Jah Lush

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't usually join in beyond telling your lot to > support your local team but that was so poor > tonight. I think you can safely say we all support Dulwich Hamlet.

Phlox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > When it's Sarah Millican. Indeed. Or Miranda Hart or Mel & Sue.

Huggers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jah lush you are thinking of Chris Neill, gay and > bearded and local. > Emma and Ron have now moved to Kent near Herne > Bay. Yes! That's the fella. Very funny man.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I used to frequent the Hob about 5 years ago and > up until its demise, regularly on a Monday 'New > Talent' nite. It was often > dreadful/ok/mindbendinglyfunny , but that's the > nature of that kind of place isn't it. > > They also had the joy of having an unleashed Micky > Flanagan as compere, even when the place was half > full he still gave it his all. I loved those days, > even the crap stuff. And it cost about ?5 I > think. It was three quid. Absolute bargain. I went to many of those nights. Can you remember the name of the gay, bespectacled, bearded comedian who was on a couple of times when Micky Flanagan was comparing? He's local as well I think. He was hilarious.

A stick.

rendelharris Wrote: > > As for audiences, I really don't know what's wrong > with them these days. When alternative comedy > started, audiences could be rough as hell and only > people with really good material survived...now > when I listen to some of the godawful rot Radio 4 > put into the 6.30PM slot with audiences apparently > expiring with laughter...my personal theory is > that as prices have gone up and up people feel > obliged to find it hilarious or else admit they've > blued a lot of money on rubbish. A friend who > frequents fancy restaurants to entertain business > clients says it seems to work the same way there, > if people are paying a fortune they convince > themselves that what they're getting is good. > Just an idea. I pretty much agree with all of that and think you may have hit the nail on the head there.

Goose.

You will be.

Some people paying their respects to Dylan on winning his prize. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/oct/13/dylan-towers-over-everyone-salman-rushdie-kate-tempest-and-more-pay-tribute-to-bob-dylan

All you need to know about America's two candidates by Heathcote Williams.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These shows are good value > > http://www.ptoocomedy.com/ Well, Martin's always good for a laugh. Lovely man with funny bones.

I tend to agree with you Malumbu. I think 'comedy' has reached a saturation point where people with no sense of humour attend comedy gigs to laugh at unfunny 'comedians' and so-called comedy writers and performers can only get on TV if they went Oxford or Cambridge. Let's face it, you meet funnier people down the pub and I don't mean the ones performing on stage.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha and a ha!

He knows what he is.

From The I Paper. 10 myths about the Ched Evans case debunked Secret Barrister?16:11?Saturday October 15th 2016? iNews 1. So Ched Evans has been proved innocent, right? Wrong. You?d be forgiven for thinking this, given that it was in the prepared statement read out by his solicitor, but Ched Evans has not ?demonstrated his innocence?. That is not how our criminal justice system operates. It is not a means by which the truth of a situation or event is conclusively and fully determined. Rather the jury are asked one simple question ? are you sure that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt? ?Not guilty? means just that. The jury were not sure that he was guilty. They may have decided that he was totally, utterly innocent, but we don?t know. 2. Well at the very least, the verdict means that the complainant has lied, surely? No. Absolutely not. A not guilty verdict in most cases is insufficient to safely infer that the jury has concluded that a complainant lied, but in this case the facts suggest the opposite. As the Court of Appeal made clear in its judgment allowing the appeal, the complainant, X, has never asserted that she was raped. She has always simply maintained that she had no memory of what happened. It was the prosecution case ? the case theory of the Crown Prosecution Service ? that she was raped. The defence case was based not on the ?usual? he said/ she said dispute over consent, but rather he said/ she can?t remember. There is absolutely no safe basis for suggesting she has lied. 3. Regardless, she has trashed his reputation and must be named and shamed. That is extremely silly. And illegal. As a complainant in a sex case, she has anonymity for life. If you publicly identify her ? including on Twitter ? you will be prosecuted. 4. How comes she gets anonymity when he doesn?t? 5. This is a victory for rape apologists.?She was blind drunk, he admitted not speaking to her before, during or after, and this shows that consent does not mean consent. No it doesn?t. It shows simply that the jury were not sure of both of the following limbs to the prosecution case, that need to be established to prove rape: (i) That X was not consenting (because she was incapable through intoxication); (ii) That Evans did not reasonably believe X was consenting. Now based on the evidence, including the fresh evidence (see below), it might be that the jury thought X was consenting. And if they did, having heard all of the evidence, they are in a far better position to make that assessment than anyone not in the courtroom. Drunk consent, as juries are reminded by judges, is still consent. But it is equally plausible that they were sure that X could not consent, but were not sure, given her described behaviour, that Evans did not reasonably believe that she was not. Even if the jury thought that X was not capable of consenting, and that Evans probably didn?t reasonably believe that she was, he would still be not guilty ? not because of a flaw in the law, or inherent misogyny, but because of Question 1 above, the burden and standard of proof. 6. X was grilled on her sexual history, in contravention of the law. We?re back in the dark ages. Questions about a complainant?s previous sexual history are not allowed in sex trials, unless a very strict set of criteria (set out in section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999) are met. As the Court of Appeal explained (at [44]), these provisions are designed to counter the myths that ?unchaste women are more likely to consent and less worthy of belief?. Yet X was cross-examined by the defence barrister over other sexual incidents ? so what happened? Well, in short, the law was followed. This point hinges mainly on ?fresh evidence? that was not available at the first trial. Leave to appeal against Evans? conviction was refused by the Court of Appeal in 2012, and Evans thereafter approached the Criminal Cases Review Commission with ?fresh evidence? which had since emerged and which he claimed undermined the safety of his conviction. We now know that the principal nature of this fresh evidence was as follows: ?Fuck me harder?? A man, O, gave evidence that, two weeks after 29 May 2011, he had been out drinking with X, and had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse, during which she instructed him to penetrate her vaginally from behind, shouting, ?Fuck me harder?. A second man, S, gave evidence that, on 28 May 2011, X had engaged him in a night of drunken sexual activity, in which she adopted the same sexual position and used words, ?Go harder?. Evans? case at trial was that X had acted in the same way on the 29 May 2011, encouraging him to penetrate her ?doggy style? and using the words ?fuck me harder?. This, it was argued, demonstrated that she was consenting, and also supported the reasonableness of his belief that she was consenting. It is beyond coincidence, the defence argued in the Court of Appeal, that X would consensually engage in this specific type of sex act using these specific words on occasions around the time of 29 May, but that she was not consenting in the same circumstances on that date. ?Sufficiently in control of her senses?? This tends to show that, drunk though she was, she was sufficiently in control of her senses to give consent, and, furthermore, to give Evans the impression that she was consenting. A special mention goes to the raft of claims in the press that this case sets a new, special precedent allowing the sexual history of complainants to be admitted in evidence in any future case, solely for the purpose of shaming the complainant in a dark return to the 1970s. Allow me to help: The precedent that has been set is none. The Court of Appeal decision sets down no new application of law or principle, and section 41 continues to operate exactly as it did before, excluding the vast, vast majority of questions about previous sexual behaviour. 7. But didn?t the prosecution suggest those ?new witnesses? were paid to say what they said? The prosecution did. They said that in the Court of Appeal, when they argued that the evidence shouldn?t be admitted, and they put it to the witnesses at trial. The jury heard the evidence, heard the questions and the witnesses? answers, and made up their own minds. 8. So the acquittal shows that the CPS was wrong to bring the case at all, then. That?s what you?re saying. No it isn?t. There was a case for Evans to answer. The fact that there was an initial conviction, and that in both trials the judge did not withdraw the case from the jury (which judges are bound to do if they feel that there is insufficient evidence for a jury safely to convict) shows that there was a case to answer. Whether, given that Evans had already served his sentence (and therefore would not have served any more time if re-convicted) it was wise to put the complainant through a retrial is arguable, but that?s a fight for another day. 9. Will the CPS appeal? They can?t. There is no prosecution right of appeal. That is, or should be, the end of it.

