I just don't get it!

robert88

Finding anything interesting about the Royal Family or their hangers-on.. (Apart from Prince Andrew for avoidance purposes.)

ayjaycee

Cowsham wrote:

James Bond 007

Agree with that completely - applies to the books and the films up to the Daniel Craig era which were a vast improvement (IMHO of course!).

cowsham

ayjaycee wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

James Bond 007

Agree with that completely - applies to the books and the films up to the Daniel Craig era which were a vast improvement (IMHO of course!).

No I think Daniel Craig was the worst JB ever -- he looked more like a boxer or a builder hard man type --

I think Jb should have been like Rodger Moore but even more so - like a slightly arrogant hoo ry Henry but with an unsurpassed air of sophistication, tall dark and handsome without being butch so the villain will always underestimate him. A bit of a double crosser but gets the job done sort of chap.

robert88

Doctor Who. It's an anachronism.

orraloon

Robert88 wrote:

Doctor Who. It's a Time Lord.

There, corrected for you, don't mention it.

ballysmate

The apparent decision of the BBC to drop Wacko Jacko from the R2 playlist on the grounds that he was probably a kiddie fiddler.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/radio/what- ... ims-child/

Makes no odds to me as I rarely listen to R2 now and WJ makes me want to cut my ears off, but any addition to/removal from should be down to music and nothing else.
I know there is a documentary coming up but it isn't as though there has not been credible evidence in the past regarding his activities is it? If the BBC wanted to make a point, they could have removed his music when he was alive.
Who's next, Wyman, Page, Bowie, Jerry Lee and rumour has it, Elvis liked 'em young.

briantrumpet

Ballysmate wrote:

The apparent decision of the BBC to drop Wacko Jacko from the R2 playlist on the grounds that he was probably a kiddie fiddler.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/radio/what- ... ims-child/

Makes no odds to me as I rarely listen to R2 now and WJ makes me want to cut my ears off, but any addition to/removal from should be down to music and nothing else.
I know there is a documentary coming up but it isn't as though there has not been credible evidence in the past regarding his activities is it? If the BBC wanted to make a point, they could have removed his music when he was alive.
Who's next, Wyman, Page, Bowie, Jerry Lee and rumour has it, Elvis liked 'em young.

It's a tricky one - but I think there's got to be a line somewhere... or should we still have Jimmy Savile repeats being played?

There's an interesting piece here from a one-time fan: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/arts ... rland.html - it's not a comfortable read, when you see how calculated it seems to have been, and repeatedly.

I'll admit to having no idea where the line should be.

ballysmate

I take your point about Saville but there is no market for repeats of Jim 'l Fix it etc and even prior to his less than sad demise, he was no longer to be seen on telly.
But millions of non music lovers have MJ albums and presumably still listen to him, so it seems odd that the BBC have decided to drop him now.

briantrumpet

Ballysmate wrote:

I take your point about Saville but there is no market for repeats of Jim 'l Fix it etc and even prior to his less than sad demise, he was no longer to be seen on telly.
But millions of non music lovers have MJ albums and presumably still listen to him, so it seems odd that the BBC have decided to drop him now.

It's one of those cases where whatever they do they will be called out - but, if you take the contents of that film as reviewed as being accurate, I can see why the BBC would veer towards caution, given that it doesn't stop people listening to his music by other means.

If the film's contents are accurate, it's pretty clear that Jackson was a very manipulative paedophile, who serially groomed children. I think that probably crosses most lines. If people still want to listen to his music knowing that, that's up to them.

awavey

Ballysmate wrote:

I take your point about Saville but there is no market for repeats of Jim 'l Fix it etc and even prior to his less than sad demise, he was no longer to be seen on telly.
But millions of non music lovers have MJ albums and presumably still listen to him, so it seems odd that the BBC have decided to drop him now.

on the Saville front, and actually on the whole Operation Yewtree impact on the BBC its worse than that, they dont just not repeat Jim'll Fix it anymore, any episode of Top of the Pops he was in or anyone suggested of being involved, they ban the whole episode from the repeats list, so there are literally hundreds of episodes of old TOTPs that are banned for reshowing by the BBC, rather than edit the links out they just ban the whole episode.

as for MJ, whatever your views are on him as a person, it seems wrong to ban his music from radio not least given he never got to contest these current accusations in a court of law to be found guilty

but Radio2 recently has been very much trying to distance itself from listeners born in the 70s and 80s who would almost certrainly be MJs biggest fanbase anyway, so it feels just another part of that whole this radio station is no longer for you approach theyve adopted

morstar

awavey wrote:

but Radio2 recently has been very much trying to distance itself from listeners born in the 70s and 80s who would almost certrainly be MJs biggest fanbase anyway, so it feels just another part of that whole this radio station is no longer for you approach theyve adopted

They definitely view their stations as a conveyor belt to move listeners along according to age. They get quite antsy if the demographics don't match the intended market.

Arguably, they could let the stations age with the listeners and keep introducing a new young station every few years for young viewers and kill off one at the other end.

cowsham

Micheal Jackson

orraloon

Inability to spell Michael.

rick_chasey

There is s much broader and interesting question about consuming the art output of people who have done bad things.

