest...

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,174



    'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'

    If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?

    As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,073

    Cyclefree said:

    Alistair said:

    MaxPB said:

    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.

    What exactly is the shame?
    That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.
    Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”
    Boris Johnson is the exception that proves the rule - but only a partial one in that his ideas are far from crazy.

    I'd like him to use his influence to allow those on the right the same freedom as the left has to do off-the-wall thinking without losing their careers.
    You want him to copy Corbyn?

    So anti-semitism on the left and eugenics on the right. Mmmmm - lovely....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    Trump's rolling average approval rating is 43.9% according to 538 right now - that's the highest it's been for a smidgen over 3 years.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 543
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Alistair said:

    MaxPB said:

    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.

    What exactly is the shame?
    That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.
    Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”
    Boris Johnson is the exception that proves the rule - but only a partial one in that his ideas are far from crazy.

    I'd like him to use his influence to allow those on the right the same freedom as the left has to do off-the-wall thinking without losing their careers.
    You want him to copy Corbyn?

    So anti-semitism on the left and eugenics on the right. Mmmmm - lovely....
    No - as I've said on here before, give me the cosy, civilized pre-2015 consensus any day. But I strongly object to my side having to engage in the political arena with both hands tied behind our backs while literally anything goes on the other.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 10,319
    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

    I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

    The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

    I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
    I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
    Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
    Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
    Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
    No, we don’t

    Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
    That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,073

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Alistair said:

    MaxPB said:

    On this Sabinsky character, I think it's a shame the way it went down. Sometimes we do need people to think the unthinkable, however unpalatable it might be. There has to be room in society for unpopular opinions and unpopular ideas, or more specifically ideas and opinions that go against the consensus.

    In the late 80s climate change was a completely unpopular opinion and completely went against the consensus, but we needed those people to challenge normal thinking.

    So yes, his views were a bit off, but without those people we won't have that any more and we will lose out on solving problems no one has even contemplated.

    What exactly is the shame?
    That no one is allowed to have the slightest public profile if they've ever said anything other than the blandly anodyne, even in a private capacity. Except on the Left, of course - you can have a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades, and then they make you Leader.
    Er, yes, Boris Johnson - such a bland anodyne person. Or maybe he’s exactly as you describe: someone with “a back catalogue of crazy shit spanning decades and then they make you Leader.”
    Boris Johnson is the exception that proves the rule - but only a partial one in that his ideas are far from crazy.

    I'd like him to use his influence to allow those on the right the same freedom as the left has to do off-the-wall thinking without losing their careers.
    You want him to copy Corbyn?

    So anti-semitism on the left and eugenics on the right. Mmmmm - lovely....
    No - as I've said on here before, give me the cosy, civilized pre-2015 consensus any day. But I strongly object to my side having to engage in the political arena with both hands tied behind our backs while literally anything goes on the other.
    Your side is in power. If your side wants to talk about the benefits of eugenics you are perfectly free to do so. And those of who think this morally despicable balls are also free to say so.

    It often seems to me that the desire not to have “both hands tied behind” your backs actually means not having to face any criticism or challenge. Well, tough. Corbyn’s Labour got it with both barrels over his nonsense - both from commentators and voters - and so will - and should - your side when it does the same.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,368
    Cyclefree said:

    Alistair said:

    He's in his twenties, it's not exactly a huge length of time ago he said this stuff.
    Some of his advice on sex and Christianity can be found here - An unkind person might wonder whether he is one of those persons who talks rather more about sex than actually experiences it.
    He has six children apparently.

    The master race breeding is not a problem, just the feckless underclass.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,073
    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Alistair said:

    He's in his twenties, it's not exactly a huge length of time ago he said this stuff.
    Some of his advice on sex and Christianity can be found here - An unkind person might wonder whether he is one of those persons who talks rather more about sex than actually experiences it.
    He has six children apparently.

    The master race breeding is not a problem, just the feckless underclass.
    At the age of 27?!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 30,473
    edited February 17
    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.

    Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.
    The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.

    There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.

    I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.

    Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
    BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.
    BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

    You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

    LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    BBC is comparable to part of Google (YouTube). They both spend tons of money to make the good things everyone likes, and don't make a lot of money. It's not comparable to DWP or a motor tax office that way.
    BBC turnover £4.889 billion (2019)
    Google turnover £160.74 billion (2018)

    Yeah they're comparable! 😂

    Google has 1.5 billion global users.

