I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
That would be because it was the colour nigger brown in the days before PC.
Incidentally, Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister can be had for under £12 on DVD. A bargain, if you haven't seen it (or need a last minute present).
Hear Hear. I seem to recall I wrote an essay in one of my 'A' levels regarding the civil service role in the UK and referred copiously to Yes Minister/PM to get some of the fantastic text in to a dry old piece.
It was one of the most important programmes in my early life and who didn't want to be Sir Desmond Glazebrook! I'm a banker.
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
Which is why it was so foolish to erase it. People need to be able to see how it was.. Perhaps all those Public information films that were so disrespectful of women, should be erased so we no longer realise how it was.. There is no end to the erasing of/re-writing of history. CF read 1984
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
Mr. Scrapheap, as mentioned below, it holds up as well today as (I imagine) it did upon first broadcast.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, I did not know that.
The worst case of such confusion was when I watched the first season of Heroes, and Horn-Rimmed Glasses told Claire [his adopted daughter] to 'get your tight little fanny down here'.
Incidentally, Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister can be had for under £12 on DVD. A bargain, if you haven't seen it (or need a last minute present).
Hear Hear. I seem to recall I wrote an essay in one of my 'A' levels regarding the civil service role in the UK and referred copiously to Yes Minister/PM to get some of the fantastic text in to a dry old piece.
It was one of the most important programmes in my early life and who didn't want to be Sir Desmond Glazebrook! I'm a banker.
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
That report says it will struggle to get a LARGE number of MPs, something blatantly obvious to all us on here.
However my view is that they will get 5 to 10 MPs which is a huge platform for 2020.
Indeed. A year ago tory knockers laughed at the prospect of UKIP getting anything like 5 MPs. Now they will claim its a failure if they do.
Just old fashioned party politics from "Yes Minister" fans, they cant move on
You don't like 'Yes Minister'? Truly, UKIPers do say terrible and offensive things!
Greece still a basket case then? I guess it was pretty clear the money sunk in there was never coming back, or at the least not in anything like the timing or amount EU leaders promised.
TBF never watched it, just seen the odd clip of politicians spinning/lying their way out of trouble to cover themselves... that's all people do on here.
Fair enough, but things should move on
Shocking admission.
I'm shocked.
I'm beyond shocked.
I thought you were interested in politics?
I am but only recently really, and when it was actually on tv I was at primary school I think.. Never seen "The Thick of It" either
By the way, I am sorry for the childish one upmanship recently.. reading back some of those posts it looks so petty
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
Which is why it was so foolish to erase it. People need to be able to see how it was.. Perhaps all those Public information films that were so disrespectful of women, should be erased so we no longer realise how it was.. There is no end to the erasing of/re-writing of history. CF read 1984
I've never seen much of The Thick Of It. I happened upon it whilst channel-hopping, and after 20 seconds or so of the cast shouting ****, decided I could live without such razor-sharp wit.
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
I've never seen much of The Thick Of It. I happened upon it whilst channel-hopping, and after 20 seconds or so of the cast shouting ****, decided I could live without such razor-sharp wit.
MD..Scafell...just adding to PB's pool of knowledge...I should know..I have walked over that peak dozens of times...before dropping down into Bassenthwaite village for a drink in the small pub there.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over."
Some years ago I went to one of my locals 'The Admiral Duncan' on Old Compton St to find a man on the door who said " Sorry mate you can't come in. It's gays only". I asked him what he was talking about.....
He explained that to change it from a straight pub to a gay one they had to keep straights out for a month after which it would become a 'gay pub' and then anyone could come in.
It's the same with PC. It has to start like this until people learn what 'offensive' means and then they can relax
I've never seen much of The Thick Of It. I happened upon it whilst channel-hopping, and after 20 seconds or so of the cast shouting ****, decided I could live without such razor-sharp wit.
Supposedly somewhat accurately based on Alastair Campbell iirc. It is very good very often, particularly the final parts.
Party Animals was a show that only lasted one season but I really liked at the time.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over."
Some years ago I went to one of my locals 'The Admiral Duncan' on Old Compton St to find a man on the door who said " Sorry mate you can't come in. It's gays only". I asked him what he was talking about.....
He explained that to change it from a straight pub to a gay one they had to keep straights out for a month after which it would become a 'gay pub' and then anyone could come in.
