Kelvin Mackenzie

bompington

pinarello001 wrote:

Funny how when you pose a good rounded argument how the original detractors dissappear !!
Where are you Bompington ?
Come on Bompington (along the bompy metaphorical road of ill thought comments). Have you changed your view or do you require more evidence to support Frank the Tanks original statement?
Do you still dribble subserviantly just because someone is successful? Personally, in the whole scheme of things, he is an abject failure. Winston Churchill once said that a society must be judged on how it treats its weakest.
The 'suc' in success is exactly what he did to Murdochs 4rse.

OK, I'll rise.
Firstly, I'd be interested if you could point out to me which bit of my post, or any other I've posted, shows me "dribbling subserviently". Using such cheap (and plain wrong) insults suggests you are the one playing the same game as Mackenzie, not me.
Do you really think that the Murdoch empire will crumble because of your witty puns about Mackenzie brown-nosing Murdoch?
The point I was making is that the red-tops (not just the Murdoch ones) thrive on stirring up this kind of reaction - it's their lifeblood: to maintain their image they have to have an outraged opposition. And I may be wrong here, but one of my assumptions about internet discussion is that once it reaches the level of cheap insults from second rate puns (cf. Pharmstrong, Bliar etc.) it has abandoned any hope of effecting positive change, or even making people think, for the cheap thrills of throwing some sh!t from the sidelines.

Mackenzie is a success in his own terms, not yours, clearly - or mine in actual fact: I am no fan of Mackenzie, or the Sun, or tabloid journalism in general. My point was more as outlined above, that the cheap Mackenzie-bashing plays into his hands (the comments about the french? Surely only to set him up as a pantomime villain, I bet he knew the holiday home jibe was coming, he's not actually stupid, possibly cleverer than you or even me ;-)) and is exactly what he's looking for.

My own views on life are much more in line with your quote about how society treats its weakest - dealing with some of society's weakest is what I do for a living - although I should point out that there's no evidence that Churchill ever said that, although Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Samuel Johnson and Gandhi among others have said something similar.

Actually in Gandhi's case it was animals, which I'm sure the Sun would want to endorse.

Monkeypump

pinarello001 wrote:

Remember the Eastenders youngster who committed suicide off Beachy Head 1990 ? He shared a flat above a chip shop in London after going to the Lewes drama college and getting a small part in Eastenders. A Sun journo interviewed him in his flat and found the stub end of a joint in the ashtray. The next thing the headline was along the lines of "BBC employing young druggies". He was suspended pending an enquiry. The BBC then re-instated him but the press re-ignited their campaign. He was then suspended indefinately by the BBC. They harrassed his 11 year old sister on the way to school, on the way home. His house was under seige from the press and they were prisoners of thieir own home for 2 weeks until tragically he took his life. He used to come to the Roxy night club in Eastbourne, was 'sensative' and most probably batted for the other side but he was very friendly and approachable and what the press did was unforgiveable.
David Scarboro (Played Mark Fowler) did the same in 1988 after spurious allegations made by the News of the World.

Is thinly veiled bigotry part of your armoury of well-balanced debate? :roll:

pinno

Bompington - I evoked an opinion from you and not just a one liner.
Quote - Firstly, I'd be interested if you could point out to me which bit of my post, or any other I've posted, shows me "dribbling subserviently". Using such cheap (and plain wrong) insults suggests you are the one playing the same game as Mackenzie, not me.

But why put the 'successfu'l bit into your original statement then ? What the heck has him being clever or successful got to do with the fact that Frank the Tank and I think he is an arse4ole? You/we are in cloud cuckoo land if you think that we are somehow going to have an influence on this bloke by the way we project him. Besides, the damge has been done, the horse has bolted and people still buy the bloody red tops and sadly I do not think the Murdoch empire will crumble as a result of the Leveson enquiry or the manner in which speak in whatever terms.
The personal insult evoked a reaction, I don't know you from Adam but I am still bemused by the "...yes, but a successful one" quip when you obviously dislike him and do not condone his behaviour.

Monkeypump - Would you care to elaborate on:

Is thinly veiled bigotry part of your armoury of well-balanced debate?

