Say what you like about Gavin Williamson, he never thumped anyone at the annual "Fireplace Salesman of the Year" awards.
He wasn’t put between a rock and fireplace
The Rock - further evidence that baldies can make it to the top.....
A mistake I have only just learned I have been making all these years: Chris Rock <> Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. The latter is bald, the former was slapped by Will Smith.
It’s always an interesting wake up call on pb realising how disconnected a lot of people are from modern culture. Comments like not being able to recognise Will Smith in the street. Really?
Even The Rock’s gross box office is over $5bn, the 20th highest grossing actor of all time. And that’s his second successful career (as per Will Smith).
A hilariously self-torpedoing post, because The Rock is Dwayne Johnson, while Chris Rock is Chris Rock.
Laughing at people for medical conditions is supposed to be well beyond the pale nowadays so I wonder if this incident will mean that now everybody hates Chris?
So we're pro cancel culture now?
I thought it was a reference to the TV show of the same name.
No I know, I just wondered if PB had an opinion as we seem to be anti cancel culture sometimes but at other times not
It depends who is being cancelled. The same people appalled at someone they agree with Is cancelled is happy when someone they don’t agree with is cancelled. Hypocrites.
So what are we learning on here today? Violence against a man who gave some verbal is okay; if you don't do violence, you're a 'door mat'.
But all trans people have to be despised and hated because *a few* do bad things?
If we really wanted to stop violence of all sorts - and yes, against women - we would talk much more about the former, and not excuse it because you're an alpha-male wannabe idiot.
Nah mate, you're the guy who launches an inquiry after a school kid commits suicide after being bullied and says "lessons must be learned" then repeats the exercise as needed, learning precisely zero lessons in the process.
No, I really am not. In fact, I have mentioned the horrible levels of violence in this country on several occasions. If you know more than a few dozen people, you will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse in the last year, Often suffering in silence; invisibly.
Your comment demeans you.
But suffering in silence is what your proposed solution always seems to be, just take it on the chin and hope for a better world. Bullies need to be confronted, whether that's at school or someone using a privileged position to insult others, the confrontation is necessary, and yes, that may mean violence. I was bullied at school for being a "paki" and while you might have simply suffered in silence, I beat the shit out of one of them who did it and guess what? The bullying stopped, I got a week's worth of detention (including two Saturdays) but it was worth it. I don't think my dad has ever been more proud than he was when I he had to come and pick me up early because I'd been in a fight with the racist bully.
IME the person resorting to violence is more often the bully.
I'm sorry to hear about your experience, but perhaps, just perhaps, you tackled it the wrong way.
In what way did I handle it incorrectly? The bullying stopped almost immediately and that racist kid actually stopped being a racist to the other Asian kids as well. All it took was his head getting kicked in a couple of times.
As I said, you're the guy who won't ever learn any lessons from those kids committing suicide after being relentlessly bullied. A lot of the time the bullies do need a beat down, whether that's from the person being being bullied or someone else. I guarantee you that Chris Rock won't be making any jokes about bald women again.
Where do you draw the line though Max?
Because your attitude is what Johnson says about the journalist he had beaten up
I don't think they went through with it btw.
As for the line, I'm honestly not sure. Shit talking another man's wife? Probably worth a slap or two. Racism or sexism? Probably a head kicking, at least.
The only thing that saved me from being suspended from school was when other Asian kids came forwards and spoke out about the constant racist bullying and then it was used as a mitigating factor in the decision to only give me detention rather than a suspension or exclusion. The school literally had no idea what was going on, the teachers were blissfully unaware that there was a group of racists calling Asians "pakis" and generally making our lives miserable, or if they knew they did nothing about it (which I think is worse).
The only way to beat a bully is to confront them, suffering in silence as JJ seems to want everyone to do will do nothing to solve the problem and probably make things worse. Appealing to authority is completely fucking pointless too, how many women (and men) who are being relentlessly abused by their spouses actually get believed by the police? How many cases get taken forwards and how many convictions are there? It's a joke and we're in a situation where people (and kids) have to defend themselves from the abusers because the authorities either don't care or don't want to know. I honestly couldn't blame anyone for standing up to a bully even if, like me, they resorted to violence.
So what are we learning on here today? Violence against a man who gave some verbal is okay; if you don't do violence, you're a 'door mat'.
But all trans people have to be despised and hated because *a few* do bad things?
If we really wanted to stop violence of all sorts - and yes, against women - we would talk much more about the former, and not excuse it because you're an alpha-male wannabe idiot.
Nah mate, you're the guy who launches an inquiry after a school kid commits suicide after being bullied and says "lessons must be learned" then repeats the exercise as needed, learning precisely zero lessons in the process.
No, I really am not. In fact, I have mentioned the horrible levels of violence in this country on several occasions. If you know more than a few dozen people, you will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse in the last year, Often suffering in silence; invisibly.
Your comment demeans you.
But suffering in silence is what your proposed solution always seems to be, just take it on the chin and hope for a better world. Bullies need to be confronted, whether that's at school or someone using a privileged position to insult others, the confrontation is necessary, and yes, that may mean violence. I was bullied at school for being a "paki" and while you might have simply suffered in silence, I beat the shit out of one of them who did it and guess what? The bullying stopped, I got a week's worth of detention (including two Saturdays) but it was worth it. I don't think my dad has ever been more proud than he was when I he had to come and pick me up early because I'd been in a fight with the racist bully.
With all due respect, your sad but brave experience is many many light years away from an international multi-millionaire megastar getting up on stage, in front of 30 million TV viewers, and whacking someone for making a poor taste joke about his wife. It was clearly assault. Smith should have been arrested. Anyone else - literally anyone - would have been at least questioned by police, straight away
These are meant to be role models, two famous black actors. What does last night say to young black men watching this? - in a country where black on black violence is at horrific, murderous levels?
Desperate stuff
It was a well deserved slap. You cannot humiliate a man's wife in front of millions and not expect him to not come at you swinging. Nowt to do with colour more honour
Are you serious?!
It was an ugly, stupid joke, but no one got physically hurt. The answer is to make a clever, insulting joke back, not storm up on stage and hit the guy in front of the world. Will Smith doesn't lack for exposure, he could have humiliated Chris Rock at a time of his choosing - ie when he got the Best Actor award an hour later
Also, if a hard slap is OK on live TV, what's next? A punch in the nuts? A crack on the skull with a baseball bat? A knife?
At what point do the PB Exponents of Manly Honour say OK, enough's enough, shooting someone in the knees in return for an offensive limerick is a tad too much for live television
If they did what you suggested in the 3rd paragraph I suggest Oscar ratings would go through the roof! Would be the modern day Colosseum.
Say what you like about Gavin Williamson, he never thumped anyone at the annual "Fireplace Salesman of the Year" awards.
He wasn’t put between a rock and fireplace
The Rock - further evidence that baldies can make it to the top.....
A mistake I have only just learned I have been making all these years: Chris Rock <> Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. The latter is bald, the former was slapped by Will Smith.
It’s always an interesting wake up call on pb realising how disconnected a lot of people are from modern culture. Comments like not being able to recognise Will Smith in the street. Really?
Even The Rock’s gross box office is over $5bn, the 20th highest grossing actor of all time. And that’s his second successful career (as per Will Smith).
Yep I refrained from commenting in response this morning but the disconnect between pb and the public was really shown up by that remark earlier.
Most everyone under 40 knows Will Smith by name, sight, probably voice.
I would extend that to "under 50" - FPoBE started in 1990, and his movie career kicked off in 1997 (mid 20s being prime moviegoer demographic). You would have to have been living as a Hermit on Iona not to recognize him from that.
Half the people I know my age could probably recite the Fresh Prince lyrics off the top of their head, even now thirty years later.
I find the idea anyone doesn't know who he is pretty incomprehensible.
There was a Fresh Prince reboot being advertised a month or so ago in Manhattan.
One of the parents (50s) at the school drop-off said to me (40s), “Oh what’s the concept of this Fresh Prince show, I didn’t see the original”.
I said, “I believe it’s explained in the theme tune,”
I'm extremely happy to say that I'll be in the BBC politics chair on Sunday mornings from September - it's a genuine honour and real thrill to be working with an amazing team on the show, can't wait to get started! https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1508421097695367172
I'm shocked that some on Twitter have not taken that news well.
They talk abut the abuse and bullying MPs get online, it pales in comparison to the stuff LauraK get on social media. I can only imagine what terrible stuff she gets in his DM / inbox.
p.s. and it's pretty obvious by now that J.K.Rowling has a lot of hurt and anger from her past as well as a distinctly unprogressive attitude on many things. Witness just how incredibly all-white and undiverse the heroes in the Potter franchise are. Just about the only ethnically diverse person turns out to betray the nice white kids ...
Undiverse? It's full of fucking WIZARDS!
Don't know about your troll farm, but there aren't many wizards down my street....
Plus, Harry Potter has been very kind to a group in society most egregiously treated - the gingers.
"Undiverse" would be a great name for a lingerie store.
One of the things that is often said about t'internet is "you wouldn't say that to someone in person." Presumably that's because, if you did, they might react violently.
Last Secretary of State for Defence to progress to a GooS/PM?
Philip Hammond was Secretary of State for Defence (2011-14) and later became Foreign Secretary (2014-16) and Chancellor of the Exchequer (2016-19), before becoming a non-person following the Johnson revolution.
IDS was Shadow Defence Secretary then Tory Leader.
Now it looks likely that the next Tory Leader will be Leader of the Opposition, the polls are close enough now for Boris to stay PM and lead the Tories into the next general election (although he could be re elected still of course even if Labour narrowly lead polls now)
What's a GooS, apart from the obvious pillow-fodder?
So what are we learning on here today? Violence against a man who gave some verbal is okay; if you don't do violence, you're a 'door mat'.
But all trans people have to be despised and hated because *a few* do bad things?
If we really wanted to stop violence of all sorts - and yes, against women - we would talk much more about the former, and not excuse it because you're an alpha-male wannabe idiot.
Nah mate, you're the guy who launches an inquiry after a school kid commits suicide after being bullied and says "lessons must be learned" then repeats the exercise as needed, learning precisely zero lessons in the process.
No, I really am not. In fact, I have mentioned the horrible levels of violence in this country on several occasions. If you know more than a few dozen people, you will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse in the last year, Often suffering in silence; invisibly.
Your comment demeans you.
But suffering in silence is what your proposed solution always seems to be, just take it on the chin and hope for a better world. Bullies need to be confronted, whether that's at school or someone using a privileged position to insult others, the confrontation is necessary, and yes, that may mean violence. I was bullied at school for being a "paki" and while you might have simply suffered in silence, I beat the shit out of one of them who did it and guess what? The bullying stopped, I got a week's worth of detention (including two Saturdays) but it was worth it. I don't think my dad has ever been more proud than he was when I he had to come and pick me up early because I'd been in a fight with the racist bully.
IME the person resorting to violence is more often the bully.
I'm sorry to hear about your experience, but perhaps, just perhaps, you tackled it the wrong way.
In what way did I handle it incorrectly? The bullying stopped almost immediately and that racist kid actually stopped being a racist to the other Asian kids as well. All it took was his head getting kicked in a couple of times.
As I said, you're the guy who won't ever learn any lessons from those kids committing suicide after being relentlessly bullied. A lot of the time the bullies do need a beat down, whether that's from the person being being bullied or someone else. I guarantee you that Chris Rock won't be making any jokes about bald women again.
No, I am really not like that. And if you knew anything about my history, or any grace, you'd retract that.
But I don't expect you will.
So what should kids being bullied at school do? Please, I'd like to know your thoughts on it (really, I'm not being a dick, I do want to know).
Interesting that you consider young people who struggle to buy homes at an 8x house price to earnings ratio to be merely "dickheads".
The only dickheads are those who have invested in a portfolio of properties expecting young people to keep paying them rent, and view that investment as their "pension". If they lose out, then sucks to be them, investments can go down as well as up.
The problem is the bimodality. There are dickheads at one end and poorly advised+overstretched at the other. A solution needs to deal with both.
Absolutely.
But its like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - a property providing a roof over the head of someone, and that someone being able to afford their own property is almost infinitely more important a priority than someone who is investing in homes they don't live in, in order to extract a rent from that person.
Especially given our f***ed up planning system that doesn't allow new housing to be built to replace any homes that people who don't live in it own. If the planning system was reformed so that anyone who wanted a home of their own could just build one anywhere they wanted, instead of having to rent it off someone who is closing the market off to purchasers, then it wouldn't be an issue.
You can build new homes, just it should ideally be in brownfield not greenbelt land and be in keeping with the street scene and if on large scale come with appropriate infrastructure.
Renting not ownership is still mainly a London problem and to a lesser extent a Home Counties problem. In the North and Midlands and Wales and Scotland and NI while people may rent when young they can still afford to buy a property in their 30s relatively easily as prices are far cheaper
Wow that's spectacularly out of touch on almost every level.
I wonder if it's like the early days of Covid, where one of the hidden issues is that most people don't really get exponential growth.
A doubling of house prices from £90k to £180k is a very nice windfall for homeowners who paid £90k, and means that new starters have to start somewhere a bit less nice. £18k is a lot to save for a 10% deposit, but it's imaginable.
The next doubling- from £180k to £360k is a big windfall, and it's getting hard to see how many people can get a deposit together from their own resources.
The next doubling after that... oh momma... (It's more complicated than that in many ways, but not enough to change the conclusion, I reckon.)
House prices in and near London, a great global city, will still see big growth.
House prices near Newcastle and Sunderland and Middlesbrough, not so much
I'm extremely happy to say that I'll be in the BBC politics chair on Sunday mornings from September - it's a genuine honour and real thrill to be working with an amazing team on the show, can't wait to get started! https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1508421097695367172
I'm shocked that some on Twitter have not taken that news well.
Was Weekend World as cosy and unchallenging as Sunday Politics, and my youthful memory is just cheating me?
So what are we learning on here today? Violence against a man who gave some verbal is okay; if you don't do violence, you're a 'door mat'.
But all trans people have to be despised and hated because *a few* do bad things?
If we really wanted to stop violence of all sorts - and yes, against women - we would talk much more about the former, and not excuse it because you're an alpha-male wannabe idiot.
Nah mate, you're the guy who launches an inquiry after a school kid commits suicide after being bullied and says "lessons must be learned" then repeats the exercise as needed, learning precisely zero lessons in the process.