It's the same with PC. It has to start like this until people learn what 'offensive' means and then they can relax
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
We are talking at crossed purposes. I meant the original film. Didn't the BBC cut any mention of the dogs name from the film.?
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
My mistake, it was LWT on ITV, otherwise read as before.
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
We are talking at crossed purposes. I meant the original film. Didn't the BBC cut any mention of the dogs name from the film.?
My female gaydar is rubbish. I'm crap at spotting lesbians - even when they've a crush on me.
I feel a bit sorry for effeminate men who are straight - they must get so many remarks that make no sense. I've had several straight guys working for me who were routinely assumed to be bent. And I had to correct others' assumptions.
One used to play it up just so he could take the piss later and embarrass someone. He was extremely funny.
F1: Force India's technical director reckons the team may be able to battle with Williams in 2015 due to engine and aero improvements.
Two things to note: same engine as Williams, but I believe that Williams had the Mercedes team-style set-up of the engine, whereas Force India had the orthodox, less efficient, version. So there is room for relative improvement despite using the same engine.
Force India hit an aerodynamic dead end in mid-season development this year. Doesn't mean they will next year, but it's worth recalling that Ferrari has suffered year after year of aerodynamic mistakes, so Force India could go down a cul-de-sac again.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over."
Some years ago I went to one of my locals 'The Admiral Duncan' on Old Compton St to find a man on the door who said " Sorry mate you can't come in. It's gays only". I asked him what he was talking about.....
He explained that to change it from a straight pub to a gay one they had to keep straights out for a month after which it would become a 'gay pub' and then anyone could come in.
It's the same with PC. It has to start like this until people learn what 'offensive' means and then they can relax
Perhaps people were tested on their knowledge of Abba and Kylie Minogue, before being allowed in.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over."
Some years ago I went to one of my locals 'The Admiral Duncan' on Old Compton St to find a man on the door who said " Sorry mate you can't come in. It's gays only". I asked him what he was talking about.....
He explained that to change it from a straight pub to a gay one they had to keep straights out for a month after which it would become a 'gay pub' and then anyone could come in.
It's the same with PC. It has to start like this until people learn what 'offensive' means and then they can relax
In a convergence of pub anecdotes:
In the early eighties I shared a flat with a Geordie and some other lads. The Geordie was extolling how lovely a pint of Scotch was and found out there was a pub in Soho that sold it. We found the place and pushed our way through to the bar, him in front who ordered a round of pints of Scotch.
We stood there supping, and looking around saw that everyone else in the pub was male, moustached and wearing leather. My Geordie friend supped very quickly and suggested that we move on for the next pint...
It could be that some of their support comes from the likes of Respect too as 'others' are lumped in with 'don't knows.' What is clear though is that the main switchers to Green are 2010 LDs who voted LD when they were seen as left of Labour but have now discovered the Greens are the true left of Labour party, that has also hit Miliband's hopes of winning all those lefty LD defectors OGH was saying were so important to him
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over."
Some years ago I went to one of my locals 'The Admiral Duncan' on Old Compton St to find a man on the door who said " Sorry mate you can't come in. It's gays only". I asked him what he was talking about.....
He explained that to change it from a straight pub to a gay one they had to keep straights out for a month after which it would become a 'gay pub' and then anyone could come in.
It's the same with PC. It has to start like this until people learn what 'offensive' means and then they can relax
In a convergence of pub anecdotes:
In the early eighties I shared a flat with a Geordie and some other lads. The Geordie was extolling how lovely a pint of Scotch was and found out there was a pub in Soho that sold it. We found the place and pushed our way through to the bar, him in front who ordered a round of pints of Scotch.
We stood there supping, and looking around saw that everyone else in the pub was male, moustached and wearing leather. My Geordie friend supped very quickly and suggested that we move on for the next pint...
I've never seen much of The Thick Of It. I happened upon it whilst channel-hopping, and after 20 seconds or so of the cast shouting ****, decided I could live without such razor-sharp wit.
A well crafted profanity laden insult can be very effective and an art form in itself. TTOI can be very good at that, although it also did overdo it (even if somewhat based on real life, I simply cannot believe people act that way as standard practice - such overt bullying even in a role which requires some bullying, is not effective unless one is also good at some subtler manipulations, which Tucker and co were not).
