Jump to content

Recommended Posts

First time I've seen it. It's not overly funny, but then I don't think that's really the point of the sketch.


I mean what are you saying Mick? That over-zealous parking enforcement officers should only be played by white people? Why?



I think this is the point of the sketch, beyond the comedy parking attendant nonsense. 'That over-zealous parking enforcement officers don't have to be white - and so what?'


I think it's a step forward, not a step back.

I think it's disgraceful because in place of humour (Paul Whitehouse used to be funny, even if Harry Enfield didn't), they've given in to rather pathetic middle-aged curmudgeonry: the traffic wardens are all out to get us and steal our hard-earned cash.


To be fair, the one you've posted there Mick, actually makes me quite admire Parking Patewayo and his chariots o'skills, but I've seen a couple of others that are so anti-parking warden it made me want to write a very stiff letter of rebuke to Harry and Paul.

I think it's offensive because not only is it not funny, but it's Harry and Paul written by Clarkson: traffic wardens disguised as bushes to catch the unaware..?


STOP PARKING WHERE YOU SHOULDN'T AND YOU WON'T GET A TICKET YOU UNFUNNY TEDIOUS FUCKS.


It's so offensive it makes me offensive.

Jah - please try to see that I am at least making an attempt at humour - every time I see your name now I expect to get a bollocking of some sort. If it looks odd at first sight it probably means something different from the obvious.


I don't know if she is 81 or not, but I think its very unlikely.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
    • Isabelle Capitain on 7 Upland Road will be able to do that for you
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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