    BBC and Google are comparable in the same way as Liverpool and Tranmere Rovers are comparable.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,318
    Interesting definition of mainstream. ;)
  • The former Commons Speaker John Bercow has described parliamentary staff members who allege that he bullied people as “snobs and bigots”, and claimed he is the victim of a concerted campaign to destroy his reputation.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/17/john-bercow-says-bullying-accusers-are-snobs-and-bigots
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 543



    'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'

    If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?

    As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
    Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.

    Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
  • isamisam Posts: 30,713
    edited February 17
    I think Butler is saying a child has no sex when it is conceived, in reply to Madeley talking about when it is born... weird whatever

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 2,495
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Alistair said:

    He's in his twenties, it's not exactly a huge length of time ago he said this stuff.
    Some of his advice on sex and Christianity can be found here - An unkind person might wonder whether he is one of those persons who talks rather more about sex than actually experiences it.
    He has six children apparently.

    The master race breeding is not a problem, just the feckless underclass.
    At the age of 27?!
    He was not the one doing the hard work. ;)
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 972
    Tomorrow’s Scottish Sun

    “The rumours relate to Ms Sturgeon’s private life, but details cannot be disclosed for legal reasons.“
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.

    Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.
    The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.

    There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.

    I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.

    Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
    BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.
    BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

    You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

    LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    BBC is comparable to part of Google (YouTube). They both spend tons of money to make the good things everyone likes, and don't make a lot of money. It's not comparable to DWP or a motor tax office that way.
    BBC turnover £4.889 billion (2019)
    Google turnover £160.74 billion (2018)

    Yeah they're comparable! 😂

    Google has 1.5 billion global users.

    BBC and Google are comparable in the same way as Liverpool and Tranmere Rovers are comparable.
    YouTube around $15bn.
  • The former Commons Speaker John Bercow has described parliamentary staff members who allege that he bullied people as “snobs and bigots”, and claimed he is the victim of a concerted campaign to destroy his reputation.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/17/john-bercow-says-bullying-accusers-are-snobs-and-bigots

    Given that Bercow's reputation is as a nasty, insecure bully-boy surely destroying his reputation would be a good thing ?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,867
    isam said:
    Another day in Britain's cultural wars.

    Can we please get back to trying to sort out the economy or climate change or early years education?

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,073



    'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'

    If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?

    As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
    Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.

    Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
    There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.

    The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.

    We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,698
    Did not the last Labour leader hold the same view? Corbyn has been mainstream for years now, given how in sync he was with Labour memebrs on most things.

    The former Commons Speaker John Bercow has described parliamentary staff members who allege that he bullied people as “snobs and bigots”, and claimed he is the victim of a concerted campaign to destroy his reputation.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/17/john-bercow-says-bullying-accusers-are-snobs-and-bigots

    And why does he suppose there is such a campaign, I wonder? No doubt these bullies have randomly decided to bully him with accusations of bullying.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 42,476
    edited February 17

    isam said:
    Another day in Britain's cultural wars.

    Can we please get back to trying to sort out the economy or climate change or early years education?

    I miss the days when the outrage du jour was about it being wrong that Gregg's pasties should be VATable....
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,368

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

    I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

    The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

    I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
    I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
    Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
    Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
    Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
    No, we don’t

    Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
    That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.


    In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,555
    edited February 17

    Completely off topic, but knowing there are quite a few PB train fans: has anyone tried the Caledonian Sleeper?

    We came down from Edinburgh to London last night and on the plus side the double cabin we had was lovely - modern, clean and comfortable - but the train itself rattled and shook like an extreme fairground ride most of the time so it was very difficult to get any sleep. We've happily slept through a force 9 Biscay crossing but this was much worse by comparison.

    Were we just unlucky or is that what you have to expect from sleeper trains?

    Ah, thats a shame. I'd hoped the refit would get rid of the rattling.

    I can sleep through pretty much anything, on pretty much anything (too many nights on mates' floors during my twenties, and in hotels all around the UK and Europe in my thirties). I find it almost impossible to sleep on the Cali sleeper.

    I'm told the seats are pretty good actually - less to rattle within a carriage than a cabin.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,174



    'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'

    If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?

    As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
    Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.

    Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
    You could say so - it was otherwise known as a General Election. :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,698
    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

    I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

    The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

    I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
    I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
    Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
    Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
    Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
    No, we don’t

    Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
    That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.