No, I really am not. In fact, I have mentioned the horrible levels of violence in this country on several occasions. If you know more than a few dozen people, you will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse in the last year, Often suffering in silence; invisibly.
Your comment demeans you.
But suffering in silence is what your proposed solution always seems to be, just take it on the chin and hope for a better world. Bullies need to be confronted, whether that's at school or someone using a privileged position to insult others, the confrontation is necessary, and yes, that may mean violence. I was bullied at school for being a "paki" and while you might have simply suffered in silence, I beat the shit out of one of them who did it and guess what? The bullying stopped, I got a week's worth of detention (including two Saturdays) but it was worth it. I don't think my dad has ever been more proud than he was when I he had to come and pick me up early because I'd been in a fight with the racist bully.
With all due respect, your sad but brave experience is many many light years away from an international multi-millionaire megastar getting up on stage, in front of 30 million TV viewers, and whacking someone for making a poor taste joke about his wife. It was clearly assault. Smith should have been arrested. Anyone else - literally anyone - would have been at least questioned by police, straight away
These are meant to be role models, two famous black actors. What does last night say to young black men watching this? - in a country where black on black violence is at horrific, murderous levels?
Desperate stuff
It was a well deserved slap. You cannot humiliate a man's wife in front of millions and not expect him to not come at you swinging. Nowt to do with colour more honour
Are you serious?!
It was an ugly, stupid joke, but no one got physically hurt. The answer is to make a clever, insulting joke back, not storm up on stage and hit the guy in front of the world. Will Smith doesn't lack for exposure, he could have humiliated Chris Rock at a time of his choosing - ie when he got the Best Actor award an hour later
Also, if a hard slap is OK on live TV, what's next? A punch in the nuts? A crack on the skull with a baseball bat? A knife?
At what point do the PB Exponents of Manly Honour say OK, enough's enough, shooting someone in the knees in return for an offensive limerick is a tad too much for live television
If they did what you suggested in the 3rd paragraph I suggest Oscar ratings would go through the roof! Would be the modern day Colosseum.
Might not be so great for the actors though
Kudos to those who took the risk and turned up for their award....
Say what you like about Gavin Williamson, he never thumped anyone at the annual "Fireplace Salesman of the Year" awards.
He wasn’t put between a rock and fireplace
The Rock - further evidence that baldies can make it to the top.....
A mistake I have only just learned I have been making all these years: Chris Rock <> Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. The latter is bald, the former was slapped by Will Smith.
It’s always an interesting wake up call on pb realising how disconnected a lot of people are from modern culture. Comments like not being able to recognise Will Smith in the street. Really?
Even The Rock’s gross box office is over $5bn, the 20th highest grossing actor of all time. And that’s his second successful career (as per Will Smith).
A hilariously self-torpedoing post, because The Rock is Dwayne Johnson, while Chris Rock is Chris Rock.
Laughing at people for medical conditions is supposed to be well beyond the pale nowadays so I wonder if this incident will mean that now everybody hates Chris?
So we're pro cancel culture now?
Nah, no need to cancel either of them, just funny watching Chris Rock take a beat down after shit chatting another dude's wife that he's got a personal beef with. I mean what did he expect to happen.
Violence is never the response.
It is sometimes.
A slap was well called for here. Right to apologise afterwards, but it was well-deserved.
On live TV? In front of millions of impressionable people, presumably including kids? One of the most beloved actors in Hollywood thinks it's OK to hit someone, hard, then say "get my wife's name out of your fucking mouth"?
It's really not OK. Even tho the joke was crude and insulting.
If Smith wasn't a famous actor about to win (!!) an Oscar he would have been arrested then and there. For clear assault
AND he didn't apologise to Chris Rock! It is calamitous for Smith and the Oscars
Interesting take from person last seen fantasizing about shooting people in the leg.
Is it a new gentle pacifist emerging?
Tiny bit of a difference between invading Russian soldiers in a war zone and badly scripted Hollywood comedians at the Oscars but otherwise: good reach
You just hate the oscars and hollywood because of 'woke'. Thus your ungenuine and bizarre (for you) pacifist take in this case. It's a 'scandal'. It's 'terrible'. Bla bla. You're an open book.
p.s. and it's pretty obvious by now that J.K.Rowling has a lot of hurt and anger from her past as well as a distinctly unprogressive attitude on many things. Witness just how incredibly all-white and undiverse the heroes in the Potter franchise are. Just about the only ethnically diverse person turns out to betray the nice white kids ...
Undiverse? It's full of fucking WIZARDS!
Don't know about your troll farm, but there aren't many wizards down my street....
Plus, Harry Potter has been very kind to a group in society most egregiously treated - the gingers.
"Undiverse" would be a great name for a lingerie store.
I read initially as Underwear? It's full of fucking WIZARDS!
Interesting comment from his biographer on WATO - the friendly affable Will Smith actor the public sees is a performance. Will Smith the man is an angry individual who still blames himself as a child for being unable to protect his mother from abuse. Most of the time he manages to control it. Most of the time.
Counsel for the Home Office says in Court: My instructions are that the SSHD has received no paperwork in this case since October 2021. I know that this is incorrect because I have evidence from after that date [provided by the SSHD] but those are my instructions.
(paraphrasing because I didn't note it word for word). This is remarkable - Counsel (being admirably honest and abiding by the duty not to mislead) confirms that they've been told to say something to the Court that they know to be untrue (as must those telling them to say it).
I think we are all like the little old ladies who think the wrestling on the telly is for real and ring up the police to report the fouls
That was my initial reaction. Are we sure this wasn't just staged to give the Oscars publicity?
Mine too, but Will Smith is so protective of his reputation that he won't ever play villains - his agent ordered the end of I Am Legend to be rewritten if he was going to be in it, and similar demands were part of why Suicide Squad didn't work - the script ended up with him playing a misunderstood victim, rather than the antihero that was required.
There is simply no way he would have agreed to this sort of stunt, especially not on a night he was winning an Oscar.
The main lesson of the Oscars is the awards validated Sunday's PB consensus that the dog film was rubbish.
Well, apart from giving Jane Campion best director.
No. Leon added she would obviously win it for services to woke.
The cinematography in Dune wasn’t better than dog film was it? Time to completely ignore Oscars now if they can’t get a single award right. Licorice Pizza far better screenplay than Belfast too. Did anyone else enjoy licorice pizza too, it’s affecting realism an opposite of the contrived whimsy of Belfast. In such abysmal decisions the Oscar academy patently told the world they haven’t a clue about decent film making.
Last Secretary of State for Defence to progress to a GooS/PM?
Philip Hammond was Secretary of State for Defence (2011-14) and later became Foreign Secretary (2014-16) and Chancellor of the Exchequer (2016-19), before becoming a non-person following the Johnson revolution.
That's completely unfair. He was always a non-person, as exciting as blancmonge, it just became a bit too obvious when he was Chancellor.
There's a running joke on Callan's Kicks - a satirical impression show on RTÉ radio - of Simon Coveney being so bland that people don't notice when he's in the room.
It does fit for Hammond too. Future history books will note a curious interregnum when Britain was left without a Chancellor, and the name Philip Hammond was used as a placeholder.
A certain type of person appears to get extremely wound up by Coveney, though they're usually not Irish, nor have a vote in Ireland. A couple of them even hijacked a van and drove it with a suspected explosive device to an event at which he was speaking.
Will Smith fucked up by punching him. I doubt it will affect his career especially but he’s definitely tarnished his brand. Middle America will mark him down as an “angry black man”.
The main insight from this morning's LBC interview with Starmer is that Labour is going to get hit with a whole bunch of culture war wedge issues in the run-up to the next election. Those issues say a lot more about the distorted concerns of Westminster/media than the country.
I'm not sure "women's rights & safety" are a "distorted concern"....
There are a lot of 'yebbuts' in those sorts of issues. For example, the man in the pub is initially against whatever it is, but then says 'yebbut' and turns out that on reflection he thinks it's quite a good idea. Like gay marriage. Your average 'straight' isn't bothered, finds it mildly amusing, but if it's not hurting anyone, and it protects the survivors rights on death, why not?
I've some sympathy with Cyclefree's view as I have two friends who feel equally strongly. But it is nonetheless not something that comes up much on the doorstep even if one feels it should, and taking sides in culture wars is as fundamental a mistake as a councillor taking sides in a neighbour dispute - everybody involved (including whoever you back) feels you're not sufficiently on their side, need to say more, etc., and you just get sucked in. Meanwhile, everyone else thinks you're obsessed with something they don't care about because they've never met a trans person.
It's a big deal in the Green Party, where quite a few activists are very deeply entrenched on both sides - I know some senior party people who said they'd quit if the leadership candidate with the "wrong" view got elected.
In general people who feel strongly about an issue are often incapable of accepting that others may not feel strongly (let's not even consider them accepting the validity of opposing views). There also appears to be a significant lump of folk who are desperate for it to be a wedge issue.
BBC Scotland recently did a survey on public attitudes to trans issues and GRA reform in Scotland; the general consensus seemed to be that folk weren't that bothered and in general had a mild preference that life should be made a bit easier for trans people. You could almost see the cloud of thwarted disappointment above Pacific Quay.
Quite.
And whatever Tyndall thinks, as I said most trans people are invariably non-violent.
Of course a few slip through or, worse, use this as a cover but there's violence everywhere and they are in the extreme. I've seen very violent cis women in ladies loos after a few drinks.
Ah not just a scumbag but an ignorant scumbag.
Invariably definition - "in every case or on every occasion; always."
So if a 'few slip through' then they cannot be 'invariably' non-violent.
Richard, Richard, Richard.
I know you sometimes have a problem and form with this but it is entirely possible to have an exchange on PB without immediately insulting your interlocutor. The last thing we want is for you to get yourself into so much of a tizzy that you ban yourself again.
Not when that interlocutor is an apologist for rape. Politics between you and me is one thing. Defending the rights of people to commit sexual assault on the grounds of their sexual orientation is something completely different.
And I don't see insulting people to be a problem at all. Practically everything about you is insulting to humanity but I wouldn't want to ban you.
The main lesson of the Oscars is the awards validated Sunday's PB consensus that the dog film was rubbish.
Well, apart from giving Jane Campion best director.
No. Leon added she would obviously win it for services to woke.
The cinematography in Dune wasn’t better than dog film was it? Time to completely ignore Oscars now if they can’t get a single award right. Licorice Pizza far better screenplay than Belfast too. Did anyone else enjoy licorice pizza too, it’s affecting realism an opposite of the contrived whimsy of Belfast. In such abysmal decisions the Oscar academy patently told the world they haven’t a clue about decent film making.
Don't know about the dog film, but I thought the Dune effects were pretty good.
Say what you like about Gavin Williamson, he never thumped anyone at the annual "Fireplace Salesman of the Year" awards.
He wasn’t put between a rock and fireplace
The Rock - further evidence that baldies can make it to the top.....
A mistake I have only just learned I have been making all these years: Chris Rock <> Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. The latter is bald, the former was slapped by Will Smith.
It’s always an interesting wake up call on pb realising how disconnected a lot of people are from modern culture. Comments like not being able to recognise Will Smith in the street. Really?
Even The Rock’s gross box office is over $5bn, the 20th highest grossing actor of all time. And that’s his second successful career (as per Will Smith).
A hilariously self-torpedoing post, because The Rock is Dwayne Johnson, while Chris Rock is Chris Rock.
Laughing at people for medical conditions is supposed to be well beyond the pale nowadays so I wonder if this incident will mean that now everybody hates Chris?
So we're pro cancel culture now?
Nah, no need to cancel either of them, just funny watching Chris Rock take a beat down after shit chatting another dude's wife that he's got a personal beef with. I mean what did he expect to happen.
Violence is never the response.
It is sometimes.
A slap was well called for here. Right to apologise afterwards, but it was well-deserved.
On live TV? In front of millions of impressionable people, presumably including kids? One of the most beloved actors in Hollywood thinks it's OK to hit someone, hard, then say "get my wife's name out of your fucking mouth"?
It's really not OK. Even tho the joke was crude and insulting.
If Smith wasn't a famous actor about to win (!!) an Oscar he would have been arrested then and there. For clear assault
AND he didn't apologise to Chris Rock! It is calamitous for Smith and the Oscars
Interesting take from person last seen fantasizing about shooting people in the leg.
Is it a new gentle pacifist emerging?
Tiny bit of a difference between invading Russian soldiers in a war zone and badly scripted Hollywood comedians at the Oscars but otherwise: good reach
You just hate the oscars and hollywood because of 'woke'. Thus your ungenuine and bizarre (for you) pacifist take in this case. It's a 'scandal'. It's 'terrible'. Bla bla. You're an open book.
Oh God I despise the modern-day Oscars for their Wokeness. Of course I do
Yet I also deplore wanton violence. Like this. It is ugly, idiotic and bad. The poor-taste joke does not exonerate Will Smith's stupid outburst - nor his live-TV tirade of "fucking this and that" afterwards. It coarsens the world, at a time when we really don't need it
As ever, your weirdly narrow brain is unable to compute the possibility of nuance and plurality
The main lesson of the Oscars is the awards validated Sunday's PB consensus that the dog film was rubbish.
Well, apart from giving Jane Campion best director.
No. Leon added she would obviously win it for services to woke.
The cinematography in Dune wasn’t better than dog film was it? Time to completely ignore Oscars now if they can’t get a single award right. Licorice Pizza far better screenplay than Belfast too. Did anyone else enjoy licorice pizza too, it’s affecting realism an opposite of the contrived whimsy of Belfast. In such abysmal decisions the Oscar academy patently told the world they haven’t a clue about decent film making.
The Oscars have ALWAYS made shit decisions. It’s well known that the awards are a kind of output of fierce politicking and extreme senility among the selectorate.
It’s all about the Golden Globes. Pretty much always has been.
PB vigilantes: bloody left full of snowflakes demanding comedians are cancelled because they make "offensive" jokes.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
Not the same thing though, are they. Chris Rock getting what was due after insulting another man's wife isn't the same as wanting him to be cancelled. I've got no issue with him doing tours or hosting next year's event if they ask him.
The main insight from this morning's LBC interview with Starmer is that Labour is going to get hit with a whole bunch of culture war wedge issues in the run-up to the next election. Those issues say a lot more about the distorted concerns of Westminster/media than the country.
I'm not sure "women's rights & safety" are a "distorted concern"....
