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

    • Politician's moving from one party to another, especially when local is worth discussing. You have to wonder what they are driven by, and particularly in this instance, as their new party is moving in strange directions.
    • To be fair to Sue, she doesn't have to explain or justify why she supports or wants to vote for any party. That is the same for everyone. We are free to decide which party best reflects what we think is important to us. Discussing the stances/ policies of parties, in a general discussion, can be done without targetting anyone commenting here. Politics is just a point of view at the end of the day.  Different things are important to different people, often for very valid reasons. Let's be respectful of that.  My opinion is that if say the Labour Party wants to understand why it is losing supporters to the Greens, it needs to listen to and understand the reasons why. That theme has been explored in this thread a little through the discussion around councillor McAsh. The same is true of the Tories losing support to Reform and the Libdems. Let's not also assume that every member of every party is completely on board with every policy of the leadership of that party either. You only have to look at how backbenchers have forced u-turns from Starmer's cabinet on things like Welfare Reform and WFA to see that. 
    • As a compromise I'd be prepared to trial the reintroduction of dog licensing. The annual licence fee would be the same as road tax for Range Rover (same carbon emissions as a dog) and would require owners to pass a responsible dog ownership exam, the dogs would need to pass training and a behaviour exam and their DNA would need to be kept on record to identify the owners who leave dog shit all over the pavements, so that they can be jailed.  
    • Yeah  Ban people, that will solve all the planets environmental issues over night  Leave the dogs as they aren't the problem, its normally bad ownership and management that leads to badly behaved dogs. Spartacus  Ps Cat Rule 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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