I just don't get it!

cowsham

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Danny Dyer -- who the fk is he anyway?

Ex Eastender who did Who Do You Think You Are? and discovered he could genuinely trace his ancestry all the way back to William I.

Which one of Billy's descendants was Hampton Wicking the brass?

Pross

rjsterry wrote:

Pross wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Danny Dyer -- who the fk is he anyway?

Ex Eastender who did Who Do You Think You Are? and discovered he could genuinely trace his ancestry all the way back to William I.

He’s always been less geeza than he likes to make out.

Mask occasionally slips. My personal favourite in response to a journo asking him about how badly his latest film has been received by critics.

“well it can’t all be f@cking fellini, can it?”

Yes he was pretty obviously hamming it up a bit for the programme, but as an antidote to the unrelenting grimness in the real world, last night was spot on.

Saw part of it and found it quite interesting. It's just a way of presenting history in a different way that might appeal to people who would otherwise have no interest. It would be pretty good to have proof that you were directly related to so many major historical characters.

And he seems to be genuinely interested in it all. Thought the meeting with Lord Tollemache was quite sweet.

Some of them met pretty gruesome ends, especially Edward II and his 'friend' Despenser. In the case of Edward II literally going medieval on his ass to quote Pulp Fiction :shock:

webboo

Pross wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Pross wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

Danny Dyer -- who the fk is he anyway?

Ex Eastender who did Who Do You Think You Are? and discovered he could genuinely trace his ancestry all the way back to William I.

He’s always been less geeza than he likes to make out.

Mask occasionally slips. My personal favourite in response to a journo asking him about how badly his latest film has been received by critics.

“well it can’t all be f@cking fellini, can it?”

Yes he was pretty obviously hamming it up a bit for the programme, but as an antidote to the unrelenting grimness in the real world, last night was spot on.

Saw part of it and found it quite interesting. It's just a way of presenting history in a different way that might appeal to people who would otherwise have no interest. It would be pretty good to have proof that you were directly related to so many major historical characters.

And he seems to be genuinely interested in it all. Thought the meeting with Lord Tollemache was quite sweet.

Some of them met pretty gruesome ends, especially Edward II and his 'friend' Despenser. In the case of Edward II literally going medieval on his ass to quote Pulp Fiction :shock:

There is now a school of thought that Edward 11 was not assassinated.
Medieval Intrigue by Ian Mortimer goes in to some detail.

rick_chasey

Things I don’t get. That type of history.

“Was a man 500 years ago actually assassinated”?

Who cares. Point is everyone thought he did for 500 years and at the time.

I wonder if people actually think about what history really is.

webboo

I don’t get why some people get so bitter/angry about subjects they profess to care little about.

capt_slog

Protesters outside Parliament. You see a lot of them at the moment waving their silly signs around in the background whenever someone is being interviewed. *

I understand they have a right to protest and long may it continue etc. But it's bloody freezing at the moment, don't they have homes to go to?



* And while I'm on it, why the hell are the outside broadcast crew there at all at many of these things?
Whenever some factory is closing or announces losses/redundancies, they poll up outside the gates to do a 'piece to camera'. This features some reporter who knows bugger-all else job losses/closure than they did in the studio, standing in front of the company's gates and who can't interview anyone because they've all gone home.

Tashman

Capt Slog wrote:

* And while I'm on it, why the hell are the outside broadcast crew there at all at many of these things?
Whenever some factory is closing or announces losses/redundancies, they poll up outside the gates to do a 'piece to camera'. This features some reporter who knows bugger-all else job losses/closure than they did in the studio, standing in front of the company's gates and who can't interview anyone because they've all gone home.

This again for "extreme" weather events. So and so area is being blown away/snowed in/flooded so we've sent an additional few bodies to potentially be in danger as you won't believe us unless there's some numpty stood in said conditions

Pross

Tashman wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

* And while I'm on it, why the hell are the outside broadcast crew there at all at many of these things?
Whenever some factory is closing or announces losses/redundancies, they poll up outside the gates to do a 'piece to camera'. This features some reporter who knows bugger-all else job losses/closure than they did in the studio, standing in front of the company's gates and who can't interview anyone because they've all gone home.