    In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
    I have a horrible feeling I know what 'cut of the stone' probably is but some of those are a mystery.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,073

    isam said:
    Another day in Britain's cultural wars.

    Can we please get back to trying to sort out the economy or climate change or early years education?

    This stuff matters to women who, if this flat earthery goes through, risk losing pretty much all their hard-won rights.

    Plus getting scientific and biological facts right matters. Talking scientific nonsense is as bad and dangerous as the anti-vaccine nonsense.

    Agree with you on the rest.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,867
    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

    I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

    The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

    I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
    I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
    Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
    Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
    Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
    No, we don’t

    Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
    That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.


    In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
    What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,910

    viewcode said:

    Crappy Beeb dramas:
    Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
    A Christmas Carol
    Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)

    I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
    Really? Or did you just enjoy how much the 'gammon' tendency was infuriated by it? I think the comical miscasting of John Malkovich and the leaden Brexit references covered up the fundamental weakness of the adaptation. Spoiler ahead. The whole point of Christie's story was that the grandiose set of crimes ended up being a cover for an essentially venal and conventional murder for financial gain. It is a statement about the banality of evil. It wasn't that the silly fart of a writer who perpetrated the adaptation had no reverence for the source material - she had no understanding of it.
    I enjoyed it because I like late-period John Malkovich - see also "The New Pope" - and I'm a sucker for languid period detective dramas with good lighting. This opinion was formed during the program without knowledge of the gammontariat, as oddly I like the programs I like without tying myself up in knots - see also "Mrs Brown's Boys" and "Dracula". I was hoping for another one this Xmas but the gods of BBC did not smile on me... :(
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,867

    isam said:
    Another day in Britain's cultural wars.

    Can we please get back to trying to sort out the economy or climate change or early years education?

    I miss the days when the outrage du jour was about it being wrong that Gregg's pasties should be VATable....
    Stable times. Feels like Ike's 1950s America compared to the last couple of years.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 972
    RobD said:

    Interesting definition of mainstream. ;)
    3rd place to lead a flailing party behind Sir Beige of Rejoin and Donna from accounts is not mainstream.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,698

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

    I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

    The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

    I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
    I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
    Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
    Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
    Yes. But potentially only20's.
    No, we don’t

    Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
    That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.


    In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
    What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.
    Saw speculation that it's some kind of respiratory disease, as 'lights' is a term used in relation to offal which is lungs, which I'd never heard.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

    I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

    The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

    I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
    I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
    Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
    Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
    Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
    No, we don’t

    Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
    That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.


    In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
    What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.
    Early electrician was a bitch of a job.

    Especially when they only had static to work with.....
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,910
    dodrade said:

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Sherlock started well, then it disappeared up its own arse and became self-referential and shite.
    The last season of Sherlock was truly awful.
    Watson's wife being a ninja secret agent was utterly WTF????
    That was one of the few highlights. Killing her off for no reason at all was the WTF.
    But it was a stupid rabbit hole to go down, because if they didn't then kill her pronto she would have over-shadowed Sherlock himself.
    Did Freeman and Abbingdon's real life split have anything to do with it?
    I think the TV episodes predate the split.
  • Nigelb said:

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    If only government had the guts to fund it from general taxation - something that ought to have happened decades ago - most of the argument would disappear.

    Yes that might work. Wonder what the BBC itself would think of that. Might baulk at it because they like to think of themselves as a cut above the public sector. At least the BBC person that I know does and she tells me they all think that way. Mind you she is not the humblest type in the world this particular woman.
    The German channel DW broadcasts on Youtube and seems to be funded by the German taxpayer. We get it free.

    There was a good documentary on the German super-rich. Conclusion: there are lots of them but they're extremely secretive and don't like appearing on TV.

    I think funding the BBC from taxation might be the answer. It saves the considerable admin costs and enables the BBC to do roughly what DW does.

    Also, if it's tax-funded, there might be a lower limit to the maximum salary, just as the PM isn't allowed to earn what a FTSE-100 CEO gets.
    BBC should be limited to salaries of comparable media companies with global reach, like Google.
    BBC is comparable to Google 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

    You're probably being serious rather than sarcastic too. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

    LOL!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
    BBC is comparable to part of Google (YouTube). They both spend tons of money to make the good things everyone likes, and don't make a lot of money. It's not comparable to DWP or a motor tax office that way.
    BBC turnover £4.889 billion (2019)
    Google turnover £160.74 billion (2018)

    Yeah they're comparable! 😂

    Google has 1.5 billion global users.

