Page 2 of 3

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:46 pm
by The Weeping Angel
Oh for god's sake just repeat the whole fucking series just to shut these people up.

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 8:48 am
by D.C. Harrison
One of the comments, there:

"Is Dave an anagram of BBC?"

I'm going to assume they struggle when playing along to Countdown.

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:17 am
by MisterMuncher
Fuck 'em. They want it, they can buy it. Repeats from the seventies are down to just the acknowledged big hitters. It just didn't make the cut. It's not PC gone mad, it's a shit show.

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:00 pm
by Bones McCoy
Haven't you heard, it's been totally banned by the PC brigade from Brussels..


Alternatively - for a fraction of the License Fee that they take pride in not paying (so they say)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aint-Half-Hot-M ... B003ZUXZAY

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:39 am
by mattomac
Love how one guys favourite clip is the one mentioned, quite clearly has a small memory.

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 8:37 am
by Andy McDandy
From my eighties youth, only a handful of sitcoms or sketch shows get repeated. The Young Ones, Blackadder, Not the Nine O'Clock News (highlights thereof), Allo Allo, not much else. Same as for the nineties. Is there a sinister reason why Alexei Sayle's 'Paris' is never repeated but every Christmas we get subjected to the Father Ted special? I THINK WE SHOULD BE TOLD BUT WE ALL KNOW WHY, DON'T WE, EH?

It's all back to whoever said on here recently that 'being PC' was, more often than not, about asking people not to be pricks. If you're finding loud, crass bullying and belittling funny, and you're being asked to identify with the bully, you've got problems. Likewise, there's a difference between two black people in a film calling eachother n****r but with mutual respect, and someone using it clearly as a belittling insult and once again us being asked to sympathise with the abuser and find it funny. Which is, you know, what the cranked laugh track is there for.

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:23 pm
by davidjay
To repeat one of my favourite sayings - there's no such thing as offensive language, just offensive context. There's still plenty of racism in old repeated series if you look for it - the doctor in the Fawlty Towers Germans episode, Del Boy's regular comments, every black character in Dickie's beloved Sweeney. Even recently there were several references to Albanians and Muslims in Outnumbered.

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:06 pm
by Silkyman
There seems to be a key word missing here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... l-sex.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm pretty sure that if I admitted to that, I'd be rightly facing some hefty prison time and a lifelong stigma.

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 7:38 pm
by Bones McCoy
Silkyman wrote:There seems to be a key word missing here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... l-sex.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm pretty sure that if I admitted to that, I'd be rightly facing some hefty prison time and a lifelong stigma.
Non Consensual if you're at Oxford - there's a different word for the rest of the world.

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:25 am
by new puritan
Liam Kirkaldy ‏@HolyroodLiam 17h17 hours ago
The Telegraph's Frenchgate story on Nicola Sturgeon and the French ambassador has been nominated for the 2015 British Journalism Awards.
If you wondered why the reputation of British journalism was in the shitter, there's your answer.

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 11:31 am
by mikey mikey
It's not misogyny if you are being abusive to Nicola Sturgeon or Diane Abbot, doncha know? :wink:

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:26 pm
by Daley Mayle
new puritan wrote:
Liam Kirkaldy ‏@HolyroodLiam 17h17 hours ago
The Telegraph's Frenchgate story on Nicola Sturgeon and the French ambassador has been nominated for the 2015 British Journalism Awards.
If you wondered why the reputation of British journalism was in the shitter, there's your answer.

Just because it wasn't true doesn't debase the story. Piers Morgan finally 'fessed up that the Mirror's front page photo of a British soldier urinating on an Iraqi was a fabrication but he insisted that although it never happened it was an indication of how British soldiers could behave.

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:59 pm
by Kreuzberger
I presume that is heavy irony, Daley da...

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 1:16 pm
by Andy McDandy
Regarding Piers Moron, much of the concern was that an Iraqi (you know, they had the Internet too back in 2004) could see the pics and decide to go looking for a little payback. Or indeed an Iraqi now living in Britain.