My biggest problem with it was in going for the biggest satirical digs it could take at all targets, absolutely no-one was likable and apart from Malcolm Tucker no-one even had any admirable qualities (eg Intelligence), so I had no investment in anything happening to them, so the satire had less bite for me. Investment even in an antagonist would make the points made much more effective, but they were all pathetic people, which maybe is a point in itself, but was pretty uninteresting.
However, the penultimate episode of TTOI, which is essentially a bottle episode giving the highlights reel of a public inquiry, and where no-one is spewing expletives like punctuation as a result, is I would say legitimately great, and so good as to almost be effective even without knowing the characters or backstory from the rest of the series.
On topic: I had a look at the seats Ashcroft has just polled (Con-Lab marginals). Half of them did not have a Green candidate last time, so maybe not a surprise that the Did Not Vote is so high.
Also, according to the wikipedia entries for these seats, not a single one has a Green PPC so far. Of course wikipedia might be a bit behind the curve.
I've never seen much of The Thick Of It. I happened upon it whilst channel-hopping, and after 20 seconds or so of the cast shouting ****, decided I could live without such razor-sharp wit.
A well crafted profanity laden insult can be very effective and an art form in itself. TTOI can be very good at that, although it also did overdo it. My biggest problem with it was in going for the biggest satirical digs it could take at all targets, no-one was likable and apart from Malcolm Tucker no-one even had any admirable qualities (eg Intelligence), so I had no investment in anything happening to them, so the satire had less bite for me. Investment even in an antagonist would make the points made much more effective.
However, the penultimate episode of TTOI, which is essentially a bottle episode giving the highlights reel of a public inquiry, and where no-one is spewing expletives like punctuation as a result, is I would say legitimately great, and so good as to almost be effective even without knowing the characters or backstory from the rest of the series.
On topic: I had a look at the seats Ashcroft has just polled (Con-Lab marginals). Half of them did not have a Green candidate last time, so maybe not a surprise that the Did Not Vote is so high.
Also, according to the wikipedia entries for these seats, not a single one has a Green PPC so far. Of course wikipedia might be a bit behind the curve.
I've never seen much of The Thick Of It. I happened upon it whilst channel-hopping, and after 20 seconds or so of the cast shouting ****, decided I could live without such razor-sharp wit.
A well crafted profanity laden insult can be very effective and an art form in itself. TTOI can be very good at that, although it also did overdo it. My biggest problem with it was in going for the biggest satirical digs it could take at all targets, no-one was likable and apart from Malcolm Tucker no-one even had any admirable qualities (eg Intelligence), so I had no investment in anything happening to them, so the satire had less bite for me. Investment even in an antagonist would make the points made much more effective.
However, the penultimate episode of TTOI, which is essentially a bottle episode giving the highlights reel of a public inquiry, and where no-one is spewing expletives like punctuation as a result, is I would say legitimately great, and so good as to almost be effective even without knowing the characters or backstory from the rest of the series.
Agreed. Watched the first season, and I like slow paced dramas, but I never got the appeal of these supposedly 'amazing' characters. If not likeable people need to be interesting in some way, and in Mad Men (season 1 anyway, not seen the rest) even the interesting bits of them were played in a way that made it all seen dull.
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
Re W/Cdr Gibson's dog and its name - I'm uneasy about reading too much into it. Meanings change and the dog's name now has meanings and overtones which it did not have then and which would jar. The deletion is easy and sensible on a simple practical basis if only because the thing would detract from the main theme of the film, which was the crews' bravery against hideous odds at very short notice, and Dr Wallis's ingenuity (and it's not as if the film is about a RAF officer's views on Empire). One doesn't have to be a PC enthusiast to take such a common sense line. To argue the opposite risks being construed as deliberate tub-thumping which pretends that the dog's name central to the entire film when on any sane basis it isn't, and which is arguably deeply disrespectful to the crews.
On the same basis, the BBC wouldn't broadcast those old Public Info films for their original purpose today (except in a specifically historical context) - though Harry Enfield and colleagues have probably done more than enough for people not to take them too seriously even sight unseen.
Incidentally, there's a nice take on the context-sensitivity of the original term in the Jackie Chan film where he goes to LA. He overhears a local using it to a fellow local, and tries it out ...
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
Has the dog gone completely in the remake? Since it neither designed the bomb nor flew the planes, it could easily be omitted (although the code word would need to be changed, of course). It is not as if the Captain's goldfish played an important role in The Cruel Sea.