    BBC and Google are comparable in the same way as Liverpool and Tranmere Rovers are comparable.
    YouTube around $15bn.
    And how much of that is voluntarily transactions, how much is taken by threat of imprisonment if you don't pay them?
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 543
    Cyclefree said:



    'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'

    If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?

    As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
    Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.

    Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
    There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.

    The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.

    We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
    I wouldn't hold my breath. And although I do appreciate the point you just made, it still appears that the far left is - unfathomably - playing on easy mode when it comes to the toleration of their views while they occupy prominent positions in Left politics and media. Let's have - no laughing at the back, please - a level playing field here: either anything goes in both the major parties, or both parties are held to the same strict standard.


  • Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

    I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

    The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

    I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
    I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
    Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
    Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
    Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
    No, we don’t

    Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
    That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.


    In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
    What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.
    From memory so I could be wrong I believe that's a term they used for lung issues like bronchitis.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 1,409

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

    I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

    The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

    I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
    I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
    Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
    Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
    Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
    No, we don’t

    Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
    That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.
    Don't be silly, of course if you extend life you increase the time available for illnesses to happen, and as almost all illnesses happen more the older you get, the increase is greater than the extension itself. Yes, modern diet and pollution certainly also contribute to the disease burden, but we aren't going to live forever by adopting a Paleolithic diet or whatever it is you advocate.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,368
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

    I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

    The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

    I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
    I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
    Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
    Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
    Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
    No, we don’t

    Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
    That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.


    In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
    I have a horrible feeling I know what 'cut of the stone' probably is but some of those are a mystery.
    Removing bladder stone, I think.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

    I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

    The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

    I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
    I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
    Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
    Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
    Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
    No, we don’t

    Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
    That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.


    In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
    What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.
    86 from "surfet". Mr Creosote was the last of a long line......
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 10,340

    isam said:
    Another day in Britain's cultural wars.

    Can we please get back to trying to sort out the economy or climate change or early years education?

    Dawn Butler product of the world famous biology and medical faculty of Waltham Forest College.
  • dr_spyn said:

    isam said:
    Another day in Britain's cultural wars.

    Can we please get back to trying to sort out the economy or climate change or early years education?

    Dawn Butler product of the world famous biology and medical faculty of Waltham Forest College.
    But a personal endorsement of her extraordinary abilities from Barack Obama....
  • viewcode said:

    speedy2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    BBC - don’t forget Line of Duty

    Or Sherlock, or Doctor Who.
    Doctor Who? Seriously?

    I'd rather have some decent SciFi sorry. Again 10 episodes a season but frequently with a 2 year gap between seasons.

    Americans manage 24 episodes a season annually on many of their shows.
    The Americans churn them out until they become so dreadful that everyone loses interest.
    100 episodes of greatness followed by some crap is better than 6 decent episodes but then no followup.
    I agree, the Americans can produce 100 watchable episodes of anything within 3 years, followed by writers block and repetitions.

    The BBC tried it only once with Allo Allo.
    It seems very hard to do 100 episodes of 'peak comedy'. Fawlty Towers stopped after 12 episodes because they thought they'd gone on long enough.

    Wikipedia says Yes Minister had 38 episodes = good considering how funny they were. But with Yes Prime Minister it tailed off a bit.
    The last series of Yes Prime Minister was married by Paul Eddington's health, as the treatment for his (eventually fatal) cancer weakened him. If you look at his scenes, he is mostly sitting down and his lines are limited to reactions to Nigel Hawthorne's monologues. Since he was very good at both it wasn't a problem but it's still sad to see in retrospect.

    If you ever have time look up the interview he gave before his death. He's hairless and obviously physically impaired but still sharp and hie answers reveal a gentle man and a gentleman. I was sad to see him die.

    I didn't know that. Puts a very different light on the show.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 17,073

    Cyclefree said:



    'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'

    If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?

    As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
    Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.

    Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
    There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.

    The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.

    We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
    I wouldn't hold my breath. And although I do appreciate the point you just made, it still appears that the far left is - unfathomably - playing on easy mode when it comes to the toleration of their views while they occupy prominent positions in Left politics and media. Let's have - no laughing at the back, please - a level playing field here: either anything goes in both the major parties, or both parties are held to the same strict standard.


