Seemingly trivial things that annoy you
Comments
-
Surely we can find a way of having stories that are truly important and in the public interest without the tittle-tattle and delving in to people's private lives? It's not a case of all or nothing.Shortfall wrote:Slowbike wrote:
If that's honest and respectful publishing then great ...Shortfall wrote:Like I say, be careful what you wish for because it's coming our way.
It will probably be very respectful but will only contain a small part of the truth. So we won't get many more stories about Meghan Markle and her nail polish but neither will find out about scandals like MPs expenses or exposes about the likes of billionaire paedophileJeffery Epstein.0 -
elbowloh wrote:
Surely we can find a way of having stories that are truly important and in the public interest without the tittle-tattle and delving in to people's private lives? It's not a case of all or nothing.Shortfall wrote:Slowbike wrote:
If that's honest and respectful publishing then great ...Shortfall wrote:Like I say, be careful what you wish for because it's coming our way.
It will probably be very respectful but will only contain a small part of the truth. So we won't get many more stories about Meghan Markle and her nail polish but neither will find out about scandals like MPs expenses or exposes about the likes of billionaire paedophileJeffery Epstein.
Good luck with that. Newspaper circulations are on their ar*e already. In response the Mail Online for instance gets its revenue from people clicking on soft porn images of female celebrities on the sidebar. This allows them the money to pay its journalists to go after some of the genuine stories. We don't live in a perfect world. The Guardian only stays afloat as I understand it because it benefits from a billion pound endowment held in trust. If it relied on circulation alone it would've gone bust years ago.0 -
Slowbike wrote:
Doesn't that tell you what VALUE they're providing ...Shortfall wrote:Newspaper circulations are on their ar*e already.
the answer isn't to dive into more and more dodgy reporting
Scoop - Mr Slowbike scratched his ars* on the way to work this morning ...
woopdido ...
No it tells me that people won't spend a quid on a newspaper anymore if they can get most of the same content for free online with added pics of JLO's butt down the sidebar. I wish there was more serious journalism and more people would buy broadsheets for the in depth investigate journalism alone but that's not the world we live in anymore.0 -
Longshot wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Longshot wrote:Pinno wrote:far, far more than their cost to the taxpayer
The taxpayer makes a fortune out of them. Widely ignored, even on this thread
I don’t get the argument that tourists flock to the UK to not get a glimpse of the royal family. Surely if we got rid of them, the tourists would still flock here to do everything they currently do (plus greater access to ex-royal buildings)
I'm not actually talking about any tourism benefits!
How does this country make money by giving hundreds of properties, millions of acres and billions of pounds to one family?0 -
Noone gave them anything. They have owned their own estate for generations, which has been carefully managed and makes money, from which the family are paid (rest goes to the Treasury).
Crown Estate Income approx £330m after tax. Royal salaries about £40m, plus costs (no idea how high these are)
As for the rest of the money, they are business ambassadors generating investment into the UK. You know - all those world tours they go on?
For someone who seems to not like them, you really don't know very much about this, do you?
And personally, I can't stand the royal family - especially Harry and William.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Longshot wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Longshot wrote:Pinno wrote:far, far more than their cost to the taxpayer
The taxpayer makes a fortune out of them. Widely ignored, even on this thread
I don’t get the argument that tourists flock to the UK to not get a glimpse of the royal family. Surely if we got rid of them, the tourists would still flock here to do everything they currently do (plus greater access to ex-royal buildings)
I'm not actually talking about any tourism benefits!
How does this country make money by giving hundreds of properties, millions of acres and billions of pounds to one family?
For start, we don't give them those things.
In brief, in ~1697, an agreement was reached between Parliament and the King that money would be provided to support the Royal Family (better known more recently as the Civil List or Sovereign Grant). In return, Parliament would get the income from the Crown Lands (or Crown Estate).
In 2018, the Crown Estate had an income of £329.4M returned for the public finances.
For 2018/19, the Sovereign Grant was £82.1M.
Numbers can of course be subjective but a net gain of £247.3M seems like a "fortune" to me.You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
Pinno wrote:Shortfall wrote:Firstly, MM chose to marry Harry with all that entails.
...and intrusion into her private life, a continuous scrutiny of their lives and highly subjective commentary and opinion is acceptable/justifiable/in the public interest/moral?!
