Jump to content

Rebekah Brooks cleared, Andy Coulson found guilty........


Recommended Posts

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> I think it boils down to people just don't like

> proper gingas, especially if they look vaguely

> like a witch.

>

> Thogh beating grant mitchell up is pretty funny.


Yeah, because domestic violence is just such a laughing matter.

Actually I think Grant Mitchell/Ross Kemp was pretty brave getting this out into the open. He risked (and it seems is still getting) a lot of derision from the hypocrisy brigade.


Honestly, I am pretty disgusted with some people I expected better from.

El Pibe Wrote:

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

> This was to domestic violence what Punch and Judy

> is to gritty and poignant documentary.

> Equating the two in a snotty fashion is rather

> guardianista shurely?


OK, I'll bite - why do you say that? What is it about that incident makes it so dismissable? A guy being hit by a women? Celebrity - did you find the Chris Brown/Rihanna incident hilariously funny as well?


Or is a punch in the mouth not a high enough level of domestic violence to take seriously?

Ok I'll counter bite .

My understanding was that it was a one off slap in the heat of the moment, the mainstay of the Hollywood romcom for the best part of 80 years.

The humour arises not from the minor violence itself, but from the irony that Ross kemps entire career is predicated on his hard man image.


Sigh, how tedious having to explain that. So do we now need to censor every great Spencer Tracey and Katharine Hepburn moment?


If of course I'm wrong and it was actually part of a cycle of walk into door style abuse I can only apologise for my insensitivity.

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Doesn't make it right though.

>

> Didn't you used to work for a red-top? At any

> point did you get wind that the paper would go to

> illegal efforts to get stories? Phone-hacking or

> anything else? Because anyone I've spoken reckons

> it's rife and you'd have to live under a rock to

> not be aware of dodgy goings on.


I did but not at News International. I know there was always "dodgy goings on" as you say even before my time but I wasn't what you might call in the loop. However, it would not have surprised me in the slightest if phone hacking had gone on where I was based. Most tabloid journalists I've known over the years would sell their own mother to get an exclusive. It's not an honourable job. I can honestly say I've never met a "red top news journalist" I could trust. I despise them. They're all two-faced cunts.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Yeah, really. Because it represents a much bigger issue.


Which is?


Although of course everyone has the right to live free from fear of violence, sexual equality is not about pretending men and women are equally vulnerable physically.

As an older gent I'm forced to agree the Titian haired one has a certain allure


But unlike Grant/Rupert/Tony/Andy and despite my devastating good looks, I could not by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as a stepping stone to success so I don't suppose I'd get the chance

I have no problem with redheads at all. In fact, theoretically I am not averse to the idea of a flame haired, power-crazed, evil witch. Just not this one. No siree.


Now, who will be the first person to be offended by the change in direction of this conversation?

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 recommend Lucasz - he responded to our request very quickly, gave us an excellent quote and cleaned up after himself. Will definitely ask him to do any future jobs. 
    • General view is it is tokenistic from Iran, not looking to harm life but show that they are retaliating. Same thing happened after the earlier Israeli attack back in the distant part. There will be debate, even at the top of the Iranian authorities.  Israel even without the US hold the cards.  Although are in this position due to decades of US support. As per my post on the other thread much of the reason the world is in this position is botched US post second world war middle East policy.  Supporting both sides in the Iran/Iraq war being particularly striking Trump mark 1 emboldened the right wing in Israel, perhaps pushed Hammas to more extreme action, and led to the Iranians going rogue on nukes.  I think that the latter was to put them in a stronger position in opening up grade, a country not able to sell vast quantities of oil ,(and gas?) But how does the world move on from this mess? By all means give other views to my simplistic ones   
    • The NYT ( that right wing alarmist rag) has reported that Iran told Qatar so they could prepare. Iran and Q are on good terms so Q won’t retaliate, esp as Iran is only targeting US bases, which everyone knew to expect.     If anything, it draws Qatar into the dialogue and Q will privately be urging Iran to back down. 
    • If the Qatari's decide to retaliate then it's all going off...but I suspect the Iranians are hoping for this - one inaccurate missile and the Qatari's may have to. I think the Iranian leadership is working on fast-tracking their own demise and the Americans and Israeli's planning for regime change, maybe with the many political prisoners the Israelis tried to free from the Elvin prison today. What a mess but clearly Iran was becoming a big threat to not only Israel but many of the other Gulf States and was clearly doing scary stuff with nuclear weapons that required action.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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