    I do agree that there is a tolerance of far Left views which would not be generally extended to someone with Fascist views. See, for instance, the praising of Hobsbawm despite his apologism for the mass murders and other cruelties of the Soviet system.

    Why is an interesting debate - but for another time. Or without me, anyway. Am off to bed.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 2,495
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:


    I have a horrible feeling I know what 'cut of the stone' probably is but some of those are a mystery.

    Removing bladder stone, I think.
    Subrapubic cystotomy? Stephen Maturin's trademark operation
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 972
    It’s a good sign of what a prosperous, safe, wealthy and content country Britain is where this pish is deemed important.

    How lucky we all are to live in this country at this time.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 543
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'

    If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?

    As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
    Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.

    Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
    There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.

    The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.

    We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
    I wouldn't hold my breath. And although I do appreciate the point you just made, it still appears that the far left is - unfathomably - playing on easy mode when it comes to the toleration of their views while they occupy prominent positions in Left politics and media. Let's have - no laughing at the back, please - a level playing field here: either anything goes in both the major parties, or both parties are held to the same strict standard.


    I do agree that there is a tolerance of far Left views which would not be generally extended to someone with Fascist views. See, for instance, the praising of Hobsbawm despite his apologism for the mass murders and other cruelties of the Soviet system.

    Why is an interesting debate - but for another time. Or without me, anyway. Am off to bed.
    I look forward to it - I've always genuinely wanted to know the answer! Good night.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,910

    glw said:

    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.

    I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

    America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.

    I forgot Frasier. That was great.
    Ally Mcbeal was written by one person interestingly.
    Survivors (the Seventies British drama) was wholly written by one person, Terry Nation. Only Fools and Horses was entirely John Sullivan's baby. Downton Abbey was nearly entirely written by Julian Fellows, with a few exceptions. Ditto Babylon Five and J Michael Straczynski.
  • isamisam Posts: 30,713
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    'There is a difference between fresh thinking and recycling tired ideas which have been tried and found wanting, especially when what a person says about those ideas is based on ignorance And a total lack of judgment and moral sense.'

    If that's the standard, why are there so many socialists merrily engaged in British public life, let alone the self-styled communists?

    As you imply, there is an element of value judgment on whether a belief in eugenics and similar concepts is morally similar to a belief in a welfare state and public ownership. If you feel that they are, then you too might be of doubtful benefit as an adviser to the Prime Minister.
    Thank God I have no interest in such a position. I'm talking about people like Andrew Murray, a communist activist of 40 years' standing who became a close adviser to Jeremy Corbyn in 2017. Not the mention the cadre of Marxists, Leninists, and Stalinists who have become such a charming feature of Labour politics in recent years.

    Has there been a concerted effort to immediately dismiss these people from their positions and drive them into obscurity? I must have missed it.
    There has been quite a lot of criticism of these people by many commentators who have pointed out their wacky and vile views. Unfortunately Labour MPs have done nothing effective about it. Frankly, they could not take the skin off a rice pudding.

    The voters sent them a message in December and one hopes that a new sensible Labour leader will sack all these ghastly people the minute they’re elected.

    We shall have to wait more interminable weeks to see if they do.
    I wouldn't hold my breath. And although I do appreciate the point you just made, it still appears that the far left is - unfathomably - playing on easy mode when it comes to the toleration of their views while they occupy prominent positions in Left politics and media. Let's have - no laughing at the back, please - a level playing field here: either anything goes in both the major parties, or both parties are held to the same strict standard.


    I do agree that there is a tolerance of far Left views which would not be generally extended to someone with Fascist views. See, for instance, the praising of Hobsbawm despite his apologism for the mass murders and other cruelties of the Soviet system.

    Why is an interesting debate - but for another time. Or without me, anyway. Am off to bed.
  • isamisam Posts: 30,713
    edited February 17
    viewcode said:

    glw said:

    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.

    I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

    America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.

    I forgot Frasier. That was great.
    Ally Mcbeal was written by one person interestingly.
    Survivors (the Seventies British drama) was wholly written by one person, Terry Nation. Only Fools and Horses was entirely John Sullivan's baby. Downton Abbey was nearly entirely written by Julian Fellows, with a few exceptions. Ditto Babylon Five and J Michael Straczynski.
    Only Fools & Horses... doubt there’s one episode from the first 6-7 series that could be shown on prime time tv now without some censorship
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 42,476
    edited February 17

    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.