There are a lot of 'yebbuts' in those sorts of issues. For example, the man in the pub is initially against whatever it is, but then says 'yebbut' and turns out that on reflection he thinks it's quite a good idea. Like gay marriage. Your average 'straight' isn't bothered, finds it mildly amusing, but if it's not hurting anyone, and it protects the survivors rights on death, why not?
I've some sympathy with Cyclefree's view as I have two friends who feel equally strongly. But it is nonetheless not something that comes up much on the doorstep even if one feels it should, and taking sides in culture wars is as fundamental a mistake as a councillor taking sides in a neighbour dispute - everybody involved (including whoever you back) feels you're not sufficiently on their side, need to say more, etc., and you just get sucked in. Meanwhile, everyone else thinks you're obsessed with something they don't care about because they've never met a trans person.
It's a big deal in the Green Party, where quite a few activists are very deeply entrenched on both sides - I know some senior party people who said they'd quit if the leadership candidate with the "wrong" view got elected.
In general people who feel strongly about an issue are often incapable of accepting that others may not feel strongly (let's not even consider them accepting the validity of opposing views). There also appears to be a significant lump of folk who are desperate for it to be a wedge issue.
BBC Scotland recently did a survey on public attitudes to trans issues and GRA reform in Scotland; the general consensus seemed to be that folk weren't that bothered and in general had a mild preference that life should be made a bit easier for trans people. You could almost see the cloud of thwarted disappointment above Pacific Quay.
Quite.
And whatever Tyndall thinks, as I said most trans people are invariably non-violent.
Of course a few slip through or, worse, use this as a cover but there's violence everywhere and they are in the extreme. I've seen very violent cis women in ladies loos after a few drinks.
Ah not just a scumbag but an ignorant scumbag.
Invariably definition - "in every case or on every occasion; always."
So if a 'few slip through' then they cannot be 'invariably' non-violent.
Richard, Richard, Richard.
I know you sometimes have a problem and form with this but it is entirely possible to have an exchange on PB without immediately insulting your interlocutor. The last thing we want is for you to get yourself into so much of a tizzy that you ban yourself again.
Not when that interlocutor is an apologist for rape. Politics between you and me is one thing. Defending the rights of people to commit sexual assault on the grounds of their sexual orientation is something completely different.
And I don't see insulting people to be a problem at all. Practically everything about you is insulting to humanity but I wouldn't want to ban you.
Much better with some humour.
As to the issue before because the red mist had descended you didn't read what @Heathener wrote. She (I'm assuming) didn't at all excuse rape. She said that the occasions of transgender women raping other women represented a tiny proportion of crimes and that the vast majority of trans people are non-violent.
You, meanwhile, seem to be saying that because someone commits murder with a candlestick we should ban all candlesticks.
I think we are all like the little old ladies who think the wrestling on the telly is for real and ring up the police to report the fouls
That was my initial reaction. Are we sure this wasn't just staged to give the Oscars publicity?
Mine too, but Will Smith is so protective of his reputation that he won't ever play villains - his agent ordered the end of I Am Legend to be rewritten if he was going to be in it, and similar demands were part of why Suicide Squad didn't work - the script ended up with him playing a misunderstood victim, rather than the antihero that was required.
There is simply no way he would have agreed to this sort of stunt, especially not on a night he was winning an Oscar.
I can just about image that he might agree to do a staged slap - it seems extremely unlikely (ie less than 1%), but, hey, maybe they had a mad brainstorm about how to save the Oscars from terminal ratings decline and Smith nobly volunteered to do something crazy to help the industry
But no way would he have agreed to do the "take my wife's name out of your fucking mouth" rant afterwards. That showed real anger and laid bare real violent intent. For a few minutes he was unhinged. Unideal
So what are we learning on here today? Violence against a man who gave some verbal is okay; if you don't do violence, you're a 'door mat'.
But all trans people have to be despised and hated because *a few* do bad things?
If we really wanted to stop violence of all sorts - and yes, against women - we would talk much more about the former, and not excuse it because you're an alpha-male wannabe idiot.
No what you're learning today is that violence in self-defence of those you love is sometimes appropriate.
Yes that includes tackling bullies sometimes.
Chris Rock deserved the smack. Smith was right to apologise to others but he notably and appropriately didn't apologise to Chris Rock, and nor should he.
He acted in self-defence of his wife. Nothing wrong with that.
I mentioned last week that some friends of mine, who, for complicated reasons, have a large house sat doing nothing, have offered it to Ukrainian refugees. With a few friends, I spent Saturday round there doing some bits and bobs getting it ready for them (primarily reassembling disassembled self-assembly furniture which had been donated by various people).
They seemed to be able to identify a family who wanted the house without too much difficulty. They are a family of seven – parents, four children and grandmother – who are currently in an Airbnb in Poland which they have until Sunday. Both parents speak English and work in IT, and are, apparently, pretty uncomfortable with being offered help: they expect themselves to be the sorts of people who help others, not who seek help (maybe that is true of everybody, until they do need help) – but the fact is that their homeland is under attack and Poland is full. They need somewhere – and, as they speak English, the UK seems as good as anywhere. They don’t yet have visas – fingers are being crossed that this is all in place by the time they arrive at Calais and that it is an administrative detail rather than anything more serious.
There were discussions on Saturday morning about how the father of the family had been allowed to leave. My friend’s girlfriend was unaware that adult men were generally not allowed to leave, and rather sniffily declared it a bit sexist and not very 2022, which I thought was probably not particularly high up on Ukraine’s list of problems right now, but still. Anyway, he may be exempt through medical grounds or through having such a large family to look after – this was all a bit speculative.
Apparently, the Council had visited the house to check its suitability. One jobsworth, who threatened to scupper the arrangement with complaints about the water-tightness of the windows (which are ancient leaded lights); one pragmatist who pointed out that in comparison to being in a war zone, a little light water ingress is probably bearable. But that aside, it’s a wonderful house; needs a bit of updating, but clean (after five days of marathon cleaning by my friend’s mother), huge (older hands may remember the Cheadle by-election, and the surprisingly lengthy discussion on here of the size of houses in Woodford – it’s one of those), light and comfortable. I felt quite emotional imagining – hopefully – the feeling of relief the family will feel on arriving somewhere safe next week; not least due to the four year old girl’s room, all furnished and equipped with toys (partly, of course, because it’s not long since my youngest was four).
I mentioned last week that some friends of mine, who, for complicated reasons, have a large house sat doing nothing, have offered it to Ukrainian refugees. With a few friends, I spent Saturday round there doing some bits and bobs getting it ready for them (primarily reassembling disassembled self-assembly furniture which had been donated by various people).
They seemed to be able to identify a family who wanted the house without too much difficulty. They are a family of seven – parents, four children and grandmother – who are currently in an Airbnb in Poland which they have until Sunday. Both parents speak English and work in IT, and are, apparently, pretty uncomfortable with being offered help: they expect themselves to be the sorts of people who help others, not who seek help (maybe that is true of everybody, until they do need help) – but the fact is that their homeland is under attack and Poland is full. They need somewhere – and, as they speak English, the UK seems as good as anywhere. They don’t yet have visas – fingers are being crossed that this is all in place by the time they arrive at Calais and that it is an administrative detail rather than anything more serious.
There were discussions on Saturday morning about how the father of the family had been allowed to leave. My friend’s girlfriend was unaware that adult men were generally not allowed to leave, and rather sniffily declared it a bit sexist and not very 2022, which I thought was probably not particularly high up on Ukraine’s list of problems right now, but still. Anyway, he may be exempt through medical grounds or through having such a large family to look after – this was all a bit speculative.
Apparently, the Council had visited the house to check its suitability. One jobsworth, who threatened to scupper the arrangement with complaints about the water-tightness of the windows (which are ancient leaded lights); one pragmatist who pointed out that in comparison to being in a war zone, a little light water ingress is probably bearable. But that aside, it’s a wonderful house; needs a bit of updating, but clean (after five days of marathon cleaning by my friend’s mother), huge (older hands may remember the Cheadle by-election, and the surprisingly lengthy discussion on here of the size of houses in Woodford – it’s one of those), light and comfortable. I felt quite emotional imagining – hopefully – the feeling of relief the family will feel on arriving somewhere safe next week; not least due to the four year old girl’s room, all furnished and equipped with toys (partly, of course, because it’s not long since my youngest was four).
I take no personal credit, by the way, for any of this – I had a nice afternoon with my friends working on a task with a purpose. Few more pleasant ways to spend time than that. It doesn’t really count as virtuous if you’re enjoying yourself. Though I am pretty awestruck by the generosity of my friends (who have not only provided a house but also had to jump through any amount of tedious administrative and logistical hoops – how much more good would get done if doing good were easier – though of course I concede we do need people to check that homes are suitable, etc).
A further observation; of the wardrobes we put together, the older the wardrobe, the most likely we were to be able to reassemble it. Best were the ancient solid pine wardobes. Next best was the surprisingly-still-in-existence probably-MFI one; worst was the Ikea one which had clearly been assembled and disassembled one time too many and fell to bits on trying to hoist it upright.
PB vigilantes: bloody left full of snowflakes demanding comedians are cancelled because they make "offensive" jokes.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
Not the same thing though, are they. Chris Rock getting what was due after insulting another man's wife isn't the same as wanting him to be cancelled. I've got no issue with him doing tours or hosting next year's event if they ask him.
Mate I applaud you for what you did to the people who were bullying you.
But this is a comedian being a comedian (making a joke about one of the most powerful Hollywood couples) and you think it's great to slap them for it. Can present the show next year but rightly gets a black eye if someone takes offence to what he says. Have a word with yourself.
The main insight from this morning's LBC interview with Starmer is that Labour is going to get hit with a whole bunch of culture war wedge issues in the run-up to the next election. Those issues say a lot more about the distorted concerns of Westminster/media than the country.
I'm not sure "women's rights & safety" are a "distorted concern"....
There are a lot of 'yebbuts' in those sorts of issues. For example, the man in the pub is initially against whatever it is, but then says 'yebbut' and turns out that on reflection he thinks it's quite a good idea. Like gay marriage. Your average 'straight' isn't bothered, finds it mildly amusing, but if it's not hurting anyone, and it protects the survivors rights on death, why not?
I've some sympathy with Cyclefree's view as I have two friends who feel equally strongly. But it is nonetheless not something that comes up much on the doorstep even if one feels it should, and taking sides in culture wars is as fundamental a mistake as a councillor taking sides in a neighbour dispute - everybody involved (including whoever you back) feels you're not sufficiently on their side, need to say more, etc., and you just get sucked in. Meanwhile, everyone else thinks you're obsessed with something they don't care about because they've never met a trans person.
It's a big deal in the Green Party, where quite a few activists are very deeply entrenched on both sides - I know some senior party people who said they'd quit if the leadership candidate with the "wrong" view got elected.
In general people who feel strongly about an issue are often incapable of accepting that others may not feel strongly (let's not even consider them accepting the validity of opposing views). There also appears to be a significant lump of folk who are desperate for it to be a wedge issue.
BBC Scotland recently did a survey on public attitudes to trans issues and GRA reform in Scotland; the general consensus seemed to be that folk weren't that bothered and in general had a mild preference that life should be made a bit easier for trans people. You could almost see the cloud of thwarted disappointment above Pacific Quay.
Quite.
And whatever Tyndall thinks, as I said most trans people are invariably non-violent.
Of course a few slip through or, worse, use this as a cover but there's violence everywhere and they are in the extreme. I've seen very violent cis women in ladies loos after a few drinks.
Ah not just a scumbag but an ignorant scumbag.
Invariably definition - "in every case or on every occasion; always."
So if a 'few slip through' then they cannot be 'invariably' non-violent.
Richard, Richard, Richard.
I know you sometimes have a problem and form with this but it is entirely possible to have an exchange on PB without immediately insulting your interlocutor. The last thing we want is for you to get yourself into so much of a tizzy that you ban yourself again.
Not when that interlocutor is an apologist for rape. Politics between you and me is one thing. Defending the rights of people to commit sexual assault on the grounds of their sexual orientation is something completely different.
And I don't see insulting people to be a problem at all. Practically everything about you is insulting to humanity but I wouldn't want to ban you.
Much better with some humour.
As to the issue before because the red mist had descended you didn't read what @Heathener wrote. She (I'm assuming) didn't at all excuse rape. She said that the occasions of transgender women raping other women represented a tiny proportion of crimes and that the vast majority of trans people are non-violent.
You, meanwhile, seem to be saying that because someone commits murder with a candlestick we should ban all candlesticks.
Not at all. Just, maybe, not legislate to give out free candlesticks to anyone who wants one?
PB vigilantes: bloody left full of snowflakes demanding comedians are cancelled because they make "offensive" jokes.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
Not the same thing though, are they. Chris Rock getting what was due after insulting another man's wife isn't the same as wanting him to be cancelled. I've got no issue with him doing tours or hosting next year's event if they ask him.
Mate I applaud you for what you did to the people who were bullying you.
But this is a comedian being a comedian (making a joke about one of the most powerful Hollywood couples) and you think it's great to slap them for it. Can present the show next year but rightly gets a black eye if someone takes offence to what he says. Have a word with yourself.
Ricky Gervais must be regretting agreeing to host the Golden Globes again next year. Might get stabbed multiple times by Tom Hanks, and maybe kneecapped by the cast of the next Marvel movie
PB vigilantes: bloody left full of snowflakes demanding comedians are cancelled because they make "offensive" jokes.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
Not the same thing though, are they. Chris Rock getting what was due after insulting another man's wife isn't the same as wanting him to be cancelled. I've got no issue with him doing tours or hosting next year's event if they ask him.
Mate I applaud you for what you did to the people who were bullying you.
But this is a comedian being a comedian (making a joke about one of the most powerful Hollywood couples) and you think it's great to slap them for it. Can present the show next year but rightly gets a black eye if someone takes offence to what he says. Have a word with yourself.
Ricky Gervais must be regretting agreeing to host the Golden Globes again next year. Might get stabbed multiple times by Tom Hanks, and maybe kneecapped by the cast of the next Marvel movie
I've seen Ricky Gervais on a heavy bag - surprisingly handy with, so he would have it, no precious Hollywood image to preserve. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he insulted the wife of every single person present.
PB vigilantes: bloody left full of snowflakes demanding comedians are cancelled because they make "offensive" jokes.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
Not the same thing though, are they. Chris Rock getting what was due after insulting another man's wife isn't the same as wanting him to be cancelled. I've got no issue with him doing tours or hosting next year's event if they ask him.
They'll make it PPV if he comes back for a rematch!