Anyone in the public eye has to live by standards that the rest of us don't. It's a blatant hypocrisy. I think all the editors think is 'will this story sell or won't it?'.Shortfall wrote:Secondly, the British press undoubtedly has many faults but people should be careful what they wish for. A free press is one of the few things that helps to keep us all free and we neuter it at our peril.
What Wheelspinner said.
I hope that the Royals win their case. The bullshit has to be curbed. The crap printed about the EU or more, the language the Daily Heil and the Express use when reporting is astounding. The have demonized the EU and protagonists within and wholly influenced the EU referendum.
Print the truth, not some bastardisation of events just to sell stories and placate their owners agenda. It is manipulation of the masses. Certain papers destroy credibility, wreck careers, lives and democracy.
If ultimately, Britain leaves the EU, it will be down to the press who on the whole have failed to present a balanced argument.
Take ITV international news. I watched this when I was in Sweden. It was very Europe centric. There were lots of news items about events in Europe. It presented a picture of a Britain in Europe.
I come back and there's f*ck all about Europe apart from the bad and we go on and on about issues in America from Trump, the 'special relationship', the Opiate addiction epidemic in the US. They paint a very skewed picture and we are far more European than American. America is a huge cultural shift away from us.
The long term effect of this is an erosion of positive attitudes towards Europe, an indifference. That has been massaged by the Pro Brexit press to the extent that a huge proportion of thick, influenceable Joe Public thinks that the EU has little or no benefit to us and is trying to be the all controlling, German lead, federal (= Nazi party?) European state. When the reality is quite different.
...and people voted leave. Any wonder?
A free press should not be a license to print bollox.
I have no interest in the private lives of royals or anyone else for that matter. Today's celebrity culture, I just don't understand. My sympathy for people who have suffered press intrusion peters out somewhat when they themselves have previously courted and used the press for their own ends.
It should be no shock that an international news outlet features international news.
You bemoan the attitude of the press towards Europe, as eroding the positive attitude, but surely an attitude that fostered a false positive note would be just as pernicious?
Cake Stop points to you for using the phrase Daily Heil, but you missed out on a bonus point if you had used Torygragh
How about this little gem from the ultra right wing Guardian and the swivel eyed right wing loon, Owen Jones before the referendum?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... urosceptic
You said in an earlier post that the press are there to make money and I agree. Newspapers generally look for a sector and tailor their output accordingly. Royal babies and Kardashians sell papers and people vote with their wallets. Bollox it may be, but who should set themselves up to arbitrate?0 -
I guess the people who buy or don't buy the papers are the arbitrators - nobody is forcing you to buy any particular paper and there is a choice of papers with different political viewpoints.Ballysmate wrote:I have no interest in the private lives of royals or anyone else for that matter. Today's celebrity culture, I just don't understand. My sympathy for people who have suffered press intrusion peters out somewhat when they themselves have previously courted and used the press for their own ends.
It should be no shock that an international news outlet features international news.
You bemoan the attitude of the press towards Europe, as eroding the positive attitude, but surely an attitude that fostered a false positive note would be just as pernicious?
Cake Stop points to you for using the phrase Daily Heil, but you missed out on a bonus point if you had used Torygragh
How about this little gem from the ultra right wing Guardian and the swivel eyed right wing loon, Owen Jones before the referendum?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... urosceptic
You said in an earlier post that the press are there to make money and I agree. Newspapers generally look for a sector and tailor their output accordingly. Royal babies and Kardashians sell papers and people vote with their wallets. Bollox it may be, but who should set themselves up to arbitrate?
And TBH I can't see much of a case for a state controlled newspaper that only prints 'the truth'. Although 'Pravda' might be a catchy name if JC ever introduces one
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
In fairness, that was the BBC who ran with that BS0
-
For my own two-penneth worth, i do subscribe (digitally) to the Times, I also "donate" £5 a month to the Guardian to read their online content.
