Jump to content

Recommended Posts

TillieTrotter Wrote:

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

> He is in my top ten people to invite to my dinner

> party. I loves him.



Oh PLEASE bags can I come too! He's adorable. I love him the most. I have wanted to meet him for a long long time (since I read his autobiography really). A friend has blagged me an invitation to a Terrence Higgins Trust dinner in the summer. Fabulous. Normally I avoid famous people but there's something vry special about Stephen Fry. What's not to like?

Personally, I'm not interested in anything of the sort, being straight, but if that ugly troll is feeling frustrated, am sure this may be of help, and they can wash their filthy hands off in the river under the bridge:




Oh and Fry's audio books of his own work are great for commuting.

Ted Max Wrote:

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

> What's not to like?

>

> He gives airtime on QI to, and appears to be

> amused by, Phil Jupitus. Minus 50 points, Stephen.



OK Ted Max you've got me on the Prince Charles thing. I would cross several roads to avoid royalty. I can't deny it. I have no TV though so have no idea what QI is. I'm still giving Stephen 100 points for loveliness.

dukesdenver Wrote:

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

> Moos Wrote:

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

> -----

> > ....yes but he also says if you read them all

> the time that's a bad thing.

> >

> > :-$

>

> Fear not, Moos, I am taking a break from GH to

> read some proper litterachewer.


Oh crap, that just leaves me then. Shamed of Peckham.


Back on topic, I'm feeling all scared and out on a limb on my own here but I like Prince Charles (sincere and principled, if sometimes heading in weird directions) AND I think Phil Jupitus is funny on Buzzcocks. Am I to be cast into the outer darkness where there is to be whaling and gnashing of knees?

Nah, Moos, I was with you on that one. Lately I seem to have fallen victim to gag haggery of the worst kind, and harboured a lusty fondness for the Jupitus. However, I saw him on something else and he was a massive cockadoodledoo, so I have grown out of it and seen the error of my ways.


Stephen Fry, on the other hand, is the master. I view his fondness for royalty as the flaw that only serves to make him more beautiful.




edited for any delicate sensibilities and because I like Moos' word better

Faith, cannon to left of me, cannon to right of me - volleyed and thundered -


But I will stay the course.


Ted, you are quite right, that was an ugly business, but that's what happens when you forbid a young man from marrying the woman he wants to marry and make him Do His Duty To The Succession. Seems to me there were an awful lot of wrongs in the royal marriage, and few rights. I must admit I was thinking of the - er - less personal professional side: the farming, the Prince's Trust.


Tony, yes Simon thingy is very funny too, but not hard to distinguish from Phil Jupitus.


And Rosie - well, I can quite imagine him behaving like a cockadoodledoo but I reckon that's true of most funny people, they seem to be a tortured breed. Look at poor Peter Sellers (although Phil is unwarrantedly complimented by being in the same sentence as him). Your point on upsucking absolutely stands - sucking up to anyone more famous than you are is horrid. Perhaps Stephen just likes Charles? Hmmmmmm...

I think PJ has caught Paul Merton Syndrome, only funny on one show or situation, in this case QI and NMTB.

Paul Merton incurred my wrath for his series of remakes of Galton & Simpson comedies some time ago. Lamentable.

And it was me that coined the phrase 'karaoke comedy' as a result, ask my former colleague Mark.

A small thing but mine own.

I'm sure I'm missing something KKel, but what is the relevance of the yukky man from the EU?


Moos, I would be happy to admit that, given the gallery of ghouls that raised the poor lad, Charles is not the horror he could have become. And he has chosen some admirable causes to patronise, although I'm not sure that architecture and planning owe him much, and he seems a poor and prissy employer, and his sons remarkably uncurious about the world that forms their oyster. Anyway, apart from that, the marriage stuff, his social conservatism, and the inflated view of his own intellect, he's OK, I reckon.

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

    • Hi - I posted a request for some help with a stuck door and possible leaky roof. I had responses from Lukasz at Look_as.com and Pawel at Sublime Builders. I don't see any/many reviews - has anyone used either person?  Could use a recommendation rather then just being contact by the tradespeople... Many Thanks 
    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson rather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • 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. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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