Say what you like about Gavin Williamson, he never thumped anyone at the annual "Fireplace Salesman of the Year" awards.
He wasn’t put between a rock and fireplace
The Rock - further evidence that baldies can make it to the top.....
A mistake I have only just learned I have been making all these years: Chris Rock <> Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. The latter is bald, the former was slapped by Will Smith.
It’s always an interesting wake up call on pb realising how disconnected a lot of people are from modern culture. Comments like not being able to recognise Will Smith in the street. Really?
Even The Rock’s gross box office is over $5bn, the 20th highest grossing actor of all time. And that’s his second successful career (as per Will Smith).
A hilariously self-torpedoing post, because The Rock is Dwayne Johnson, while Chris Rock is Chris Rock.
Laughing at people for medical conditions is supposed to be well beyond the pale nowadays so I wonder if this incident will mean that now everybody hates Chris?
No I got the reference, I just wondered if we are or not
If you want a serious answer: No.
I have no desire to see Chris Rock get cancelled, nor do I think its bad that he got what was quite frankly a well-deserved slap. So he might think twice before using someone's wife's medical condition as a punchline again, but he shouldn't be cancelled.
Quite frankly I think Will Smith both slapping Chris Rock, then apologising for doing so, and that being the end of the matter is probably the right sequence of events to have happened.
Him then winning the oscar and doing his speech is imo what pushed this story into ledge territory.
Interestingly no clear right/left, leave/remain, mods/rocker binary split on what the correct take is. People are all over the place.
Probably just a touch of 'Will in the wrong' on the left and 'in the right' on the right.
My centrist dad hot take: wrong, if understandable; ultimately not that big a deal.
So what are we learning on here today? Violence against a man who gave some verbal is okay; if you don't do violence, you're a 'door mat'.
But all trans people have to be despised and hated because *a few* do bad things?
If we really wanted to stop violence of all sorts - and yes, against women - we would talk much more about the former, and not excuse it because you're an alpha-male wannabe idiot.
No what you're learning today is that violence in self-defence of those you love is sometimes appropriate.
Yes that includes tackling bullies sometimes.
Chris Rock deserved the smack. Smith was right to apologise to others but he notably and appropriately didn't apologise to Chris Rock, and nor should he.
He acted in self-defence of his wife. Nothing wrong with that.
Hmm interesting perspective. Let's come back to my thought experiment. You are walking along the road with your wife and Tyson Fury calls her a ****. What's your next move.
The main insight from this morning's LBC interview with Starmer is that Labour is going to get hit with a whole bunch of culture war wedge issues in the run-up to the next election. Those issues say a lot more about the distorted concerns of Westminster/media than the country.
I'm not sure "women's rights & safety" are a "distorted concern"....
There are a lot of 'yebbuts' in those sorts of issues. For example, the man in the pub is initially against whatever it is, but then says 'yebbut' and turns out that on reflection he thinks it's quite a good idea. Like gay marriage. Your average 'straight' isn't bothered, finds it mildly amusing, but if it's not hurting anyone, and it protects the survivors rights on death, why not?
I've some sympathy with Cyclefree's view as I have two friends who feel equally strongly. But it is nonetheless not something that comes up much on the doorstep even if one feels it should, and taking sides in culture wars is as fundamental a mistake as a councillor taking sides in a neighbour dispute - everybody involved (including whoever you back) feels you're not sufficiently on their side, need to say more, etc., and you just get sucked in. Meanwhile, everyone else thinks you're obsessed with something they don't care about because they've never met a trans person.
It's a big deal in the Green Party, where quite a few activists are very deeply entrenched on both sides - I know some senior party people who said they'd quit if the leadership candidate with the "wrong" view got elected.
In general people who feel strongly about an issue are often incapable of accepting that others may not feel strongly (let's not even consider them accepting the validity of opposing views). There also appears to be a significant lump of folk who are desperate for it to be a wedge issue.
BBC Scotland recently did a survey on public attitudes to trans issues and GRA reform in Scotland; the general consensus seemed to be that folk weren't that bothered and in general had a mild preference that life should be made a bit easier for trans people. You could almost see the cloud of thwarted disappointment above Pacific Quay.
Quite.
And whatever Tyndall thinks, as I said most trans people are invariably non-violent.
Of course a few slip through or, worse, use this as a cover but there's violence everywhere and they are in the extreme. I've seen very violent cis women in ladies loos after a few drinks.
Ah not just a scumbag but an ignorant scumbag.
Invariably definition - "in every case or on every occasion; always."
So if a 'few slip through' then they cannot be 'invariably' non-violent.
Richard, Richard, Richard.
I know you sometimes have a problem and form with this but it is entirely possible to have an exchange on PB without immediately insulting your interlocutor. The last thing we want is for you to get yourself into so much of a tizzy that you ban yourself again.
Not when that interlocutor is an apologist for rape. Politics between you and me is one thing. Defending the rights of people to commit sexual assault on the grounds of their sexual orientation is something completely different.
And I don't see insulting people to be a problem at all. Practically everything about you is insulting to humanity but I wouldn't want to ban you.
Much better with some humour.
As to the issue before because the red mist had descended you didn't read what @Heathener wrote. She (I'm assuming) didn't at all excuse rape. She said that the occasions of transgender women raping other women represented a tiny proportion of crimes and that the vast majority of trans people are non-violent.
You, meanwhile, seem to be saying that because someone commits murder with a candlestick we should ban all candlesticks.
Nobody is talking about trans women. The issue is men who are not trans women pretending they are trans women. their victims are a. real women on whom they prey and b. genuine trans women. there is no doubt that these men exist, unless you believe for instance that the number of trans women among the male at birth Scottish prison population is about 10,000 times as high as in the population at large. Create a loophole, expect it to be exploited.
I'm extremely happy to say that I'll be in the BBC politics chair on Sunday mornings from September - it's a genuine honour and real thrill to be working with an amazing team on the show, can't wait to get started! https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1508421097695367172
I'm shocked that some on Twitter have not taken that news well.
I’m guessing it is proof, as if they needed it, that the BBC is a Tory hotbed.
Interesting that you consider young people who struggle to buy homes at an 8x house price to earnings ratio to be merely "dickheads".
The only dickheads are those who have invested in a portfolio of properties expecting young people to keep paying them rent, and view that investment as their "pension". If they lose out, then sucks to be them, investments can go down as well as up.
The problem is the bimodality. There are dickheads at one end and poorly advised+overstretched at the other. A solution needs to deal with both.
Absolutely.
But its like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - a property providing a roof over the head of someone, and that someone being able to afford their own property is almost infinitely more important a priority than someone who is investing in homes they don't live in, in order to extract a rent from that person.
Especially given our f***ed up planning system that doesn't allow new housing to be built to replace any homes that people who don't live in it own. If the planning system was reformed so that anyone who wanted a home of their own could just build one anywhere they wanted, instead of having to rent it off someone who is closing the market off to purchasers, then it wouldn't be an issue.
You can build new homes, just it should ideally be in brownfield not greenbelt land and be in keeping with the street scene and if on large scale come with appropriate infrastructure.
Renting not ownership is still mainly a London problem and to a lesser extent a Home Counties problem. In the North and Midlands and Wales and Scotland and NI while people may rent when young they can still afford to buy a property in their 30s relatively easily as prices are far cheaper
Wow that's spectacularly out of touch on almost every level.
I wonder if it's like the early days of Covid, where one of the hidden issues is that most people don't really get exponential growth.
A doubling of house prices from £90k to £180k is a very nice windfall for homeowners who paid £90k, and means that new starters have to start somewhere a bit less nice. £18k is a lot to save for a 10% deposit, but it's imaginable.
The next doubling- from £180k to £360k is a big windfall, and it's getting hard to see how many people can get a deposit together from their own resources.
The next doubling after that... oh momma... (It's more complicated than that in many ways, but not enough to change the conclusion, I reckon.)
House prices in and near London, a great global city, will still see big growth.
House prices near Newcastle and Sunderland and Middlesbrough, not so much
Much like the last 12 years or so. I expect Newcastle will see decent growth compared to the other two which are lesser cities/towns in the north east.
I also expect any fall in house prices will be more pronounced in these areas than in London and the south east.
Lawrence Fox stirring up INDIFFERENCE. Disinterest is something a judge has. *Cookie continues to fight his rear-guard action to maintain the meaning of words long after the battle has probably been lost*
The main insight from this morning's LBC interview with Starmer is that Labour is going to get hit with a whole bunch of culture war wedge issues in the run-up to the next election. Those issues say a lot more about the distorted concerns of Westminster/media than the country.
I'm not sure "women's rights & safety" are a "distorted concern"....
There are a lot of 'yebbuts' in those sorts of issues. For example, the man in the pub is initially against whatever it is, but then says 'yebbut' and turns out that on reflection he thinks it's quite a good idea. Like gay marriage. Your average 'straight' isn't bothered, finds it mildly amusing, but if it's not hurting anyone, and it protects the survivors rights on death, why not?
I've some sympathy with Cyclefree's view as I have two friends who feel equally strongly. But it is nonetheless not something that comes up much on the doorstep even if one feels it should, and taking sides in culture wars is as fundamental a mistake as a councillor taking sides in a neighbour dispute - everybody involved (including whoever you back) feels you're not sufficiently on their side, need to say more, etc., and you just get sucked in. Meanwhile, everyone else thinks you're obsessed with something they don't care about because they've never met a trans person.
It's a big deal in the Green Party, where quite a few activists are very deeply entrenched on both sides - I know some senior party people who said they'd quit if the leadership candidate with the "wrong" view got elected.
In general people who feel strongly about an issue are often incapable of accepting that others may not feel strongly (let's not even consider them accepting the validity of opposing views). There also appears to be a significant lump of folk who are desperate for it to be a wedge issue.
BBC Scotland recently did a survey on public attitudes to trans issues and GRA reform in Scotland; the general consensus seemed to be that folk weren't that bothered and in general had a mild preference that life should be made a bit easier for trans people. You could almost see the cloud of thwarted disappointment above Pacific Quay.
Quite.
And whatever Tyndall thinks, as I said most trans people are invariably non-violent.
Of course a few slip through or, worse, use this as a cover but there's violence everywhere and they are in the extreme. I've seen very violent cis women in ladies loos after a few drinks.
Ah not just a scumbag but an ignorant scumbag.
Invariably definition - "in every case or on every occasion; always."
So if a 'few slip through' then they cannot be 'invariably' non-violent.
Richard, Richard, Richard.
I know you sometimes have a problem and form with this but it is entirely possible to have an exchange on PB without immediately insulting your interlocutor. The last thing we want is for you to get yourself into so much of a tizzy that you ban yourself again.
Not when that interlocutor is an apologist for rape. Politics between you and me is one thing. Defending the rights of people to commit sexual assault on the grounds of their sexual orientation is something completely different.
And I don't see insulting people to be a problem at all. Practically everything about you is insulting to humanity but I wouldn't want to ban you.
Much better with some humour.
As to the issue before because the red mist had descended you didn't read what @Heathener wrote. She (I'm assuming) didn't at all excuse rape. She said that the occasions of transgender women raping other women represented a tiny proportion of crimes and that the vast majority of trans people are non-violent.
You, meanwhile, seem to be saying that because someone commits murder with a candlestick we should ban all candlesticks.
Not at all. Just, maybe, not legislate to give out free candlesticks to anyone who wants one?
But anyone can buy a candlestick? Or a kitchen knife. Or lead piping. Or rope. (I'm running out of Cluedo knowledge to continue the metaphor. We play the Beano version in our house.)
Lawrence Fox stirring up INDIFFERENCE. Disinterest is something a judge has. *Cookie continues to fight his rear-guard action to maintain the meaning of words long after the battle has probably been lost*
You’re right. I do know better, and withdraw the original comment.
PB vigilantes: bloody left full of snowflakes demanding comedians are cancelled because they make "offensive" jokes.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
Not the same thing though, are they. Chris Rock getting what was due after insulting another man's wife isn't the same as wanting him to be cancelled. I've got no issue with him doing tours or hosting next year's event if they ask him.
Mate I applaud you for what you did to the people who were bullying you.
But this is a comedian being a comedian (making a joke about one of the most powerful Hollywood couples) and you think it's great to slap them for it. Can present the show next year but rightly gets a black eye if someone takes offence to what he says. Have a word with yourself.
Ricky Gervais must be regretting agreeing to host the Golden Globes again next year. Might get stabbed multiple times by Tom Hanks, and maybe kneecapped by the cast of the next Marvel movie
Hanks has got to go pop eventually. Noone can be that nice ad infinitum.
And I see we're back to people on PB advocating violence against a comedian and saying that he deserved it because he looked at someone's missus in the wrong way.
And they are only saying this because in their fantasy, dare I say keyboard world, the person doing the slapping (themselves, in a blaze of glory and to the admiration of their womenfolk) emerge victorious.
But in a real situation when the aggressor might be oh I don't know I used the example of Tyson Fury this morning, they would far from so simply judge that that person needed a slap and that would be that.
It is not the most pressing issue of the day or even year but Will Smith was absolutely wrong to march up on stage and slap a comedian for being a comedian.
Jeez the very same people who applaud it demand the right for people to be offended. But not when it's Will Smith being a bully by slapping someone he outweighs and who he towers over.
I don't know, the internet sometimes. Sheesh.
I wonder if the same people would advocate violence against an MP they disagreed with.
And I see we're back to people on PB advocating violence against a comedian and saying that he deserved it because he looked at someone's missus in the wrong way.
And they are only saying this because in their fantasy, dare I say keyboard world, the person doing the slapping (themselves, in a blaze of glory and to the admiration of their womenfolk) emerge victorious.
But in a real situation when the aggressor might be oh I don't know I used the example of Tyson Fury this morning, they would far from so simply judge that that person needed a slap and that would be that.
It is not the most pressing issue of the day or even year but Will Smith was absolutely wrong to march up on stage and slap a comedian for being a comedian.
Jeez the very same people who applaud it demand the right for people to be offended. But not when it's Will Smith being a bully by slapping someone he outweighs and who he towers over.
I don't know, the internet sometimes. Sheesh.
Putin will delighted. He can level a few more Ukrainian cities while the world debates the true horror of a bitch-slap.
Say what you like about Gavin Williamson, he never thumped anyone at the annual "Fireplace Salesman of the Year" awards.
He wasn’t put between a rock and fireplace
The Rock - further evidence that baldies can make it to the top.....