The point I think you are trying to make is that you are suggesting that I am homophobic. No, I was suggesting that it was so difficult for him to bear this media harrassment and due to his charecter was probably more suscepitible to such a barrage of merciless and malevolent attention. A) The original Sun journo who interviewd him probably was bigoted himself and took absolutely no consideration for this young mans feelings and maybe saw him as a soft target and C) Did he take his life because he felt he was the one to blame for throwing his family into the dogpit ? The 3 (presumed and suggested) points, makes the sorry affair even sadder.

Cleat Eastwood

pinarello001 wrote:

The point I think you are trying to make is that you are suggesting that I am homophobic.

i can vouch for pinarello -he is the only forum member who has shared a babycham with me....in a dirty glass too

Monkeypump

pinarello001 wrote:

Monkeypump - Would you care to elaborate on:

Is thinly veiled bigotry part of your armoury of well-balanced debate?

The point I think you are trying to make is that you are suggesting that I am homophobic. No, I was suggesting that it was so difficult for him to bear this media harrassment and due to his charecter was probably more suscepitible to such a barrage of merciless and malevolent attention. A) The original Sun journo who interviewd him probably was bigoted himself and took absolutely no consideration for this young mans feelings and maybe saw him as a soft target and C) Did he take his life because he felt he was the one to blame for throwing his family into the dogpit ? The 3 (presumed and suggested) points, makes the sorry affair even sadder.

The point I was actually trying to make is that judging someone as 'sensative' (sic) and drawing the conclusion that they must 'bat for the other side' is quite offensive, whether the guy was gay or not (I don't know who you're talking about, so excuse my ignorance).

In itself, using terms like "bat for the other side' is a little inappropriate. Are the terms 'shirt-lifter', 'poofter' and 'bender' other favourites in your vocabulary?

I don't disagree with the point about media hounding, but please choose your assumptions and comments more carefully. Oh, and while we're at it, check your spelling too!

pinno

Monkeypump - no offence but this is Bottom Bracket. Cake stop has not been the same if you haven't noticed because too many commuters/the PC brigade/well-to-do's complained about fat women, sexual innuendo, girls in short clothing etc etc and the Mods clamped down on it. After much pressure they opened up Bottom Bracket for the less regulated posts and free speech.

I did'nt use this language:

'shirt-lifter', 'poofter' and 'bender' other favourites in your vocabulary?

I was underlining his vulnerability, I make no apology for that nor spelling mistakes. I laugh if you think that 'Batting for the other side' is offensive and the use of word 'sensative' is a straight observation of someones character regardless of sexual orientation.

DavidBelcher

pinarello001 wrote:

Kelvin; noun - Meaning: setting the standard for degrees of depravity ?

And the credibility of The Sun and the NoTW has of course now sunk to "absolute zero".

David

Monkeypump

pinarello001 wrote:

Monkeypump - no offence but this is Bottom Bracket. Cake stop has not been the same if you haven't noticed because too many commuters/the PC brigade/well-to-do's complained about fat women, sexual innuendo, girls in short clothing etc etc and the Mods clamped down on it. After much pressure they opened up Bottom Bracket for the less regulated posts and free speech.

I did'nt use this language:

'shirt-lifter', 'poofter' and 'bender' other favourites in your vocabulary?

I was underlining his vulnerability, I make no apology for that nor spelling mistakes. I laugh if you think that 'Batting for the other side' is offensive and the use of word 'sensative' is a straight observation of someones character regardless of sexual orientation.

Yawn.... :roll: Righto, do carry on then...

EDIT: Okay, probably unfairly dismissive. I thought the correlation between sensative (sic) and being gay was clumsy (at best) and bigoted (at worst). I've watched the birth of Bottom Bracket just like everyone else, and as others have said, BR haven't exactly captured the spirit of what was intended. If we're going with homophobic overtones, so be it... maybe Vesterberg is our new role model.

pinno

Monkeypump wrote:

If we're going with homophobic overtones, so be it... maybe Vesterberg is our new role model.

Your the one still going on, give up. Go and join the WI forum, then your 'sensativites' won't be compromised. Maybe the catholicfathersforpurity.com would suit you even more...