So not a Dylan buff or a poetry buff. Your wife has far superior taste to you.

Which just goes to show your paucity of knowledge of Bob Dylan. Not the best of any of his lyrics by far, which is probably why he gave the song to Eric. Here's Bob's lyrics to one of my favourite songs of his which I mentioned on this thread six years ago. This song for me could easily be a poem and in my opinion a hymn too. EVERY GRAIN OF SAND In the time of my confession, in the hour of my deepest need When the pool of tears beneath my feet flood every newborn seed There?s a dyin? voice within me reaching out somewhere Toiling in the danger and in the morals of despair Don?t have the inclination to look back on any mistake Like Cain, I now behold this chain of events that I must break In the fury of the moment I can see the Master?s hand In every leaf that trembles, in every grain of sand Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay I gaze into the doorway of temptation?s angry flame And every time I pass that way I always hear my name Then onward in my journey I come to understand That every hair is numbered like every grain of sand I have gone from rags to riches in the sorrow of the night In the violence of a summer?s dream, in the chill of a wintry light In the bitter dance of loneliness fading into space In the broken mirror of innocence on each forgotten face I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea Sometimes I turn, there?s someone there, other times it?s only me I am hanging in the balance of the reality of man Like every sparrow falling, like every grain of sand. https://vimeo.com/61822795

Agree with the above posts that it is fully deserved. Dylan's a writer after all and he's certainly our greatest living songwriter so I don't have any problem with it. It's thoroughly well deserved.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > last time an England game was any good? Back in March when we beat Germany 3-2 in Berlin. That was pretty special.

Anyone else looking forward to a Rooney less England match tonight?

The day Dylan went electric and changed the world of popular music overnight. Here's a blistering run through of Maggie's Farm with some red hot Mike Bloomfield guitar stings.

Coincidently, I met Debbie Harry at one of their gigs. Mercury Rev (when they were still noiseniks) were the support act. NB: I loved that second hand book shop on Camberwell Grove. Sadly missed.

I went for a job interview in the West End couple of years ago in some posh hotel. There's about 40 people in the room all going for various roles. Each one is asked to talk about themselves and why they want the particular job they going for for a minute before they have a one on one with an interviewer. After about 30 people had got up and droned on about how great they all were and were perfectly suited for a role in their esteemed company I was bored to tears and had already decided I wasn't interested in doing anything of the sort. I got up and said: "Hello, my name is Jah and I'm an alcoholic... Oops! Wrong meeting," and walked out.

teddyboy23 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's 100% sold some of the staff have already gone. Bah! I've always liked Le Chardon.