A mistake I have only just learned I have been making all these years: Chris Rock <> Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. The latter is bald, the former was slapped by Will Smith.
It’s always an interesting wake up call on pb realising how disconnected a lot of people are from modern culture. Comments like not being able to recognise Will Smith in the street. Really?
Even The Rock’s gross box office is over $5bn, the 20th highest grossing actor of all time. And that’s his second successful career (as per Will Smith).
A hilariously self-torpedoing post, because The Rock is Dwayne Johnson, while Chris Rock is Chris Rock.
Laughing at people for medical conditions is supposed to be well beyond the pale nowadays so I wonder if this incident will mean that now everybody hates Chris?
No I got the reference, I just wondered if we are or not
If you want a serious answer: No.
I have no desire to see Chris Rock get cancelled, nor do I think its bad that he got what was quite frankly a well-deserved slap. So he might think twice before using someone's wife's medical condition as a punchline again, but he shouldn't be cancelled.
Quite frankly I think Will Smith both slapping Chris Rock, then apologising for doing so, and that being the end of the matter is probably the right sequence of events to have happened.
Him then winning the oscar and doing his speech is imo what pushed this story into ledge territory.
Interestingly no clear right/left, leave/remain, mods/rocker binary split on what the correct take is. People are all over the place.
Probably just a touch of 'Will in the wrong' on the left and 'in the right' on the right.
My centrist dad hot take: wrong, if understandable; ultimately not that big a deal.
No, the more I think about it, the worse it is
The Oscars are already in dire trouble for being - or perceived to be - woke, boring, banal, and up-themselves, a bunch of rich people clapping each other on the back, or being mawkishly sentimental, by turns.
The one thing that could save them, or stem the decline, is a return to edginess, that means a host willing to mock the millionaire film stars cruelly (like Gervais). Now that we've seen an edgy joke can get you slapped and humiliated live on air who will want to have a go next time?
The Awards will now shrivel even further into inane self congratulation. I can't see how they can be saved. Perhaps streaming, the Net and Youtube would always have killed them off, anyway, they've just accelerated their decline with some self harming idiocy
Say what you like about Gavin Williamson, he never thumped anyone at the annual "Fireplace Salesman of the Year" awards.
He wasn’t put between a rock and fireplace
The Rock - further evidence that baldies can make it to the top.....
A mistake I have only just learned I have been making all these years: Chris Rock <> Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. The latter is bald, the former was slapped by Will Smith.
It’s always an interesting wake up call on pb realising how disconnected a lot of people are from modern culture. Comments like not being able to recognise Will Smith in the street. Really?
Even The Rock’s gross box office is over $5bn, the 20th highest grossing actor of all time. And that’s his second successful career (as per Will Smith).
A hilariously self-torpedoing post, because The Rock is Dwayne Johnson, while Chris Rock is Chris Rock.
Laughing at people for medical conditions is supposed to be well beyond the pale nowadays so I wonder if this incident will mean that now everybody hates Chris?
No I got the reference, I just wondered if we are or not
If you want a serious answer: No.
I have no desire to see Chris Rock get cancelled, nor do I think its bad that he got what was quite frankly a well-deserved slap. So he might think twice before using someone's wife's medical condition as a punchline again, but he shouldn't be cancelled.
Quite frankly I think Will Smith both slapping Chris Rock, then apologising for doing so, and that being the end of the matter is probably the right sequence of events to have happened.
Him then winning the oscar and doing his speech is imo what pushed this story into ledge territory.
Interestingly no clear right/left, leave/remain, mods/rocker binary split on what the correct take is. People are all over the place.
Probably just a touch of 'Will in the wrong' on the left and 'in the right' on the right.
My centrist dad hot take: wrong, if understandable; ultimately not that big a deal.
No, the more I think about it, the worse it is
The Oscars are already in dire trouble for being - or perceived to be - woke, boring, banal, and up-themselves, a bunch of rich people clapping each other on the back, or being mawkishly sentimental, by turns.
The one thing that could save them, or stem the decline, is a return to edginess, that means a host willing to mock the millionaire film stars cruelly (like Gervais). Now that we've seen an edgy joke can get you slapped and humiliated live on air who will want to have a go next time?
The Awards will now shrivel even further into inane self congratulation. I can't see how they can be saved. Perhaps streaming, the Net and Youtube would always have killed them off, anyway, they've just accelerated their decline with some self harming idiocy
Say what you like about Gavin Williamson, he never thumped anyone at the annual "Fireplace Salesman of the Year" awards.
He wasn’t put between a rock and fireplace
The Rock - further evidence that baldies can make it to the top.....
A mistake I have only just learned I have been making all these years: Chris Rock <> Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. The latter is bald, the former was slapped by Will Smith.
It’s always an interesting wake up call on pb realising how disconnected a lot of people are from modern culture. Comments like not being able to recognise Will Smith in the street. Really?
Even The Rock’s gross box office is over $5bn, the 20th highest grossing actor of all time. And that’s his second successful career (as per Will Smith).
A hilariously self-torpedoing post, because The Rock is Dwayne Johnson, while Chris Rock is Chris Rock.
Laughing at people for medical conditions is supposed to be well beyond the pale nowadays so I wonder if this incident will mean that now everybody hates Chris?
So we're pro cancel culture now?
Nah, no need to cancel either of them, just funny watching Chris Rock take a beat down after shit chatting another dude's wife that he's got a personal beef with. I mean what did he expect to happen.
Violence is never the response.
It is sometimes.
A slap was well called for here. Right to apologise afterwards, but it was well-deserved.
On live TV? In front of millions of impressionable people, presumably including kids? One of the most beloved actors in Hollywood thinks it's OK to hit someone, hard, then say "get my wife's name out of your fucking mouth"?
It's really not OK. Even tho the joke was crude and insulting.
If Smith wasn't a famous actor about to win (!!) an Oscar he would have been arrested then and there. For clear assault
AND he didn't apologise to Chris Rock! It is calamitous for Smith and the Oscars
Interesting take from person last seen fantasizing about shooting people in the leg.
Is it a new gentle pacifist emerging?
Tiny bit of a difference between invading Russian soldiers in a war zone and badly scripted Hollywood comedians at the Oscars but otherwise: good reach
You just hate the oscars and hollywood because of 'woke'. Thus your ungenuine and bizarre (for you) pacifist take in this case. It's a 'scandal'. It's 'terrible'. Bla bla. You're an open book.
Oh God I despise the modern-day Oscars for their Wokeness. Of course I do
Yet I also deplore wanton violence. Like this. It is ugly, idiotic and bad. The poor-taste joke does not exonerate Will Smith's stupid outburst - nor his live-TV tirade of "fucking this and that" afterwards. It coarsens the world, at a time when we really don't need it
As ever, your weirdly narrow brain is unable to compute the possibility of nuance and plurality
Rather the opposite.
Me, I think Smith was wrong but having assessed it in the round and hauled in context and perspective I reach quite a calm place where I'm not hopping mad about it nor seeing it as some terrible manifestation of violence and foul language that must be condemned with every fibre of my being.
And I'm a teeny bit surprised to see such violent anti-violence sentiment from you. I do strongly suspect it's phoney, this new 'passionate pacifist' persona of yours, but if I'm wrong and it's genuine - well that's great news. Let's see if you can keep it up.
The main insight from this morning's LBC interview with Starmer is that Labour is going to get hit with a whole bunch of culture war wedge issues in the run-up to the next election. Those issues say a lot more about the distorted concerns of Westminster/media than the country.
I'm not sure "women's rights & safety" are a "distorted concern"....
There are a lot of 'yebbuts' in those sorts of issues. For example, the man in the pub is initially against whatever it is, but then says 'yebbut' and turns out that on reflection he thinks it's quite a good idea. Like gay marriage. Your average 'straight' isn't bothered, finds it mildly amusing, but if it's not hurting anyone, and it protects the survivors rights on death, why not?
I've some sympathy with Cyclefree's view as I have two friends who feel equally strongly. But it is nonetheless not something that comes up much on the doorstep even if one feels it should, and taking sides in culture wars is as fundamental a mistake as a councillor taking sides in a neighbour dispute - everybody involved (including whoever you back) feels you're not sufficiently on their side, need to say more, etc., and you just get sucked in. Meanwhile, everyone else thinks you're obsessed with something they don't care about because they've never met a trans person.
It's a big deal in the Green Party, where quite a few activists are very deeply entrenched on both sides - I know some senior party people who said they'd quit if the leadership candidate with the "wrong" view got elected.
In general people who feel strongly about an issue are often incapable of accepting that others may not feel strongly (let's not even consider them accepting the validity of opposing views). There also appears to be a significant lump of folk who are desperate for it to be a wedge issue.
BBC Scotland recently did a survey on public attitudes to trans issues and GRA reform in Scotland; the general consensus seemed to be that folk weren't that bothered and in general had a mild preference that life should be made a bit easier for trans people. You could almost see the cloud of thwarted disappointment above Pacific Quay.
Quite.
And whatever Tyndall thinks, as I said most trans people are invariably non-violent.
Of course a few slip through or, worse, use this as a cover but there's violence everywhere and they are in the extreme. I've seen very violent cis women in ladies loos after a few drinks.
Ah not just a scumbag but an ignorant scumbag.
Invariably definition - "in every case or on every occasion; always."
So if a 'few slip through' then they cannot be 'invariably' non-violent.
Richard, Richard, Richard.
I know you sometimes have a problem and form with this but it is entirely possible to have an exchange on PB without immediately insulting your interlocutor. The last thing we want is for you to get yourself into so much of a tizzy that you ban yourself again.
Not when that interlocutor is an apologist for rape. Politics between you and me is one thing. Defending the rights of people to commit sexual assault on the grounds of their sexual orientation is something completely different.
And I don't see insulting people to be a problem at all. Practically everything about you is insulting to humanity but I wouldn't want to ban you.
Much better with some humour.
As to the issue before because the red mist had descended you didn't read what @Heathener wrote. She (I'm assuming) didn't at all excuse rape. She said that the occasions of transgender women raping other women represented a tiny proportion of crimes and that the vast majority of trans people are non-violent.
You, meanwhile, seem to be saying that because someone commits murder with a candlestick we should ban all candlesticks.
Nobody is talking about trans women. The issue is men who are not trans women pretending they are trans women. their victims are a. real women on whom they prey and b. genuine trans women. there is no doubt that these men exist, unless you believe for instance that the number of trans women among the male at birth Scottish prison population is about 10,000 times as high as in the population at large. Create a loophole, expect it to be exploited.
Yes that is a valid concern. There must be a mechanism to avoid that. I don't want to put words into @Heathener's mouth but I think it was that the instances of this are tiny compared with other crimes and also crimes against trans people. But, and I know you have cited that 10,000x figure previously, this is not to say that a solution must not be found for this particular example.
And I see we're back to people on PB advocating violence against a comedian and saying that he deserved it because he looked at someone's missus in the wrong way.
And they are only saying this because in their fantasy, dare I say keyboard world, the person doing the slapping (themselves, in a blaze of glory and to the admiration of their womenfolk) emerge victorious.
But in a real situation when the aggressor might be oh I don't know I used the example of Tyson Fury this morning, they would far from so simply judge that that person needed a slap and that would be that.
It is not the most pressing issue of the day or even year but Will Smith was absolutely wrong to march up on stage and slap a comedian for being a comedian.
Jeez the very same people who applaud it demand the right for people to be offended. But not when it's Will Smith being a bully by slapping someone he outweighs and who he towers over.
I don't know, the internet sometimes. Sheesh.
Putin will delighted. He can level a few more Ukrainian cities while the world debates the true horror of a bitch-slap.
You missed my fantastic analogy this morning. Putin would be on the side of the slap hims. He is using war war not jaw jaw to sate his concerns.
On topic, Ben Wallace is only being talked about because he's in the news, which is only because there's a war on. He'll quickly fade back into obscurity once it's over.
In other words, he's very much Hair today, Gone... today.
I think Leon is right in that these awards shows will now be even more sanitised than they were already.
I fully expect a load of luuvies up there collecting their awards, taking about the real evils of harmful jokes and always remembering to be kind....unless its somebody like Trump or JK Rowling, then both barrels is fine.
PB vigilantes: bloody left full of snowflakes demanding comedians are cancelled because they make "offensive" jokes.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
Not the same thing though, are they. Chris Rock getting what was due after insulting another man's wife isn't the same as wanting him to be cancelled. I've got no issue with him doing tours or hosting next year's event if they ask him.
Mate I applaud you for what you did to the people who were bullying you.
But this is a comedian being a comedian (making a joke about one of the most powerful Hollywood couples) and you think it's great to slap them for it. Can present the show next year but rightly gets a black eye if someone takes offence to what he says. Have a word with yourself.
He didn't make a joke about a couple (Rebel Wilson did recently) he made a joke about her illness.
Use someone's health as a punchline you deserve what's coming to you. Not to be cancelled though.
Say what you like about Gavin Williamson, he never thumped anyone at the annual "Fireplace Salesman of the Year" awards.
He wasn’t put between a rock and fireplace
The Rock - further evidence that baldies can make it to the top.....
A mistake I have only just learned I have been making all these years: Chris Rock <> Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. The latter is bald, the former was slapped by Will Smith.
It’s always an interesting wake up call on pb realising how disconnected a lot of people are from modern culture. Comments like not being able to recognise Will Smith in the street. Really?
Even The Rock’s gross box office is over $5bn, the 20th highest grossing actor of all time. And that’s his second successful career (as per Will Smith).
A hilariously self-torpedoing post, because The Rock is Dwayne Johnson, while Chris Rock is Chris Rock.
Laughing at people for medical conditions is supposed to be well beyond the pale nowadays so I wonder if this incident will mean that now everybody hates Chris?
No I got the reference, I just wondered if we are or not
If you want a serious answer: No.
I have no desire to see Chris Rock get cancelled, nor do I think its bad that he got what was quite frankly a well-deserved slap. So he might think twice before using someone's wife's medical condition as a punchline again, but he shouldn't be cancelled.
Quite frankly I think Will Smith both slapping Chris Rock, then apologising for doing so, and that being the end of the matter is probably the right sequence of events to have happened.
Him then winning the oscar and doing his speech is imo what pushed this story into ledge territory.
Interestingly no clear right/left, leave/remain, mods/rocker binary split on what the correct take is. People are all over the place.
Probably just a touch of 'Will in the wrong' on the left and 'in the right' on the right.
My centrist dad hot take: wrong, if understandable; ultimately not that big a deal.