Do we separate the two or not?

I don’t know the answer and the debate is probs not for the thread but it’s one that’s been part of art since forever.

cowsham

orraloon wrote:

Inability to spell Michael.

There's more than one way.

rolf_f

Cowsham wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Inability to spell Michael.

There's more than one way.

Oralloon's only upset about the wrong ways.

orraloon

Cowsham wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Inability to spell Michael.

There's more than one way.

"Anglicised form of Irish Mícheál or Scottish Gaelic Mìcheal. Also a spelling variant of Michael, generally considered erroneous." Source: Wikipedia

cowsham

Rolf F wrote:

Cowsham wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Inability to spell Michael.

There's more than one way.

Oralloon's only upset about the wrong ways.

Sorry about that didn't know he was into him -- or was it the other way round?

capt_slog

People who put those scratch logos on their cars/elsewhere, which advertise Monster(?).

Why would they do that?

Matthewfalle

Capt Slog wrote:

People who put those scratch logos on their cars/elsewhere, which advertise Monster(?).

Why would they do that?

same reason as anyone does anything with any logo.

same reason as people tattoo ironman logo on their leg.

Alejandrosdog

Matthewfalle wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

People who put those scratch logos on their cars/elsewhere, which advertise Monster(?).

Why would they do that?

same reason as anyone does anything with any logo.

same reason as people tattoo ironman logo on their leg.

I think that’s post race delirium

capt_slog

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

People who put those scratch logos on their cars/elsewhere, which advertise Monster(?).

Why would they do that?

same reason as anyone does anything with any logo.

same reason as people tattoo ironman logo on their leg.

I think that’s post race delirium

And I can (just) understand that, even though I don't like tattoos.

But a crap drink? I can't get what is inherently cool, desirable about it, any more than I can envisage putting the Heinz logo everywhere because you really think their tomato ketchup is nice.

bompington

No, you get it perfectly well - we all know that they've fallen for the lifestyle image advertising, and think that by associating themselves with it they will magically be able to pull the same stunts or women as the people in the ads.

The thing is, how often do we all fall for the same trick? Maybe not so blatantly, but we're all susceptible...

capt_slog

bompington wrote:

No, you get it perfectly well -.....

No.

I don't.

cowsham

Fizzy drinks

Matthewfalle

Capt Slog wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

People who put those scratch logos on their cars/elsewhere, which advertise Monster(?).

Why would they do that?

same reason as anyone does anything with any logo.

same reason as people tattoo ironman logo on their leg.

I think that’s post race delirium

And I can (just) understand that, even though I don't like tattoos.

But a crap drink? I can't get what is inherently cool, desirable about it, any more than I can envisage putting the Heinz logo everywhere because you really think their tomato ketchup is nice.

How is it understandable at all? Its like me getting a picture of Pen Y Fan on my leg after doing the Fan Dance. Its not understandable at all - its bloody stupid and pointless, much leg getting a picture of Pen Y fan on my leg would be.

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

People who put those scratch logos on their cars/elsewhere, which advertise Monster(?).

Why would they do that?

same reason as anyone does anything with any logo.

same reason as people tattoo ironman logo on their leg.

I think that’s post race delirium

And I can (just) understand that, even though I don't like tattoos.

But a crap drink? I can't get what is inherently cool, desirable about it, any more than I can envisage putting the Heinz logo everywhere because you really think their tomato ketchup is nice.

How is it understandable at all? Its like me getting a picture of Pen Y Fan on my leg after doing the Fan Dance. Its not understandable at all - its bloody stupid and pointless, much leg getting a picture of Pen Y fan on my leg would be.

You have a picture of Pen Y Fan on your leg, don’t you.

orraloon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

How is it understandable at all? Its like me getting a picture of Pen Y Fan on my leg after doing the Fan Dance. Its not understandable at all - its bloody stupid and pointless, much leg getting a picture of Pen Y fan on my leg would be.

You have a picture of Pen Y Fan on your leg, don’t you.

Penny Fanny more like.

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

People who put those scratch logos on their cars/elsewhere, which advertise Monster(?).

Why would they do that?

same reason as anyone does anything with any logo.

same reason as people tattoo ironman logo on their leg.

I think that’s post race delirium

And I can (just) understand that, even though I don't like tattoos.

But a crap drink? I can't get what is inherently cool, desirable about it, any more than I can envisage putting the Heinz logo everywhere because you really think their tomato ketchup is nice.

How is it understandable at all? Its like me getting a picture of Pen Y Fan on my leg after doing the Fan Dance. Its not understandable at all - its bloody stupid and pointless, much leg getting a picture of Pen Y fan on my leg would be.

You have a picture of Pen Y Fan on your leg, don’t you.

copy of the o/s map on my back. 1:50,000.

Matthewfalle

orraloon wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

How is it understandable at all? Its like me getting a picture of Pen Y Fan on my leg after doing the Fan Dance. Its not understandable at all - its bloody stupid and pointless, much leg getting a picture of Pen Y fan on my leg would be.

You have a picture of Pen Y Fan on your leg, don’t you.

Penny's Fanny more like.

ftfy