There are people who are willing to pay for good journalism.0 -
I pay for the FT actually, forgot about that. Between them and the BBC I'm covered but I don't have a strategy for wider exposure to different views. I do like the Guardian occasionally but some of their stuff is just silly, and the environmental stuff is often plain wrong (despite me being in their 'side' as it were)0
-
I would subscribe to the Guardian but I read Cakestop instead which more or less covers it.0
-
US based piece which doesn't seem too silly re media bias:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... its-honest0 -
Shortfall wrote:I would subscribe to the Guardian but I read Cakestop instead which more or less covers it. 0
-
Ballysmate wrote:Shortfall wrote:I would subscribe to the Guardian but I read Cakestop instead which more or less covers it.0
-
Ballysmate wrote:Shortfall wrote:I would subscribe to the Guardian but I read Cakestop instead which more or less covers it.
OK so where is my subscription?0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Shortfall wrote:I would subscribe to the Guardian but I read Cakestop instead which more or less covers it.
+1"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Perhaps it's not trivial ... ?
Trying to drop a few kilos - quite simply I eat too many carbs ... (I think I) need to cut down. Google "Low Carb Breakfast UK"
bearing in mind, most people will be after a simple breakfast that's easy to do - hence cereals & toast feature high on the average UK breakfast ..
the search results ... Cooked breakfasts ... every single one is going to take time and care to prepare ...
Yes - it's trivial - I could just eat less cereal .... 0 -
Slowbike wrote:Perhaps it's not trivial ... ?
Trying to drop a few kilos - quite simply I eat too many carbs ... (I think I) need to cut down. Google "Low Carb Breakfast UK"
bearing in mind, most people will be after a simple breakfast that's easy to do - hence cereals & toast feature high on the average UK breakfast ..
the search results ... Cooked breakfasts ... every single one is going to take time and care to prepare ...
Yes - it's trivial - I could just eat less cereal ....
Get yourself a Nutri Bullet blender and throw some avocado and nuts in with a bit of coconut milk and a spoon of cacao powder. Thick,delicious, filling, very low carb and takes minutes to prepare.0 -
A while ago I pondered a low carb no cook breakfast. Best my limited brain could come up with was:
Full fat yoghurt / fruit / couple of slices of ham / boiled egg (done the night before)
Instead I decided to ditch cereal / toast in favour of porridge or bircher muesli. The former takes 5 mins to prepare in the morning, the latter 5 mins the night before. It's not low carb but it's slow release and keeps me full for longer than the cereal / toast option.
I do like the smoothie suggestion above though...0 -
I love how you manage to put everything I hate into a meal ....Shortfall wrote:Slowbike wrote:Perhaps it's not trivial ... ?
Trying to drop a few kilos - quite simply I eat too many carbs ... (I think I) need to cut down. Google "Low Carb Breakfast UK"
bearing in mind, most people will be after a simple breakfast that's easy to do - hence cereals & toast feature high on the average UK breakfast ..
the search results ... Cooked breakfasts ... every single one is going to take time and care to prepare ...
Yes - it's trivial - I could just eat less cereal ....
Get yourself a Nutri Bullet blender and throw some avocado and nuts in with a bit of coconut milk and a spoon of cacao powder. Thick,delicious, filling, very low carb and takes minutes to prepare. 0 -
keef66 wrote:A while ago I pondered a low carb no cook breakfast. Best my limited brain could come up with was:
Full fat yoghurt / fruit / couple of slices of ham / boiled egg (done the night before)
Instead I decided to ditch cereal / toast in favour of porridge or bircher muesli. The former takes 5 mins to prepare in the morning, the latter 5 mins the night before. It's not low carb but it's slow release and keeps me full for longer than the cereal / toast option.
I do like the smoothie suggestion above though...
Not sure I'd like yoghurt with Ham and boiled egg ...
I think I may have to do the Overnight Oats a bit more often ...
It's the prep time that's the pain - it takes less than 30 seconds to get a bowl and fill it with cereal, shuv on some milk - and not much longer to eat it all... which is great when you're on a reasonably tight schedule to get the school run done....0 -
Slowbike wrote:
I love how you manage to put everything I hate into a meal ....Shortfall wrote:Slowbike wrote:Perhaps it's not trivial ... ?
Trying to drop a few kilos - quite simply I eat too many carbs ... (I think I) need to cut down. Google "Low Carb Breakfast UK"
bearing in mind, most people will be after a simple breakfast that's easy to do - hence cereals & toast feature high on the average UK breakfast ..
the search results ... Cooked breakfasts ... every single one is going to take time and care to prepare ...
Yes - it's trivial - I could just eat less cereal ....