No, the more I think about it, the worse it is
The Oscars are already in dire trouble for being - or perceived to be - woke, boring, banal, and up-themselves, a bunch of rich people clapping each other on the back, or being mawkishly sentimental, by turns.
The one thing that could save them, or stem the decline, is a return to edginess, that means a host willing to mock the millionaire film stars cruelly (like Gervais). Now that we've seen an edgy joke can get you slapped and humiliated live on air who will want to have a go next time?
The Awards will now shrivel even further into inane self congratulation. I can't see how they can be saved. Perhaps streaming, the Net and Youtube would always have killed them off, anyway, they've just accelerated their decline with some self harming idiocy
I don't know, I think someone getting punched in the face might be considered fairly edgy. And I doubt it has done Chris Rock's career any harm. The Oscars will continue to be what they have always been, an awards ceremony for the US film industry, which people who have no interest in the US film industry may not find very interesting. I have never watched it.
Say what you like about Gavin Williamson, he never thumped anyone at the annual "Fireplace Salesman of the Year" awards.
He wasn’t put between a rock and fireplace
The Rock - further evidence that baldies can make it to the top.....
A mistake I have only just learned I have been making all these years: Chris Rock <> Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. The latter is bald, the former was slapped by Will Smith.
It’s always an interesting wake up call on pb realising how disconnected a lot of people are from modern culture. Comments like not being able to recognise Will Smith in the street. Really?
Even The Rock’s gross box office is over $5bn, the 20th highest grossing actor of all time. And that’s his second successful career (as per Will Smith).
A hilariously self-torpedoing post, because The Rock is Dwayne Johnson, while Chris Rock is Chris Rock.
Laughing at people for medical conditions is supposed to be well beyond the pale nowadays so I wonder if this incident will mean that now everybody hates Chris?
No I got the reference, I just wondered if we are or not
If you want a serious answer: No.
I have no desire to see Chris Rock get cancelled, nor do I think its bad that he got what was quite frankly a well-deserved slap. So he might think twice before using someone's wife's medical condition as a punchline again, but he shouldn't be cancelled.
Quite frankly I think Will Smith both slapping Chris Rock, then apologising for doing so, and that being the end of the matter is probably the right sequence of events to have happened.
Him then winning the oscar and doing his speech is imo what pushed this story into ledge territory.
Interestingly no clear right/left, leave/remain, mods/rocker binary split on what the correct take is. People are all over the place.
Probably just a touch of 'Will in the wrong' on the left and 'in the right' on the right.
My centrist dad hot take: wrong, if understandable; ultimately not that big a deal.
No, the more I think about it, the worse it is
The Oscars are already in dire trouble for being - or perceived to be - woke, boring, banal, and up-themselves, a bunch of rich people clapping each other on the back, or being mawkishly sentimental, by turns.
The one thing that could save them, or stem the decline, is a return to edginess, that means a host willing to mock the millionaire film stars cruelly (like Gervais). Now that we've seen an edgy joke can get you slapped and humiliated live on air who will want to have a go next time?
The Awards will now shrivel even further into inane self congratulation. I can't see how they can be saved. Perhaps streaming, the Net and Youtube would always have killed them off, anyway, they've just accelerated their decline with some self harming idiocy
I don't know, I think someone getting punched in the face might be considered fairly edgy. And I doubt it has done Chris Rock's career any harm. The Oscars will continue to be what they have always been, an awards ceremony for the US film industry, which people who have no interest in the US film industry may not find very interesting. I have never watched it.
Does anyone in the UK watch it? I’ve never seen it. I don’t recall anyone ever telling me they saw it.
Americans on the other hand, are obsessed with this kind of shit, but that’s the difference between Americans and the rest of the world.
My attitude towards Will Smith is much the same as my attitude towards the NCO who shot the corpse-robber.
I probably wouldn't do the same in their position, but I wouldn't condemn it either.
Given whats going on in the world at the moment, two multi-millionare luuvies having the sort of disagreement witnessed between two ladies outside Hartlepool Wetherspoons every night is rather than irrevelance.
PB vigilantes: bloody left full of snowflakes demanding comedians are cancelled because they make "offensive" jokes.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
Not the same thing though, are they. Chris Rock getting what was due after insulting another man's wife isn't the same as wanting him to be cancelled. I've got no issue with him doing tours or hosting next year's event if they ask him.
Mate I applaud you for what you did to the people who were bullying you.
But this is a comedian being a comedian (making a joke about one of the most powerful Hollywood couples) and you think it's great to slap them for it. Can present the show next year but rightly gets a black eye if someone takes offence to what he says. Have a word with yourself.
He didn't make a joke about a couple (Rebel Wilson did recently) he made a joke about her illness.
Use someone's health as a punchline you deserve what's coming to you. Not to be cancelled though.
He said he was making a joke about GI Jane not Ms Smith. But the point still stands - it was a comedian making an offensive joke. And you want to slap him. A bit like lockdown; everyone's a fan until their own red lines are broached. The principle should be the issue, however, and once you say it's ok to slap a comedian for being a comedian you are in trouble.
PB vigilantes: bloody left full of snowflakes demanding comedians are cancelled because they make "offensive" jokes.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
Not the same thing though, are they. Chris Rock getting what was due after insulting another man's wife isn't the same as wanting him to be cancelled. I've got no issue with him doing tours or hosting next year's event if they ask him.
Mate I applaud you for what you did to the people who were bullying you.
But this is a comedian being a comedian (making a joke about one of the most powerful Hollywood couples) and you think it's great to slap them for it. Can present the show next year but rightly gets a black eye if someone takes offence to what he says. Have a word with yourself.
Nah, you've misread the scenario if you think that's what this is about. Will Smith and Chris Rock have got a long standing mutual loathing of each other, my reading of it (and this has been confirmed by a studio exec this morning) is that Chris Rock wanted to have a go at Will Smith because he was odds on to win the award just for the sake of getting a dig in against a long standing rival. If he'd gone direct we wouldn't be talking about it but Chris Rock went indirect, insulted Will Smith's wife and made fun of her medical condition which all insiders say she's pretty sensitive about, loads were praising her bravery for coming to the ceremony without wearing a weave or a wig. Chris Rock made it personal and ultimately got what was coming to him. He should have realised if he was going to shit chat another man's wife this was a likely result.
Someone said it on here earlier, there's loads of things people say anonymously on the internet they wouldn't say to someone's face, well Chris Rock tested and proved that theory.
The Oscars have always been about backslapping bullshit. The idea anyone could bemoan a decline in quality is risible.
You haven't been watching its ratings decline, then
In 2004 (when Lord of the Rings won) the Oscars were watched by 43 million Americans. Since then there has been a slow decline, followed by a very fast decline (like the famous description of going bankrupt). Last year's awards were watched by just 10m, the lowest ever, down from 13m the year before. It's not Covid, it is an inherent, long-lasting problem
The Oscars are an important part of American soft power as they help to project Hollywood across the world.
If they disappear into ratings obscurity, just another local awards show (and that is where they are headed, maybe inevitably) that really is quite a big issue for the American movie industry, and for America itself, as a cultural superpower and soft power centre
PB vigilantes: bloody left full of snowflakes demanding comedians are cancelled because they make "offensive" jokes.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
Not the same thing though, are they. Chris Rock getting what was due after insulting another man's wife isn't the same as wanting him to be cancelled. I've got no issue with him doing tours or hosting next year's event if they ask him.
Mate I applaud you for what you did to the people who were bullying you.
But this is a comedian being a comedian (making a joke about one of the most powerful Hollywood couples) and you think it's great to slap them for it. Can present the show next year but rightly gets a black eye if someone takes offence to what he says. Have a word with yourself.
He didn't make a joke about a couple (Rebel Wilson did recently) he made a joke about her illness.
Use someone's health as a punchline you deserve what's coming to you. Not to be cancelled though.
He said he was making a joke about GI Jane not Ms Smith. But the point still stands - it was a comedian making an offensive joke. And you want to slap him. A bit like lockdown; everyone's a fan until their own red lines are broached. The principle should be the issue, however, and once you say it's ok to slap a comedian for being a comedian you are in trouble.
Not remotely.
Chris Rock would be entitled to press charges if he wanted to do so. The LAPD have already confirmed he does not.
You always seem to want these absurd absolutes and whatabouterisms but people are sentient beings capable of using judgement depending upon the situation. Nothing wrong with that.
PB vigilantes: bloody left full of snowflakes demanding comedians are cancelled because they make "offensive" jokes.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
Not the same thing though, are they. Chris Rock getting what was due after insulting another man's wife isn't the same as wanting him to be cancelled. I've got no issue with him doing tours or hosting next year's event if they ask him.
Mate I applaud you for what you did to the people who were bullying you.
But this is a comedian being a comedian (making a joke about one of the most powerful Hollywood couples) and you think it's great to slap them for it. Can present the show next year but rightly gets a black eye if someone takes offence to what he says. Have a word with yourself.
Nah, you've misread the scenario if you think that's what this is about. Will Smith and Chris Rock have got a long standing mutual loathing of each other, my reading of it (and this has been confirmed by a studio exec this morning) is that Chris Rock wanted to have a go at Will Smith because he was odds on to win the award just for the sake of getting a dig in against a long standing rival. If he'd gone direct we wouldn't be talking about it but Chris Rock went indirect, insulted Will Smith's wife and made fun of her medical condition which all insiders say she's pretty sensitive about, loads were praising her bravery for coming to the ceremony without wearing a weave or a wig. Chris Rock made it personal and ultimately got what was coming to him. He should have realised if he was going to shit chat another man's wife this was a likely result.
Someone said it on here earlier, there's loads of things people say anonymously on the internet they wouldn't say to someone's face, well Chris Rock tested and proved that theory.
I get all that but I don't think it should end in violence. It's a comedian making a joke and the response was the act of a bully. Imagine instead of Chris Rock it had been The Rock. That would have been worth watching.
I think Leon is right in that these awards shows will now be even more sanitised than they were already.
I fully expect a load of luuvies up there collecting their awards, taking about the real evils of harmful jokes and always remembering to be kind....unless its somebody like Trump or JK Rowling, then both barrels is fine.
Poor old JKR! After having Vladimir Putin come out to stand shoulder to shoulder with her she now gets bracketed with Donald Trump.
PB vigilantes: bloody left full of snowflakes demanding comedians are cancelled because they make "offensive" jokes.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
Not the same thing though, are they. Chris Rock getting what was due after insulting another man's wife isn't the same as wanting him to be cancelled. I've got no issue with him doing tours or hosting next year's event if they ask him.
Mate I applaud you for what you did to the people who were bullying you.
But this is a comedian being a comedian (making a joke about one of the most powerful Hollywood couples) and you think it's great to slap them for it. Can present the show next year but rightly gets a black eye if someone takes offence to what he says. Have a word with yourself.
He didn't make a joke about a couple (Rebel Wilson did recently) he made a joke about her illness.
Use someone's health as a punchline you deserve what's coming to you. Not to be cancelled though.
He said he was making a joke about GI Jane not Ms Smith. But the point still stands - it was a comedian making an offensive joke. And you want to slap him. A bit like lockdown; everyone's a fan until their own red lines are broached. The principle should be the issue, however, and once you say it's ok to slap a comedian for being a comedian you are in trouble.
Not remotely.
Chris Rock would be entitled to press charges if he wanted to do so. The LAPD have already confirmed he does not.
You always seem to want these absurd absolutes and whatabouterisms but people are sentient beings capable of using judgement depending upon the situation. Nothing wrong with that.
I will have to wait until you see the light, as you eventually did wrt lockdowns.
Lawrence Fox stirring up INDIFFERENCE. Disinterest is something a judge has. *Cookie continues to fight his rear-guard action to maintain the meaning of words long after the battle has probably been lost*
Wrong, disinteresting meaning uninteresting has impeccable precedents
Letter Warburton to Birch quoted by Boswell in intro to Life of Johnson
"Almost all the life-writers we have had before Toland and Desmaiseaux, are indeed strange insipid creatures; and yet I had rather read the worst of them, than be obliged to go through with this of Milton's, or the other's life of Boileau, where there is such a dull, heavy succession of long quotations of disinteresting passages, that it makes their method quite nauseous."
The Oscars have always been about backslapping bullshit. The idea anyone could bemoan a decline in quality is risible.
You haven't been watching its ratings decline, then
In 2004 (when Lord of the Rings won) the Oscars were watched by 43 million Americans. Since then there has been a slow decline, followed by a very fast decline (like the famous description of going bankrupt). Last year's awards were watched by just 10m, the lowest ever, down from 13m the year before. It's not Covid, it is an inherent, long-lasting problem
The Oscars are an important part of American soft power as they help to project Hollywood across the world.
If they disappear into ratings obscurity, just another local awards show (and that is where they are headed, maybe inevitably) that really is quite a big issue for the American movie industry, and for America itself, as a cultural superpower and soft power centre
Well the Academy has only itself to blame.
In the past, films the audience had watched like Braveheart, Rocky, the Godfather, the Sound of Music, Titanic, Forrest Gump, Gladiator and Lord of the Rings actually won.
Now the average cinema goer will barely have even heard of the film which won the Oscar, let alone seen it.
Hollywood still makes box office films like Spiderman which do well in Asia too but they never get near the Oscar.
Even a more highbrow film like La La Land which was also a box office hit, making half a billion dollars, the Academy snubbed in favour of the obscure Moonlight.
I'm extremely happy to say that I'll be in the BBC politics chair on Sunday mornings from September - it's a genuine honour and real thrill to be working with an amazing team on the show, can't wait to get started! https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1508421097695367172
I'm shocked that some on Twitter have not taken that news well.
They talk abut the abuse and bullying MPs get online, it pales in comparison to the stuff LauraK get on social media. I can only imagine what terrible stuff she gets in his DM / inbox.
The main insight from this morning's LBC interview with Starmer is that Labour is going to get hit with a whole bunch of culture war wedge issues in the run-up to the next election. Those issues say a lot more about the distorted concerns of Westminster/media than the country.
I'm not sure "women's rights & safety" are a "distorted concern"....
There are a lot of 'yebbuts' in those sorts of issues. For example, the man in the pub is initially against whatever it is, but then says 'yebbut' and turns out that on reflection he thinks it's quite a good idea. Like gay marriage. Your average 'straight' isn't bothered, finds it mildly amusing, but if it's not hurting anyone, and it protects the survivors rights on death, why not?