This again for "extreme" weather events. So and so area is being blown away/snowed in/flooded so we've sent an additional few bodies to potentially be in danger as you won't believe us unless there's some numpty stood in said conditions

I think I've previously put in the trivial things that cheer you up thread, I always enjoy it when the predicted weather doesn't happen and they are left trying to talk up a major storm / heavy snow whilst the pictures show the true story (usually followed by a cut to library pictures of previous bad weather and a voice-over). On a more serious note, if a reporter got sent to an area where bad weather is predicted by a media organisation that is reporting there's a red weather warning and the advice is not to travel presumably someone would be in the s**t with the HSE if they got injured?

Pross

Capt Slog wrote:

Protesters outside Parliament. You see a lot of them at the moment waving their silly signs around in the background whenever someone is being interviewed. *

I understand they have a right to protest and long may it continue etc. But it's bloody freezing at the moment, don't they have homes to go to?



* And while I'm on it, why the hell are the outside broadcast crew there at all at many of these things?
Whenever some factory is closing or announces losses/redundancies, they poll up outside the gates to do a 'piece to camera'. This features some reporter who knows bugger-all else job losses/closure than they did in the studio, standing in front of the company's gates and who can't interview anyone because they've all gone home.

There's quite a few who are there day in, day out as well so they presumably don't work and are not actively looking for work. It would be an easy one for DWP investigators if they are claiming job seeker's allowance!

rjsterry

Webboo wrote:

I don’t get why some people get so bitter/angry about subjects they profess to care little about.

No, he's cross because they are doing history wrong.

confused@BR

These "Outside Broadcasts" where some poor scribe is despatched to a motorway flyover to cover an earlier incident. No they are nowhere near the 'incident', the police make sure of that and the traffic is usually flowing again. What has that excercise added to our understanding? Look East and the M11 spring readily to mind but all the media seem to do it.
As for the performance of interviewing outside the H o P, as Dennis would say "Get a room".

ballysmate

Just don't get how Russell Brand can make a living from the entertainment industry, never mind support a comfortable lifestyle.

ballysmate

Capt Slog wrote:

Protesters outside Parliament. You see a lot of them at the moment waving their silly signs around in the background whenever someone is being interviewed. *

I understand they have a right to protest and long may it continue etc. But it's bloody freezing at the moment, don't they have homes to go to?

In a similar vein, people who go on protests just so that they can feel smug and signal their virtue.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

Protesters outside Parliament. You see a lot of them at the moment waving their silly signs around in the background whenever someone is being interviewed. *

I understand they have a right to protest and long may it continue etc. But it's bloody freezing at the moment, don't they have homes to go to?

In a similar vein, people who go on protests just so that they can feel smug and signal their virtue.

So that's what Tommy Robinson is doing.

Pross

Bargain Hunt. I have to admit I've only seen bits of it a handful of times but I assume the aim is you buy things cheap then take them to auction where you sell for a profit. The members of the public on it like to think they have a bit of knowledge and are assisted by supposed experts and yet whenever I've caught the end of it the winning team seems to be the one that loses the least money (on one or two occasions I may have seen someone make a few pounds profit). I've just checked and it has been running for 19 years and appears to be on its 51st series, how do they keep finding people prepared to take part?

capt_slog

Ballysmate wrote:

Just don't get how Russell Brand can make a living from the entertainment industry, never mind support a comfortable lifestyle.

Apparently, he writes "bookywooks" :roll:



but it beats me too.
Along with all the other zlist celebs who manage to manage whilst managing to do f-all.
Such as the likes of Gemma Collins and Ferne McCann, the latter even has the gall to describe herself as a 'working mum' .

rjsterry

Capt Slog wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Just don't get how Russell Brand can make a living from the entertainment industry, never mind support a comfortable lifestyle.

Apparently, he writes "bookywooks" :roll:



but it beats me too.
Along with all the other zlist celebs who manage to manage whilst managing to do f-all.
Such as the likes of Gemma Collins and Ferne McCann, the latter even has the gall to describe herself as a 'working mum' .

My Booky Wook was published 12 years ago. I'd suggest the 18 films he's been in since then would at least pay the bills.

Ben6899

People who, rather than being grateful for what they have, begrudge others what they have or judge how they have achieved it.

cowsham

Pross wrote:

Bargain Hunt. I have to admit I've only seen bits of it a handful of times but I assume the aim is you buy things cheap then take them to auction where you sell for a profit. The members of the public on it like to think they have a bit of knowledge and are assisted by supposed experts and yet whenever I've caught the end of it the winning team seems to be the one that loses the least money (on one or two occasions I may have seen someone make a few pounds profit). I've just checked and it has been running for 19 years and appears to be on its 51st series, how do they keep finding people prepared to take part?