Has any other film had such an odd structure as Dambusters, which is almost like two unrelated documentaries shown back to back? It would be like tacking The First of the Few onto the front of Battle of Britain.
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was becaurosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
Re W/Cdr Gibson's dog and its name - I'm uneasy about reading too much into it. Meanings change and the dog's name now has meanings and overtones which it did not have then and which would jar. The deletion is easy and sensible on a simple practical basis if only because the thing would detract from the main theme of the film, which was the crews' bravery against hideous odds at very short notice, and Dr Wallis's ingenuity (and it's not as if the film is about a RAF officer's views on Empire). One doesn't have to be a PC enthusiast to take such a common sense line. To argue the opposite risks being construed as deliberate tub-thumping which pretends that the dog's name central to the entire film when on any sane basis it isn't, and which is arguably deeply disrespectful to the crews.
On the same basis, the BBC wouldn't broadcast those old Public Info films for their original purpose today (except in a specifically historical context) - though Harry Enfield and colleagues have probably done more than enough for people not to take them too seriously even sight unseen.
Incidentally, there's a nice take on the context-sensitivity of the original term in the Jackie Chan film where he goes to LA. He overhears a local using it to a fellow local, and tries it out ...
The other bit that has gone from the original film are the scenes of drowning factory workers in the Ruhr as the dams burst.
The original was less mealy mouthed about what bombing dams really meant.
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
Has the dog gone completely in the remake? Since it neither designed the bomb nor flew the planes, it could easily be omitted (although the code word would need to be changed, of course). It is not as if the Captain's goldfish played an important role in The Cruel Sea.
Has any other film had such an odd structure as Dambusters, which is almost like two unrelated documentaries shown back to back? It would be like tacking The First of the Few onto the front of Battle of Britain.
Its important insamuch that one is always seriously pissed off with a film that bears little or no relation to the book, or like the Americans rewriting history about the capture of Enigma.
Its a nonsense and a re-wrining of history. Once you start where does it all end?
I haven't watched the US film about Enigma on primciple, nor will I ever watch a BBC rewrite of any film (or re-edit)
In Live and let Die the BBC remove the frames where the US agent is stabbed whilst he is standing by the lamppost
We live in a sanitised world. Its ok to report about all the stabbings and knife crime in real life (CF the stabbings in Australia) but not in a film.. Utterly ridiculous
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
Has the dog gone completely in the remake? Since it neither designed the bomb nor flew the planes, it could easily be omitted (although the code word would need to be changed, of course). It is not as if the Captain's goldfish played an important role in The Cruel Sea.
Has any other film had such an odd structure as Dambusters, which is almost like two unrelated documentaries shown back to back? It would be like tacking The First of the Few onto the front of Battle of Britain.
Its important insamuch that one is always seriously pissed off with a film that bears little or no relation to the book, or like the Americans rewriting history about the capture of Enigma.
Its a nonsense and a re-wrining of history. Once you start where does it all end?
I haven't watched the US film about Enigma on primciple, nor will I ever watch a BBC rewrite of any film (or re-edit)
In Live and let Die the BBC remove the frames where the US agent is stabbed whilst he is standing by the lamppost
We live in a sanitised world. Its ok to report about all the stabbings and knife crime in real life (CF the stabbings in Australia) but not in a film.. Utterly ridiculous
Now that sort of nonsense over Enigma is indeed out of order, I entirely agree.
F1: Force India's technical director reckons the team may be able to battle with Williams in 2015 due to engine and aero improvements.
Two things to note: same engine as Williams, but I believe that Williams had the Mercedes team-style set-up of the engine, whereas Force India had the orthodox, less efficient, version. So there is room for relative improvement despite using the same engine.
Force India hit an aerodynamic dead end in mid-season development this year. Doesn't mean they will next year, but it's worth recalling that Ferrari has suffered year after year of aerodynamic mistakes, so Force India could go down a cul-de-sac again.
Another element is that for last season Williams were using Petronas fuels and lubricants which were identical to Mercedes, next season they are moving to their primary sponsor, Petrobras, and they will be developing fuel and lubricant from zero without any information from Petronas. I think it was estimated that fuel can add up to 60 horses worth of power to a car. Williams losing that and FI packaging the engine better could easily bring the two closer together.