I've some sympathy with Cyclefree's view as I have two friends who feel equally strongly. But it is nonetheless not something that comes up much on the doorstep even if one feels it should, and taking sides in culture wars is as fundamental a mistake as a councillor taking sides in a neighbour dispute - everybody involved (including whoever you back) feels you're not sufficiently on their side, need to say more, etc., and you just get sucked in. Meanwhile, everyone else thinks you're obsessed with something they don't care about because they've never met a trans person.
It's a big deal in the Green Party, where quite a few activists are very deeply entrenched on both sides - I know some senior party people who said they'd quit if the leadership candidate with the "wrong" view got elected.
In general people who feel strongly about an issue are often incapable of accepting that others may not feel strongly (let's not even consider them accepting the validity of opposing views). There also appears to be a significant lump of folk who are desperate for it to be a wedge issue.
BBC Scotland recently did a survey on public attitudes to trans issues and GRA reform in Scotland; the general consensus seemed to be that folk weren't that bothered and in general had a mild preference that life should be made a bit easier for trans people. You could almost see the cloud of thwarted disappointment above Pacific Quay.
Quite.
And whatever Tyndall thinks, as I said most trans people are invariably non-violent.
Of course a few slip through or, worse, use this as a cover but there's violence everywhere and they are in the extreme. I've seen very violent cis women in ladies loos after a few drinks.
Ah not just a scumbag but an ignorant scumbag.
Invariably definition - "in every case or on every occasion; always."
So if a 'few slip through' then they cannot be 'invariably' non-violent.
Richard, Richard, Richard.
I know you sometimes have a problem and form with this but it is entirely possible to have an exchange on PB without immediately insulting your interlocutor. The last thing we want is for you to get yourself into so much of a tizzy that you ban yourself again.
Not when that interlocutor is an apologist for rape. Politics between you and me is one thing. Defending the rights of people to commit sexual assault on the grounds of their sexual orientation is something completely different.
And I don't see insulting people to be a problem at all. Practically everything about you is insulting to humanity but I wouldn't want to ban you.
Much better with some humour.
As to the issue before because the red mist had descended you didn't read what @Heathener wrote. She (I'm assuming) didn't at all excuse rape. She said that the occasions of transgender women raping other women represented a tiny proportion of crimes and that the vast majority of trans people are non-violent.
You, meanwhile, seem to be saying that because someone commits murder with a candlestick we should ban all candlesticks.
Nobody is talking about trans women. The issue is men who are not trans women pretending they are trans women. their victims are a. real women on whom they prey and b. genuine trans women. there is no doubt that these men exist, unless you believe for instance that the number of trans women among the male at birth Scottish prison population is about 10,000 times as high as in the population at large. Create a loophole, expect it to be exploited.
Yes that is a valid concern. There must be a mechanism to avoid that. I don't want to put words into @Heathener's mouth but I think it was that the instances of this are tiny compared with other crimes and also crimes against trans people. But, and I know you have cited that 10,000x figure previously, this is not to say that a solution must not be found for this particular example.
That 10k figure is odd. 0.5% of the general population are trans according to NHS Scotland estimates (probably a low ball number). And in a prison population of 8k, about 10-20 are trans (12 in 2020). That makes the prison population under-represented.
PB vigilantes: bloody left full of snowflakes demanding comedians are cancelled because they make "offensive" jokes.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
Not the same thing though, are they. Chris Rock getting what was due after insulting another man's wife isn't the same as wanting him to be cancelled. I've got no issue with him doing tours or hosting next year's event if they ask him.
Mate I applaud you for what you did to the people who were bullying you.
But this is a comedian being a comedian (making a joke about one of the most powerful Hollywood couples) and you think it's great to slap them for it. Can present the show next year but rightly gets a black eye if someone takes offence to what he says. Have a word with yourself.
Nah, you've misread the scenario if you think that's what this is about. Will Smith and Chris Rock have got a long standing mutual loathing of each other, my reading of it (and this has been confirmed by a studio exec this morning) is that Chris Rock wanted to have a go at Will Smith because he was odds on to win the award just for the sake of getting a dig in against a long standing rival. If he'd gone direct we wouldn't be talking about it but Chris Rock went indirect, insulted Will Smith's wife and made fun of her medical condition which all insiders say she's pretty sensitive about, loads were praising her bravery for coming to the ceremony without wearing a weave or a wig. Chris Rock made it personal and ultimately got what was coming to him. He should have realised if he was going to shit chat another man's wife this was a likely result.
Someone said it on here earlier, there's loads of things people say anonymously on the internet they wouldn't say to someone's face, well Chris Rock tested and proved that theory.
I get all that but I don't think it should end in violence. It's a comedian making a joke and the response was the act of a bully. Imagine instead of Chris Rock it had been The Rock. That would have been worth watching.
You're missing the point then, Dwayne Johnson wouldn't be making that joke. This is Chris Rock wanting to shit on Will Smith's big day in the sun, no more, no less. He got what was coming to him. Chris Rock abused his position as the host to have a pop at someone who he's already got a beef with, there's a word for people who abuse their authority.
PB vigilantes: bloody left full of snowflakes demanding comedians are cancelled because they make "offensive" jokes.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
Not the same thing though, are they. Chris Rock getting what was due after insulting another man's wife isn't the same as wanting him to be cancelled. I've got no issue with him doing tours or hosting next year's event if they ask him.
Mate I applaud you for what you did to the people who were bullying you.
But this is a comedian being a comedian (making a joke about one of the most powerful Hollywood couples) and you think it's great to slap them for it. Can present the show next year but rightly gets a black eye if someone takes offence to what he says. Have a word with yourself.
Nah, you've misread the scenario if you think that's what this is about. Will Smith and Chris Rock have got a long standing mutual loathing of each other, my reading of it (and this has been confirmed by a studio exec this morning) is that Chris Rock wanted to have a go at Will Smith because he was odds on to win the award just for the sake of getting a dig in against a long standing rival. If he'd gone direct we wouldn't be talking about it but Chris Rock went indirect, insulted Will Smith's wife and made fun of her medical condition which all insiders say she's pretty sensitive about, loads were praising her bravery for coming to the ceremony without wearing a weave or a wig. Chris Rock made it personal and ultimately got what was coming to him. He should have realised if he was going to shit chat another man's wife this was a likely result.
Someone said it on here earlier, there's loads of things people say anonymously on the internet they wouldn't say to someone's face, well Chris Rock tested and proved that theory.
I get all that but I don't think it should end in violence. It's a comedian making a joke and the response was the act of a bully. Imagine instead of Chris Rock it had been The Rock. That would have been worth watching.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have enough self respect not to abuse someone's medical conditions as a punchline.
So what are we learning on here today? Violence against a man who gave some verbal is okay; if you don't do violence, you're a 'door mat'.
But all trans people have to be despised and hated because *a few* do bad things?
If we really wanted to stop violence of all sorts - and yes, against women - we would talk much more about the former, and not excuse it because you're an alpha-male wannabe idiot.
Nah mate, you're the guy who launches an inquiry after a school kid commits suicide after being bullied and says "lessons must be learned" then repeats the exercise as needed, learning precisely zero lessons in the process.
No, I really am not. In fact, I have mentioned the horrible levels of violence in this country on several occasions. If you know more than a few dozen people, you will know someone who has suffered domestic abuse in the last year, Often suffering in silence; invisibly.
Your comment demeans you.
But suffering in silence is what your proposed solution always seems to be, just take it on the chin and hope for a better world. Bullies need to be confronted, whether that's at school or someone using a privileged position to insult others, the confrontation is necessary, and yes, that may mean violence. I was bullied at school for being a "paki" and while you might have simply suffered in silence, I beat the shit out of one of them who did it and guess what? The bullying stopped, I got a week's worth of detention (including two Saturdays) but it was worth it. I don't think my dad has ever been more proud than he was when I he had to come and pick me up early because I'd been in a fight with the racist bully.
IME the person resorting to violence is more often the bully.
I'm sorry to hear about your experience, but perhaps, just perhaps, you tackled it the wrong way.
In what way did I handle it incorrectly? The bullying stopped almost immediately and that racist kid actually stopped being a racist to the other Asian kids as well. All it took was his head getting kicked in a couple of times.
As I said, you're the guy who won't ever learn any lessons from those kids committing suicide after being relentlessly bullied. A lot of the time the bullies do need a beat down, whether that's from the person being being bullied or someone else. I guarantee you that Chris Rock won't be making any jokes about bald women again.
Where do you draw the line though Max?
Because your attitude is what Johnson says about the journalist he had beaten up
I don't think they went through with it btw.
As for the line, I'm honestly not sure. Shit talking another man's wife? Probably worth a slap or two. Racism or sexism? Probably a head kicking, at least.
The only thing that saved me from being suspended from school was when other Asian kids came forwards and spoke out about the constant racist bullying and then it was used as a mitigating factor in the decision to only give me detention rather than a suspension or exclusion. The school literally had no idea what was going on, the teachers were blissfully unaware that there was a group of racists calling Asians "pakis" and generally making our lives miserable, or if they knew they did nothing about it (which I think is worse).
The only way to beat a bully is to confront them, suffering in silence as JJ seems to want everyone to do will do nothing to solve the problem and probably make things worse. Appealing to authority is completely fucking pointless too, how many women (and men) who are being relentlessly abused by their spouses actually get believed by the police? How many cases get taken forwards and how many convictions are there? It's a joke and we're in a situation where people (and kids) have to defend themselves from the abusers because the authorities either don't care or don't want to know. I honestly couldn't blame anyone for standing up to a bully even if, like me, they resorted to violence.
I know of at least one case at the school I was teaching at where one boy physically attacked another, and, when the dust settled and the full details known, the victim was suspended for longer than the attacker. Sounds like a similar case to yours.
Say what you like about Gavin Williamson, he never thumped anyone at the annual "Fireplace Salesman of the Year" awards.
He wasn’t put between a rock and fireplace
The Rock - further evidence that baldies can make it to the top.....
A mistake I have only just learned I have been making all these years: Chris Rock <> Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. The latter is bald, the former was slapped by Will Smith.
It’s always an interesting wake up call on pb realising how disconnected a lot of people are from modern culture. Comments like not being able to recognise Will Smith in the street. Really?
Even The Rock’s gross box office is over $5bn, the 20th highest grossing actor of all time. And that’s his second successful career (as per Will Smith).
A hilariously self-torpedoing post, because The Rock is Dwayne Johnson, while Chris Rock is Chris Rock.
Laughing at people for medical conditions is supposed to be well beyond the pale nowadays so I wonder if this incident will mean that now everybody hates Chris?
No I got the reference, I just wondered if we are or not
If you want a serious answer: No.
I have no desire to see Chris Rock get cancelled, nor do I think its bad that he got what was quite frankly a well-deserved slap. So he might think twice before using someone's wife's medical condition as a punchline again, but he shouldn't be cancelled.
Quite frankly I think Will Smith both slapping Chris Rock, then apologising for doing so, and that being the end of the matter is probably the right sequence of events to have happened.
Him then winning the oscar and doing his speech is imo what pushed this story into ledge territory.
Interestingly no clear right/left, leave/remain, mods/rocker binary split on what the correct take is. People are all over the place.
Probably just a touch of 'Will in the wrong' on the left and 'in the right' on the right.
My centrist dad hot take: wrong, if understandable; ultimately not that big a deal.
No, the more I think about it, the worse it is
The Oscars are already in dire trouble for being - or perceived to be - woke, boring, banal, and up-themselves, a bunch of rich people clapping each other on the back, or being mawkishly sentimental, by turns.
The one thing that could save them, or stem the decline, is a return to edginess, that means a host willing to mock the millionaire film stars cruelly (like Gervais). Now that we've seen an edgy joke can get you slapped and humiliated live on air who will want to have a go next time?
The Awards will now shrivel even further into inane self congratulation. I can't see how they can be saved. Perhaps streaming, the Net and Youtube would always have killed them off, anyway, they've just accelerated their decline with some self harming idiocy
When were the Oscars edgy?
Before they literally had "diversity quotas" for the awards
"Forget merit, now filmmakers will have to subject their art to Orwellian tests of identitarian purity if it is to be eligible for a Best Picture award.
"For example, lead actors must be from an “underrepresented racial or ethnic group . . . Asian, Latinx, Black, Native American, Middle Eastern, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.”
"At least 30 percent of the rest of the cast otherwise must be chosen from at least two of the following victim identities: women, underrepresented racial or ethnic group, “LGBTQ+” and the disabled."
The Oscars have always been about backslapping bullshit. The idea anyone could bemoan a decline in quality is risible.
You haven't been watching its ratings decline, then
In 2004 (when Lord of the Rings won) the Oscars were watched by 43 million Americans. Since then there has been a slow decline, followed by a very fast decline (like the famous description of going bankrupt). Last year's awards were watched by just 10m, the lowest ever, down from 13m the year before. It's not Covid, it is an inherent, long-lasting problem
The Oscars are an important part of American soft power as they help to project Hollywood across the world.
If they disappear into ratings obscurity, just another local awards show (and that is where they are headed, maybe inevitably) that really is quite a big issue for the American movie industry, and for America itself, as a cultural superpower and soft power centre
I really doubt there is any link between the Oscars and American puissance.
The decline you mention is perhaps predictable in an age of social media. There’s too many demands on people’s time to sit down and wait to see who won best costume design this year.
Then, you have the Netflix x Covid effect. The last two years have been abominable for the film industry, people have switched off.
The main insight from this morning's LBC interview with Starmer is that Labour is going to get hit with a whole bunch of culture war wedge issues in the run-up to the next election. Those issues say a lot more about the distorted concerns of Westminster/media than the country.
I'm not sure "women's rights & safety" are a "distorted concern"....
There are a lot of 'yebbuts' in those sorts of issues. For example, the man in the pub is initially against whatever it is, but then says 'yebbut' and turns out that on reflection he thinks it's quite a good idea. Like gay marriage. Your average 'straight' isn't bothered, finds it mildly amusing, but if it's not hurting anyone, and it protects the survivors rights on death, why not?
I've some sympathy with Cyclefree's view as I have two friends who feel equally strongly. But it is nonetheless not something that comes up much on the doorstep even if one feels it should, and taking sides in culture wars is as fundamental a mistake as a councillor taking sides in a neighbour dispute - everybody involved (including whoever you back) feels you're not sufficiently on their side, need to say more, etc., and you just get sucked in. Meanwhile, everyone else thinks you're obsessed with something they don't care about because they've never met a trans person.