Me and the Queen both 'get' Bargain Hunt. Haven't been on it yet but if the queen wants a go I'll gladly be her partner on it -- she'd know a thing or two about antiques.

jstrang

Pet dogs. Why? They're nothing but smelly, noisy, hairy, expensive, inconvenient, destructive, ungrateful poo machines on legs

FocusZing

jstrang wrote:

Pet dogs. Why? They're nothing but smelly, noisy, hairy, expensive, inconvenient, destructive, ungrateful poo machines on legs

Take out the pet dog bit and it sounds like me.

Tashman

jstrang wrote:

Pet dogs. Why? They're nothing but smelly, noisy, hairy, expensive, inconvenient, destructive, ungrateful poo machines on legs

Not a problem with dogs per se, but now every establishment is expected to be "Dog Friendly" meaning that going for a coffee is like negotiating a canine assault course as they all lie between tables. Worse are the owners who don't control their beasts and expect everyone to dote on their "fur baby". No I don't want your hound molesting me and for farks sake keep it out of the restaurant area of the pub!

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

Things I don’t get. That type of history.

“Was a man 500 years ago actually assassinated”?

Who cares. Point is everyone thought he did for 500 years and at the time.

I wonder if people actually think about what history really is.

It's a distillation of rumour.

Stevo_666

FocusZing wrote:

jstrang wrote:

Pet dogs. Why? They're nothing but smelly, noisy, hairy, expensive, inconvenient, destructive, ungrateful poo machines on legs

Take out the pet dog bit and it sounds like me.

Sounds like a lot of blokes to be fair.

Stevo_666

Tashman wrote:

jstrang wrote:

Pet dogs. Why? They're nothing but smelly, noisy, hairy, expensive, inconvenient, destructive, ungrateful poo machines on legs

Not a problem with dogs per se, but now every establishment is expected to be "Dog Friendly" meaning that going for a coffee is like negotiating a canine assault course as they all lie between tables. Worse are the owners who don't control their beasts and expect everyone to dote on their "fur baby". No I don't want your hound molesting me and for farks sake keep it out of the restaurant area of the pub!

Tashman, let me know what part of the country you live in. I want to go on holiday somewhere in the UK that we aren't having to arrange our eating out depending who will take dogs.

secretsam

jstrang wrote:

Pet dogs. Why? They're nothing but smelly, noisy, hairy, expensive, inconvenient, destructive, ungrateful poo machines on legs

You forgot "stupid"
Taking your dog to work

Stevo_666

SecretSam wrote:

jstrang wrote:

Pet dogs. Why? They're nothing but smelly, noisy, hairy, expensive, inconvenient, destructive, ungrateful poo machines on legs

You forgot "stupid"
Taking your dog to work

Or kids. Although on the bright side it's several hours of free dog/child sitting.

hopkinb

jstrang wrote:

Pet dogs. Why? They're nothing but smelly, noisy, hairy, expensive, inconvenient, destructive, ungrateful poo machines on legs

If there's one thing a dog isn't - it's ungrateful.

Mine is

1) only a bit smelly, no worse than the 13 year old child;
2) only barks at the doorbell, the 8 year old is way noisier;
3) all dogs are hairy, mine does not shed
4) less expensive than a child
5) less inconvenient than a child
6) not in the slightest bit destructive, unlike the children have been
7) ungrateful - dogs exist to be grateful, see children/cats for "ungratefulness"
8. poo machines - aren't we all?
9) on legs - again not exclusive to dogs

bompington

To see whether it's better to have a dog or a wife, try this experiment:
1. Lock your dog and your wife in the boot of a car (separate cars, obvs)
2. Leave for 6 hours
3. Open the boot and see which one shows signs of being happy to see you.

robert88

bompington wrote:

To see whether it's better to have a dog or a wife, try this experiment:
1. Lock your dog and your wife in the boot of a car (separate cars, obvs)
2. Leave for 6 hours
3. Open the boot and see which one shows signs of being happy to see you.

I don't get that. Is it to see which is most stupid?