As I see it, McLaren are in the best position to challenge Mercedes, then RB and then possibly a group of Williams, FI and Ferrari. Sauber are going nowhere fast and Caterham probably won't make it to the start line. I also don't see any new teams coming in this year either or next year for that matter. F1 is too expensive to run a proper business model and with viewer figures down severely over the last five years I don't see sponsorship income increasing any time soon.
The wikipedia entry on The Dambusters also notes that Pink Floyd's The Wall had several scenes where the TV in the background was showing the film. Some fans argue it was to show the opposite of what the character was trying to achieve i.e. breaking down a wall rather than building one.
It's a long time since I've watched the film, but I have a vague feeling that dog in question features in the film clip.
That's a very sharp observation of it. I hated Mad Men because I simply didn't give a toss about the characters - they were all awful bar Joan.
Agreed. Watched the first season, and I like slow paced dramas, but I never got the appeal of these supposedly 'amazing' characters. If not likeable people need to be interesting in some way, and in Mad Men (season 1 anyway, not seen the rest) even the interesting bits of them were played in a way that made it all seen dull.
Yes, Dallas and Dynasty (before your time, most of you) handled it differently - Dallas had an anti-hero, engaging and awful, and half the time he'd come out on top, so there was genuine uncertainty in it. Dynasty had nicer people, battling with wicked schemers, so there was less uncertainty but in some ways it made pleasanter viewing. Some people saw it as all about obscene riches - not sure it was meant to be in the US context: successful people yes, but not really about filthy riches.
It could be that some of their support comes from the likes of Respect too as 'others' are lumped in with 'don't knows.' What is clear though is that the main switchers to Green are 2010 LDs who voted LD when they were seen as left of Labour but have now discovered the Greens are the true left of Labour party, that has also hit Miliband's hopes of winning all those lefty LD defectors OGH was saying were so important to him
That's always been priced in - Labour has been getting 30%ish of LibDems who have decided what they want to vote next time, but there is still a big chunk of don't knows, who might revert or more probably just scatter. The rise of the Greens hasn't eaten into the Labour share noticeably - what the Greens are doing is taking some of the ex-LDs who weren't sure what to do because they were disappointed with Clegg but still didn't like Labour.
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
Has the dog gone completely in the remake? Since it neither designed the bomb nor flew the planes, it could easily be omitted (although the code word would need to be changed, of course). It is not as if the Captain's goldfish played an important role in The Cruel Sea.
Has any other film had such an odd structure as Dambusters, which is almost like two unrelated documentaries shown back to back? It would be like tacking The First of the Few onto the front of Battle of Britain.
They're calling it Digger I believe.
A few thoughts.
The film remake in some aspects will be more historically accurate than the original book, since things that were classified then are de-classified.
When the original film was done, the dog's name wasn't intended to be jarring or particularly noteworthy to the audience. Times have changed etc, and it now is.
So you have the choice of changing the dog's name so it adheres to the spirit and intent of the original, or you keep the name but go away from the spirit and intent. I'd say changing the name is probably more accurate to the original film as it was meant for audiences.
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
Has the dog gone completely in the remake? Since it neither designed the bomb nor flew the planes, it could easily be omitted (although the code word would need to be changed, of course). It is not as if the Captain's goldfish played an important role in The Cruel Sea.
Has any other film had such an odd structure as Dambusters, which is almost like two unrelated documentaries shown back to back? It would be like tacking The First of the Few onto the front of Battle of Britain.
They're calling it Digger I believe.
A few thoughts.
The film remake in some aspects will be more historically accurate than the original book, since things that were classified then are de-classified.
When the original film was done, the dog's name wasn't intended to be jarring or particularly noteworthy to the audience. Times have changed etc, and it now is.
So you have the choice of changing the dog's name so it adheres to the spirit and intent of the original, or you keep the name but go away from the spirit and intent. I'd say changing the name is probably more accurate to the original film as it was meant for audiences.
But its not just about whether to adhere to the original film. The dog really existed and that was its name. Also, according to wikipedia, the dog's name was used as a code word to be Morse coded back to UK to say the dam had been breached. So its not quite as minor as it would appear at first.
That's a very sharp observation of it. I hated Mad Men because I simply didn't give a toss about the characters - they were all awful bar Joan.