    In terms of the "hit" comedies of the past 20 years in the UK that everybody knows, again very few episodes. Phoenix Nights had what 12 in total, the Office about the same? Inbetweeners same.

    Gavin and Stacey ~ 20
    Thick of It ~ 20
    IT Crowd ~ 20

    The rule of thumb in the US for long term syndication is to reach 100 episodes of a show. If you can make it to about that, your show will be sold and resold for many many years to come.

    Only Fools and Horses continues to this day to keep getting aired as it had more like 70 episodes.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 2,361
    HYUFD said:
    Let's see who wins. My money is on Cummings.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,910

    viewcode said:

    Crappy Beeb dramas:
    Poirot with Pascal Sauvage from Jonny English
    A Christmas Carol
    Recent Dr Who (not the fault of Jody Whittaker who is good imo)

    I have a rather heretical view: I really liked Poirot with Cyrus The Virus and Ron from Harry Potter. I figure now David Suchet has nailed the set, it frees the field for looser interpretations.
    "Stewardess? Oh, stewardess? What is the in-flight movie today?"
    "On any other day, that might seem strange."
    "Have you lost your mind???"
    "Well, according to my last psych report...yes"
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,562

    HYUFD said:
    Let's see who wins. My money is on Cummings.
    Boris favours 'reform not revolution' on BBC funding, if Cummings is not careful he will find he becomes Boris' Steve Bannon and ultimately discarded
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,368
    HYUFD said:
    Yes, it is all a set up to get BoZo seen to flag wave for the BBC*, and rebuild some credibility.

    *Funding has been agreed until 2027 already as I believe, so the future of Auntie is really an issue for the Parliament after this one
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,910
    viewcode said:

    glw said:

    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.

    I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

    America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.

    I forgot Frasier. That was great.
    Ally Mcbeal was written by one person interestingly.
    Survivors (the Seventies British drama) was wholly written by one person, Terry Nation. Only Fools and Horses was entirely John Sullivan's baby. Downton Abbey was nearly entirely written by Julian Fellows, with a few exceptions. Ditto Babylon Five and J Michael Straczynski.
    ...and of course Aaron Sorkin wrote the first four seasons of The West Wing before he decided being a drug user was better than being a functioning human being.
  • HYUFD said:
    Boo! Johnson's first major mistake if he chickens out on this.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,352
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:



    I have a horrible feeling I know what 'cut of the stone' probably is but some of those are a mystery.

    Removing bladder stone, I think.
    Yep. Samuel Pepys, whose portrait I have adopted for my avatar, was one who underwent the operation and survived, cured of the excruciating pain. He celebrated the anniversary every year.
  • Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:


    Then you've misread my comments. I made no statement on believing in eugenics. In fact, quite the contrary. Yet alone wish it to return to vogue.

    I agree with the environment and nutrition points but that wouldn't address some genetic factors that lead to unpleasant diseases and illnesses.

    The good news is that gene editing (note: not eugenics) might provide a solution there as we could manipulate DNA and code to get there rather than relying on stigmatism, sterilisation and termination (although there are ethical issues there too) and access to this might largely be restricted by wealth.

    I see. Genetic predisposition toward diseases is an interesting subject that I know nothing about. Given the right conditions, nobody should have a predisposition to a disease - at least not one that comes to anything.
    I thought there were genetic markers that indicated increase chance of getting certain types of cancer, for example.
    Yes, there are. But given that some get away with never getting it despite having the marker, it's more a shared vulnerability isn't it? Something that causes the cancer, causes it particularly much in you if you have that marker. Like being tall. Being tall is a marker for bashing your head if you don't duck when passing low beams. It is not something that you would want to edit out of your genetic code per se.
    Yeah, not everyone gets cancer, but it has been shown that if you have this marker you are more at risk. Doesn't that suggest there are genetic predisposition to diseases?
    Yes. But potentially only in today's world. One doesn't evolve a predisposition to a disease does one? How could that happen? We live in a far more disease prone world than we used to. Modern medicine masks that. The first recorded heart attack in America was in the 1920's.
    No, we don’t

    Deaths from cardiac events, metabolic conditions, cancers and neurodegeneration are more prevelant than in the past because people live long enough
    That's an assumption. And yes we do. Chronic illness is rampant.