The real irony was that a few months before the pissgate photos, the Sun of all papers had reported some squaddies laughing and joking and taking photos of dead Iraqis. Which they actually did in a rather low key way saying that the soldiers were being court martialled and that was that.

Re: The Telegraphs

Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 3:20 pm
by Tubby Isaacs
Hadn't realised before how far the Telegraph sank in the mid 90s with its American coverage. Ambrose Evans Pritchard, bizarrely still employed, reached talk show radio standards of anti-Clinton lunacy.

I guess he's still waiting for Bill Clinton to be fingered for his part in the Oklahoma City bomb.
Electronic Telegraph
(London Telegraph)
Sunday 10 November 1996
BOMB THAT GAVE CLINTON VICTORY COULD STILL RETURN TO HAUNT HIM
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Washington

RELAXING on Air Force One after the election, Bill Clinton told
reporters it was the Oklahoma bombing that proved the turning-point in
his political fortunes.

It was the moment when the militias, the Christian Right and the
Gingrich onslaught against government, all melded together in the
public mind as one rampant movement of extremism. "It broke a spell in
the country as the people began searching for our common ground
again," said Clinton.

I was struck by the observation, because I have long believed that the
Oklahoma bombing was the spring-board for the remarkable come-back of
Clinton.

The lorry bomb that blew up the Murrah Federal building on April 19
1995, killing 168 people, was a traumatic event. Had it been carried
out by foreign radicals, the impact on the national psyche would have
been far less. But this was a home-grown conspiracy. Americans were
committing mass murder against other Americans. A class full of
infants in a day-care centre massacred in cold blood - by Americans.

Clinton seized the moment. He blamed Right-wing radio talk shows for
sowing distrust of government institutions and for creating a climate
of "hate" that fostered recourse to violence. He did not name the
Republicans as co-conspirators; he did not have to. The US media made
the connection for him.

Tim McVeigh was the military expression of the Gingrich agenda, opined
the commentators. Republicans had failed to understand that rhetoric
has consequences, and now look what had happened.

A few Republicans dared to reply that it was the deployment of tanks
and CS gas by a militarised FBI against women and children in Waco
that had set off the deadly spiral. But most of them were too
intimidated, or horrified, to articulate a defence. It worked like
magic for Clinton. With control over the Justice Department and the
FBI - which he has politicised to an extraordinary degree - he has
been able to shape perception of the bombing.

But what if the government has suppressed the full truth? What if the
most important investigation in modern history has been compromised to
ensure the re-election of the President?

These are not idle questions. A family that lost two children in the
day-care centre has accused the Justice Department of a cover-up.
After conducting their own private investigation for the past 18
months Glenn and Cathy Wilburn have amassed evidence suggesting that
the government had prior knowledge of the bombing - and negligently
failed to stop it.

They have demolished the prosecution claim that McVeigh acted alone at
the crime scene. The Wilburns have over 300 hours of taped testimony
from witnesses who spotted McVeigh with other men in Oklahoma City
between 8am and 9am on April 19. The last witness to see the Ryder
lorry as it pulled up in front of the Murrah Building, said that the
stocky man who got out of the driver's side looked nothing like the
tall, gangly McVeigh.

The Wilburns, and their daughter Eyde Smith, have now taken their case
to the Oklahoma courts. In a civil lawsuit they have named two men -
Michael Brescia and a former German army officer, Andreas Strassmeir -
as alleged accomplices of McVeigh. They have accused the Justice
Department of failing to pursue all the conspirators because one or
more of them were federal informants who had penetrated the bombing
ring.

Fortunately for Clinton this story did not break in the mainstream
media before the election. But it has been percolating gradually for
several months. A number of newspapers in Oklahoma, Kansas, and
Tennessee have reported the Wilburn allegations, and the Canadian
Broadcasting Company recently ran a documentary.

The Justice Department has immense power, of course. But I doubt that
it can keep the lid on this case for much longer. The truth will out,
and if it is shown that the Oklahoma bombing was a federal sting that
went wrong, and was then covered up under pressure from the White
House, Clinton will have a lot of explaining to do