It's a big deal in the Green Party, where quite a few activists are very deeply entrenched on both sides - I know some senior party people who said they'd quit if the leadership candidate with the "wrong" view got elected.
In general people who feel strongly about an issue are often incapable of accepting that others may not feel strongly (let's not even consider them accepting the validity of opposing views). There also appears to be a significant lump of folk who are desperate for it to be a wedge issue.
BBC Scotland recently did a survey on public attitudes to trans issues and GRA reform in Scotland; the general consensus seemed to be that folk weren't that bothered and in general had a mild preference that life should be made a bit easier for trans people. You could almost see the cloud of thwarted disappointment above Pacific Quay.
Quite.
And whatever Tyndall thinks, as I said most trans people are invariably non-violent.
Of course a few slip through or, worse, use this as a cover but there's violence everywhere and they are in the extreme. I've seen very violent cis women in ladies loos after a few drinks.
Ah not just a scumbag but an ignorant scumbag.
Invariably definition - "in every case or on every occasion; always."
So if a 'few slip through' then they cannot be 'invariably' non-violent.
Richard, Richard, Richard.
I know you sometimes have a problem and form with this but it is entirely possible to have an exchange on PB without immediately insulting your interlocutor. The last thing we want is for you to get yourself into so much of a tizzy that you ban yourself again.
Not when that interlocutor is an apologist for rape. Politics between you and me is one thing. Defending the rights of people to commit sexual assault on the grounds of their sexual orientation is something completely different.
And I don't see insulting people to be a problem at all. Practically everything about you is insulting to humanity but I wouldn't want to ban you.
Much better with some humour.
As to the issue before because the red mist had descended you didn't read what @Heathener wrote. She (I'm assuming) didn't at all excuse rape. She said that the occasions of transgender women raping other women represented a tiny proportion of crimes and that the vast majority of trans people are non-violent.
You, meanwhile, seem to be saying that because someone commits murder with a candlestick we should ban all candlesticks.
Nobody is talking about trans women. The issue is men who are not trans women pretending they are trans women. their victims are a. real women on whom they prey and b. genuine trans women. there is no doubt that these men exist, unless you believe for instance that the number of trans women among the male at birth Scottish prison population is about 10,000 times as high as in the population at large. Create a loophole, expect it to be exploited.
Yes that is a valid concern. There must be a mechanism to avoid that. I don't want to put words into @Heathener's mouth but I think it was that the instances of this are tiny compared with other crimes and also crimes against trans people. But, and I know you have cited that 10,000x figure previously, this is not to say that a solution must not be found for this particular example.
That 10k figure is odd. 0.5% of the general population are trans according to NHS Scotland estimates (probably a low ball number). And in a prison population of 8k, about 10-20 are trans (12 in 2020). That makes the prison population under-represented.
OTOH males (sex, gender, whichever) are hugely overrepresented, females underrepresented in prison anyway, so feminization would tend to reduce the incidence of trans (of that M to F type) anyway.
Comments
Is cancelled is happy when someone they don’t agree with is cancelled. Hypocrites.
As for the line, I'm honestly not sure. Shit talking another man's wife? Probably worth a slap or two. Racism or sexism? Probably a head kicking, at least.
The only thing that saved me from being suspended from school was when other Asian kids came forwards and spoke out about the constant racist bullying and then it was used as a mitigating factor in the decision to only give me detention rather than a suspension or exclusion. The school literally had no idea what was going on, the teachers were blissfully unaware that there was a group of racists calling Asians "pakis" and generally making our lives miserable, or if they knew they did nothing about it (which I think is worse).
The only way to beat a bully is to confront them, suffering in silence as JJ seems to want everyone to do will do nothing to solve the problem and probably make things worse. Appealing to authority is completely fucking pointless too, how many women (and men) who are being relentlessly abused by their spouses actually get believed by the police? How many cases get taken forwards and how many convictions are there? It's a joke and we're in a situation where people (and kids) have to defend themselves from the abusers because the authorities either don't care or don't want to know. I honestly couldn't blame anyone for standing up to a bully even if, like me, they resorted to violence.
Might not be so great for the actors though
One of the parents (50s) at the school drop-off said to me (40s), “Oh what’s the concept of this Fresh Prince show, I didn’t see the original”.
I said, “I believe it’s explained in the theme tune,”
And then launched into it…
No way this is staged. And it IS sad and embarrassing
https://twitter.com/HarryBSax/status/1508272325409619968?s=20&t=DS3OmQpeMBiSQQ6H7PP0ag
https://youtu.be/jPW3dUmyEjE
House prices near Newcastle and Sunderland and Middlesbrough, not so much
Very hard to see what can go wrong with handing him the Met... https://twitter.com/ForesightNewsUK/status/1508417715857506306
Chat up line.
(paraphrasing because I didn't note it word for word).
This is remarkable - Counsel (being admirably honest and abiding by the duty not to mislead) confirms that they've been told to say something to the Court that they know to be untrue (as must those telling them to say it).
https://twitter.com/Raj_Sharma_UK/status/1508370297719828485
There is simply no way he would have agreed to this sort of stunt, especially not on a night he was winning an Oscar.
The cinematography in Dune wasn’t better than dog film was it? Time to completely ignore Oscars now if they can’t get a single award right. Licorice Pizza far better screenplay than Belfast too. Did anyone else enjoy licorice pizza too, it’s affecting realism an opposite of the contrived whimsy of Belfast. In such abysmal decisions the Oscar academy patently told the world they haven’t a clue about decent film making.
Will Smith fucked up by punching him.
I doubt it will affect his career especially but he’s definitely tarnished his brand. Middle America will mark him down as an “angry black man”.
Also PB vigilantes: excellent news that a comedian got a slap for being offensive.
And I don't see insulting people to be a problem at all. Practically everything about you is insulting to humanity but I wouldn't want to ban you.
"Taught myself Danish".
Yet I also deplore wanton violence. Like this. It is ugly, idiotic and bad. The poor-taste joke does not exonerate Will Smith's stupid outburst - nor his live-TV tirade of "fucking this and that" afterwards. It coarsens the world, at a time when we really don't need it
As ever, your weirdly narrow brain is unable to compute the possibility of nuance and plurality
It’s all about the Golden Globes. Pretty much always has been.
As to the issue before because the red mist had descended you didn't read what @Heathener wrote. She (I'm assuming) didn't at all excuse rape. She said that the occasions of transgender women raping other women represented a tiny proportion of crimes and that the vast majority of trans people are non-violent.
You, meanwhile, seem to be saying that because someone commits murder with a candlestick we should ban all candlesticks.
But no way would he have agreed to do the "take my wife's name out of your fucking mouth" rant afterwards. That showed real anger and laid bare real violent intent. For a few minutes he was unhinged. Unideal
Yes that includes tackling bullies sometimes.
Chris Rock deserved the smack. Smith was right to apologise to others but he notably and appropriately didn't apologise to Chris Rock, and nor should he.
He acted in self-defence of his wife. Nothing wrong with that.
I mentioned last week that some friends of mine, who, for complicated reasons, have a large house sat doing nothing, have offered it to Ukrainian refugees. With a few friends, I spent Saturday round there doing some bits and bobs getting it ready for them (primarily reassembling disassembled self-assembly furniture which had been donated by various people).
They seemed to be able to identify a family who wanted the house without too much difficulty. They are a family of seven – parents, four children and grandmother – who are currently in an Airbnb in Poland which they have until Sunday. Both parents speak English and work in IT, and are, apparently, pretty uncomfortable with being offered help: they expect themselves to be the sorts of people who help others, not who seek help (maybe that is true of everybody, until they do need help) – but the fact is that their homeland is under attack and Poland is full. They need somewhere – and, as they speak English, the UK seems as good as anywhere. They don’t yet have visas – fingers are being crossed that this is all in place by the time they arrive at Calais and that it is an administrative detail rather than anything more serious.
There were discussions on Saturday morning about how the father of the family had been allowed to leave. My friend’s girlfriend was unaware that adult men were generally not allowed to leave, and rather sniffily declared it a bit sexist and not very 2022, which I thought was probably not particularly high up on Ukraine’s list of problems right now, but still. Anyway, he may be exempt through medical grounds or through having such a large family to look after – this was all a bit speculative.
Apparently, the Council had visited the house to check its suitability. One jobsworth, who threatened to scupper the arrangement with complaints about the water-tightness of the windows (which are ancient leaded lights); one pragmatist who pointed out that in comparison to being in a war zone, a little light water ingress is probably bearable. But that aside, it’s a wonderful house; needs a bit of updating, but clean (after five days of marathon cleaning by my friend’s mother), huge (older hands may remember the Cheadle by-election, and the surprisingly lengthy discussion on here of the size of houses in Woodford – it’s one of those), light and comfortable. I felt quite emotional imagining – hopefully – the feeling of relief the family will feel on arriving somewhere safe next week; not least due to the four year old girl’s room, all furnished and equipped with toys (partly, of course, because it’s not long since my youngest was four).
A further observation; of the wardrobes we put together, the older the wardrobe, the most likely we were to be able to reassemble it. Best were the ancient solid pine wardobes. Next best was the surprisingly-still-in-existence probably-MFI one; worst was the Ikea one which had clearly been assembled and disassembled one time too many and fell to bits on trying to hoist it upright.
But this is a comedian being a comedian (making a joke about one of the most powerful Hollywood couples) and you think it's great to slap them for it. Can present the show next year but rightly gets a black eye if someone takes offence to what he says. Have a word with yourself.
https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/1508412415712665603?s=20&t=M7YDybr4CL_q1xUdSjXg7Q
What would Boris do if Ben Wallace insulted Carrie?
I also expect any fall in house prices will be more pronounced in these areas than in London and the south east.
Disinterest is something a judge has.
*Cookie continues to fight his rear-guard action to maintain the meaning of words long after the battle has probably been lost*
I do know better, and withdraw the original comment.
https://twitter.com/karen_flynn/status/1508425402989137922
The Oscars are already in dire trouble for being - or perceived to be - woke, boring, banal, and up-themselves, a bunch of rich people clapping each other on the back, or being mawkishly sentimental, by turns.
The one thing that could save them, or stem the decline, is a return to edginess, that means a host willing to mock the millionaire film stars cruelly (like Gervais). Now that we've seen an edgy joke can get you slapped and humiliated live on air who will want to have a go next time?
The Awards will now shrivel even further into inane self congratulation. I can't see how they can be saved. Perhaps streaming, the Net and Youtube would always have killed them off, anyway, they've just accelerated their decline with some self harming idiocy
https://twitter.com/ScotVoting/status/1508423514948317187
Me, I think Smith was wrong but having assessed it in the round and hauled in context and perspective I reach quite a calm place where I'm not hopping mad about it nor seeing it as some terrible manifestation of violence and foul language that must be condemned with every fibre of my being.
And I'm a teeny bit surprised to see such violent anti-violence sentiment from you. I do strongly suspect it's phoney, this new 'passionate pacifist' persona of yours, but if I'm wrong and it's genuine - well that's great news. Let's see if you can keep it up.
In other words, he's very much Hair today, Gone... today.
I fully expect a load of luuvies up there collecting their awards, taking about the real evils of harmful jokes and always remembering to be kind....unless its somebody like Trump or JK Rowling, then both barrels is fine.
Use someone's health as a punchline you deserve what's coming to you. Not to be cancelled though.
The Oscars will continue to be what they have always been, an awards ceremony for the US film industry, which people who have no interest in the US film industry may not find very interesting. I have never watched it.
I probably wouldn't do the same in their position, but I wouldn't condemn it either.
I’ve never seen it. I don’t recall anyone ever telling me they saw it.
Americans on the other hand, are obsessed with this kind of shit, but that’s the difference between Americans and the rest of the world.
The Yes/Leave will be mainly Jim Sillars and Alex Neil I imagine, though Sillars is probably on the brink of No/Leave by now.
Someone said it on here earlier, there's loads of things people say anonymously on the internet they wouldn't say to someone's face, well Chris Rock tested and proved that theory.
In 2004 (when Lord of the Rings won) the Oscars were watched by 43 million Americans. Since then there has been a slow decline, followed by a very fast decline (like the famous description of going bankrupt). Last year's awards were watched by just 10m, the lowest ever, down from 13m the year before. It's not Covid, it is an inherent, long-lasting problem
The Oscars are an important part of American soft power as they help to project Hollywood across the world.
If they disappear into ratings obscurity, just another local awards show (and that is where they are headed, maybe inevitably) that really is quite a big issue for the American movie industry, and for America itself, as a cultural superpower and soft power centre
Chris Rock would be entitled to press charges if he wanted to do so. The LAPD have already confirmed he does not.
You always seem to want these absurd absolutes and whatabouterisms but people are sentient beings capable of using judgement depending upon the situation. Nothing wrong with that.
Letter Warburton to Birch quoted by Boswell in intro to Life of Johnson
"Almost all the life-writers we have had before Toland and Desmaiseaux, are indeed strange insipid creatures; and yet I had rather read the worst of them, than be obliged to go through with this of Milton's, or the other's life of Boileau, where there is such a dull, heavy succession of long quotations of disinteresting passages, that it makes their method quite nauseous."
In the past, films the audience had watched like Braveheart, Rocky, the Godfather, the Sound of Music, Titanic, Forrest Gump, Gladiator and Lord of the Rings actually won.
Now the average cinema goer will barely have even heard of the film which won the Oscar, let alone seen it.
Hollywood still makes box office films like Spiderman which do well in Asia too but they never get near the Oscar.
Even a more highbrow film like La La Land which was also a box office hit, making half a billion dollars, the Academy snubbed in favour of the obscure Moonlight.
So Laura K is the new Marr?
https://nypost.com/2020/09/09/oscars-orwellian-diversity-quota-throws-out-merit-devine/
"There go the Oscars.
"Forget merit, now filmmakers will have to subject their art to Orwellian tests of identitarian purity if it is to be eligible for a Best Picture award.
"For example, lead actors must be from an “underrepresented racial or ethnic group . . . Asian, Latinx, Black, Native American, Middle Eastern, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.”
"At least 30 percent of the rest of the cast otherwise must be chosen from at least two of the following victim identities: women, underrepresented racial or ethnic group, “LGBTQ+” and the disabled."
And so on, and so forth
The decline you mention is perhaps predictable in an age of social media. There’s too many demands on people’s time to sit down and wait to see who won best costume design this year.
Then, you have the Netflix x Covid effect.
The last two years have been abominable for the film industry, people have switched off.