Jump to content

Recommended Posts

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> explain what?

>

> did I need to put cheeky smiley face to show you I

> was joking

>

> because you insist in generalising about how

> someone looks, I turned a mirror on you with an

> unpleasant stereotype - equally untrue. Are you

> saying it bothers you?


It's the look and the image they project, that's what bothers me. It's a personal preference, and the total opposite of the originator of this thread. Your suggesting that this group are likeable almost cartoon like characters. I knew many "geezers" in my younger days, and they were for the most part nasty and certainly not worthy of admiration.

There is something in what you say about choosing a style as opposed to ethnicity, so in that sense it might be perceived as clumsy and if it dd bother you, I apologise


But a prejudice is still a prejudice surely? What happened in your younger days is no doubt a truth, but it's anecdotal and doesn't really square with the fact that many geezers are no better/worse than anyone else

Seabag Wrote:

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

> maxxi Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Yer can keep yer geezers an' blokes an' fellahs

> -

> > we wus always chaps.

> >

> >

> http://thechapmagazine.co.uk/content/images/shop/b

>

> > ack/58.jpg

>

> Maxxi & Carnell are perfect bedfellow 'chaps'

> indeed

>

> And i'm pleased Lady D has acknowledged her

> Classic wearing Geezer-birdness, I wonder what the

> tat depicts ?


Oh dear - you've fallen into the obvious tabloid definition that is unable to determine chappiness by degrees, you have obviously never been in the The Queens (20 minutes to k.o.) when the call to prayer is heard "Awright chaps, let's go!"

maxxi Wrote:

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

> Seabag Wrote:

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

> -----

> > maxxi Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > Yer can keep yer geezers an' blokes an'

> fellahs

> > -

> > > we wus always chaps.

> > >

> > >

> >

> http://thechapmagazine.co.uk/content/images/shop/b

>

> >

> > > ack/58.jpg

> >

> > Maxxi & Carnell are perfect bedfellow 'chaps'

> > indeed

> >

> > And i'm pleased Lady D has acknowledged her

> > Classic wearing Geezer-birdness, I wonder what

> the

> > tat depicts ?

>

> Oh dear - you've fallen into the obvious tabloid

> definition that is unable to determine chappiness

> by degrees, you have obviously never been in the

> The Queens (20 minutes to k.o.) when the call to

> prayer is heard "Awright chaps, let's go!"


Oh I see, it was the magazine that threw me


Carnell is deffo the guy with the hat/pipe combo, by christ he even wears cardi's


Queens , where that maxxi ?

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I would like to understand this promise by the Greens in greater detail and how it applies locally? Presumably road/pavement upkeep and renewal is as important for cyclists and pedestrians as motorists? I am not aware of plans to build new roads locally but there has been plenty of money spent on converting roads into pedestrian only areas. On the face of it this feels a slightly empty statement, when applied at local level. I'd love to know the Greens stance in hiring out parks for private use (given impact on park environment), I'd also like to understand their stance on fireworks- I will look to see if I can find anything. I don't know if a manifesto exists under the documents section of Southwark Greens, but you can only access that bit by signing in- which is disappointing. If anyone has a manifesto that reflects local priorities- could they post a link?
    • You are most likely correct in thinking that  Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew it.  But they obviously thought that his skills, abilities and usefulness far outweighed the negatives. Here is a summary of the positives lifted from elsewhere:-   1. Strategic Architect: He was a primary architect of "New Labour," rebranding the party and shifting its core ideology to win the 1997 general election. 2 Master of Communication: Often called the original "spin doctor," he revolutionised how political parties manage the media. He famously created the "grid" system to coordinate government messaging. 3 Networking and Charm: Known as "Silvertongue," he possesses a peerless ability to charm and network with high-level global figures, including business leaders and heads of state. 4. Governance and Trade Expertise: Beyond strategy, he was considered a highly efficient minister, serving as European Commissioner for Trade and Secretary of State across multiple departments, including Business and Northern Ireland.  5. Reinvention: His capacity to adapt to changing political climates and rebuild relationships reflects personal resilience and strategic flexibility. With his skill and abilities, he delivered results for all his bosses. In the short time in Washington, he found a way to get on the right side of Trump - despite him  being critical of Trump in previous years. That said he is complex personality.  He can be simultaneously brilliant and arrogant, thick-skinned yet sensitive, and selfless for his party while appearing narcissistic in his personal dealings.  My OP asked if he would be accepted over the pond. It turned out he was because he got on famously with trump. He worked out the correct strategy to get on the good side of Trump and secured a better trade deal than the EU and other nations.    
    • Malumbu, do you happen to know what the current figure is for "trips into town made by walking, cycling and public transport"? 
    • Before voting, do you not think it's logical to evaluate each party on its policies and make a tally of the reasons "For" and "Against" voting for each party.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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