Get yourself a Nutri Bullet blender and throw some avocado and nuts in with a bit of coconut milk and a spoon of cacao powder. Thick,delicious, filling, very low carb and takes minutes to prepare.
Get yourself a nutri bullet anyway and just experiment with making veg smoothies. There's loads of recipe suggestions on the web but if you use unsweetened almond or coconut milk (or water) and throw in whatever non starchy raw veg you like with just a few frozen berries to sweeten it up with out over doing the carbs, then it's quick and easy. At the risk of telling you how to suck eggs, nutri bullets are really powerful blenders that mince things way smoother than traditional blenders. With a bit of time you can find some delicious combinations that are 90% veg based so low in carbs.0 -
Slowbike wrote:
It's the prep time that's the pain - it takes less than 30 seconds to get a bowl and fill it with cereal, shuv on some milk - and not much longer to eat it all... which is great when you're on a reasonably tight schedule to get the school run done....
Mate, life is too short to beat yourself up about marginal stuff like that.
The internet is full of advice from people who apparently make Michelin starred food in 5 minutes with "just" about 25 different types of food they somehow have time to buy and about 4 specific, expensive and large pieces of kitchenware that will set you back about a grand in total and take up 2/3rds of your available kitchen surface space.0 -
hmm - we already have a good blender (no, I didn't buy it ... )Shortfall wrote:Slowbike wrote:
I love how you manage to put everything I hate into a meal ....Shortfall wrote:Slowbike wrote:Perhaps it's not trivial ... ?
Trying to drop a few kilos - quite simply I eat too many carbs ... (I think I) need to cut down. Google "Low Carb Breakfast UK"
bearing in mind, most people will be after a simple breakfast that's easy to do - hence cereals & toast feature high on the average UK breakfast ..
the search results ... Cooked breakfasts ... every single one is going to take time and care to prepare ...
Yes - it's trivial - I could just eat less cereal ....
Get yourself a Nutri Bullet blender and throw some avocado and nuts in with a bit of coconut milk and a spoon of cacao powder. Thick,delicious, filling, very low carb and takes minutes to prepare.
Get yourself a nutri bullet anyway and just experiment with making veg smoothies. There's loads of recipe suggestions on the web but if you use unsweetened almond or coconut milk (or water) and throw in whatever non starchy raw veg you like with just a few frozen berries to sweeten it up with out over doing the carbs, then it's quick and easy. At the risk of telling you how to suck eggs, nutri bullets are really powerful blenders that mince things way smoother than traditional blenders. With a bit of time you can find some delicious combinations that are 90% veg based so low in carbs.
May have to up the veg purchasing!0 -
You're right - I wonder if I can get a deliveroo ...Rick Chasey wrote:Slowbike wrote:
It's the prep time that's the pain - it takes less than 30 seconds to get a bowl and fill it with cereal, shuv on some milk - and not much longer to eat it all... which is great when you're on a reasonably tight schedule to get the school run done....
Mate, life is too short to beat yourself up about marginal stuff like that.
The internet is full of advice from people who apparently make Michelin starred food in 5 minutes with "just" about 25 different types of food they somehow have time to buy and about 4 specific, expensive and large pieces of kitchenware that will set you back about a grand in total and take up 2/3rds of your available kitchen surface space. then I could convert the kitchen into something more useful! 0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Slowbike wrote:
It's the prep time that's the pain - it takes less than 30 seconds to get a bowl and fill it with cereal, shuv on some milk - and not much longer to eat it all... which is great when you're on a reasonably tight schedule to get the school run done....
Mate, life is too short to beat yourself up about marginal stuff like that.
The internet is full of advice from people who apparently make Michelin starred food in 5 minutes with "just" about 25 different types of food they somehow have time to buy and about 4 specific, expensive and large pieces of kitchenware that will set you back about a grand in total and take up 2/3rds of your available kitchen surface space.
The nutri bullet is not much bigger than a pint glass so takes up no room. It's quite cheap to buy and well made so it will last years. The ingredients I put in my own smoothies are cheap and readily available at Aldi and other supermarkets. I don't claim Michelin quality flavour and presentation but I do claim that it does what the OP asks for - namely produce a tasty low carb breakfast in no time (plus it does a ton of other stuff too).0 -
ok - I'll amend my internet search - and if I've got enough veg I'll try it ... if I puke I'll blame you ... 0