    In this list of deaths from 1652, infectious disease predominate, but there are large numbers of deaths from dropsie and swelling. This is the archaic term for cardiac failure.
    What is Rising of the Light? 98 died.
    Evening, Lunatiques :)
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 972
    Hilarious that the left have fallen in love with the Dom squirrel and they suck it up every frikking time.

    Remember the time the CoTE resigned and the budget got delayed ?

    Nah Eugenics and the BBC - wibble wibble !
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    HYUFD said:
    Sanders is going to run away with the nomination if the caucus plays out anything like that. Then again, we did have that poll showing err Steyer leading earlier. So who knows :)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 18,155
    So it's the sodomites AND the EU that's causing the flooding.

  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 2,495

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:



    I have a horrible feeling I know what 'cut of the stone' probably is but some of those are a mystery.

    Removing bladder stone, I think.
    Yep. Samuel Pepys, whose portrait I have adopted for my avatar, was one who underwent the operation and survived, cured of the excruciating pain. He celebrated the anniversary every year.
    That is not you? I am devastated :open_mouth:
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 2,361
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Let's see who wins. My money is on Cummings.
    Boris favours 'reform not revolution' on BBC funding, if Cummings is not careful he will find he becomes Boris' Steve Bannon and ultimately discarded
    Maybe it is time for the second Cummings- I thank you.

    Steve Bannon is available I believe.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,910
    isam said:

    viewcode said:

    glw said:

    They're good shows but few and far between . . . and isn't it interesting that whenever we speak about good BBC comedies people almost always reach back to between 50 to 20 years ago.

    Since Yes Minister we've had, just a quick pick of a few of my favourites

    Cheers - 275 episodes
    Friends - 236 episodes
    The Big Bang Theory - 279 episodes
    How I Met Your Mother - 208 episodes
    Seinfeld - 180 episodes
    Home Improvement - 204 episodes

    Not a comedy but since you mentioned Yes Minister its worth noting The West Wing managed a quality 156 episodes.

    I'd add Curb Your Enthusiasm and Modern Family as two I like a lot, Parks and Recreation is good as well. A lot of people like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

    America seems to be able to produce good long-running comedy shows in a way we simply don't.

    I forgot Frasier. That was great.
    Ally Mcbeal was written by one person interestingly.
    Survivors (the Seventies British drama) was wholly written by one person, Terry Nation. Only Fools and Horses was entirely John Sullivan's baby. Downton Abbey was nearly entirely written by Julian Fellows, with a few exceptions. Ditto Babylon Five and J Michael Straczynski.
    Only Fools & Horses... doubt there’s one episode from the first 6-7 series that could be shown on prime time tv now without some censorship
    I'm trying to remember them. I can vaguely remember the ones with Grandad before he died and was replaced by Uncle Albert. But the memories are overlayed with the later ones with Cassandra and Raquel. I remember bits like the bit with the shotgun, and the one with the candleabras. It was good for a long while but fell off towards the end: definitely after the one where they find the watch and get rich

    Remember what I was saying a few threads back, about how British comedy used to be about people trapped in circumstances they were trying to get out of? Only Fools and Horses was one of the good ones in that tradition, and there's a lot of competition in that category. Then round about Extras series two it changed, and now it's all rich people whining or culture war stuff... :(
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 42,476
    edited February 18
    viewcode said:


    Remember what I was saying a few threads back, about how British comedy used to be about people trapped in circumstances they were trying to get out of? Only Fools and Horses was one of the good ones in that tradition, and there's a lot of competition in that category. Then round about Extras series two it changed, and now it's all rich people whining or culture war stuff... :(

    Don't forget comedy panel shows. Sure we have had them for a long time, but they really just became pretty much the entire comedy offering for quite a while.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 2,361

    So it's the sodomites AND the EU that's causing the flooding.

    The EU does not specifically prevent dredging, neither does it recommend dredging. Dredging is allowed in the UK although the four environmental regulators prefer not to do so in order to protect wildlife.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,910
    TGOHF666 said:

    Hilarious that the left have fallen in love with the Dom squirrel

    You are Stewart Pearson and I claim my five pounds... :)
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 972
    viewcode said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    Hilarious that the left have fallen in love with the Dom squirrel

    You are Stewart Pearson and I claim my five pounds... :)
    The soap maker ?
  • HYUFD said:
    "All this stupid little country has to do is stand in line and do what it is told for one miserable day, but can it do that? My fragrant French arse it can't!"
This discussion has been closed.