Agreed. Watched the first season, and I like slow paced dramas, but I never got the appeal of these supposedly 'amazing' characters. If not likeable people need to be interesting in some way, and in Mad Men (season 1 anyway, not seen the rest) even the interesting bits of them were played in a way that made it all seen dull.
Yes, Dallas and Dynasty (before your time, most of you) handled it differently - Dallas had an anti-hero, engaging and awful, and half the time he'd come out on top, so there was genuine uncertainty in it. Dynasty had nicer people, battling with wicked schemers, so there was less uncertainty but in some ways it made pleasanter viewing. Some people saw it as all about obscene riches - not sure it was meant to be in the US context: successful people yes, but not really about filthy riches.
It could be that some of their support comes from the likes of Respect too as 'others' are lumped in with 'don't knows.' What is clear though is that the main switchers to Green are 2010 LDs who voted LD when they were seen as left of Labour but have now discovered the Greens are the true left of Labour party, that has also hit Miliband's hopes of winning all those lefty LD defectors OGH was saying were so important to him
That's always been priced in - Labour has been getting 30%ish of LibDems who have decided what they want to vote next time, but there is still a big chunk of don't knows, who might revert or more probably just scatter. The rise of the Greens hasn't eaten into the Labour share noticeably - what the Greens are doing is taking some of the ex-LDs who weren't sure what to do because they were disappointed with Clegg but still didn't like Labour.
And first time voters. If you look at Ashcroft's latest polls, the Green vote in 18-24 bracket is double or more than any other age group.
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over. Incidentally, the Frogs often refer to the English as "les rosbifs" .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
Has the dog gone completely in the remake? Since it neither designed the bomb nor flew the planes, it could easily be omitted (although the code word would need to be changed, of course). It is not as if the Captain's goldfish played an important role in The Cruel Sea.
Has any other film had such an odd structure as Dambusters, which is almost like two unrelated documentaries shown back to back? It would be like tacking The First of the Few onto the front of Battle of Britain.
Its important insamuch that one is always seriously pissed off with a film that bears little or no relation to the book, or like the Americans rewriting history about the capture of Enigma.
I haven't watched the US film about Enigma on primciple,
History is written by the winners and we all know the USA won the war.
Ukip would not enter a formal coalition after 2015, top party aides have said. The Financial Times reports that the eurosceptic party would be more likely to enter a supply and confidence arrangement if it held the balance of power, and then only in the event it was granted an EU referendum. One aide told the paper: “A coalition is out of the question. You only have to look at what has happened to the poor Liberal Democrats during this parliament to figure out why.”
UKIP have never said anything different.
Why the FT should think that this is news is beyond me, unless they are just filling space in the paper.
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
Has the dog gone completely in the remake? Since it neither designed the bomb nor flew the planes, it could easily be omitted (although the code word would need to be changed, of course). It is not as if the Captain's goldfish played an important role in The Cruel Sea.
Has any other film had such an odd structure as Dambusters, which is almost like two unrelated documentaries shown back to back? It would be like tacking The First of the Few onto the front of Battle of Britain.
They're calling it Digger I believe.
A few thoughts.
The film remake in some aspects will be more historically accurate than the original book, since things that were classified then are de-classified.
When the original film was done, the dog's name wasn't intended to be jarring or particularly noteworthy to the audience. Times have changed etc, and it now is.
So you have the choice of changing the dog's name so it adheres to the spirit and intent of the original, or you keep the name but go away from the spirit and intent. I'd say changing the name is probably more accurate to the original film as it was meant for audiences.
But its not just about whether to adhere to the original film. The dog really existed and that was its name. Also, according to wikipedia, the dog's name was used as a code word to be Morse coded back to UK to say the dam had been breached. So its not quite as minor as it would appear at first.
If you want the historical accuracy angle then firstly I'd be there's other more major changes made in all the adaptations.
Secondly, how much were the events the films is showing at all affected by the name of the dog.
Personally, as an audience sample of one. I'd find them using the original name a jarring distraction each time it was used, because it's one of those words that has automatic power to it.
That's certainly taking a walk down memory lane and the prices of electronics were horrendously expensive compared to wages then. According to the website "measuring worth" inflation has increased 10 fold since 1973. Yikes!
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over."
The dog is called nigger because of being nigger brown, its colour. The word nigger originates as a colour descriptor and is only perjorative through use in the USA to describe people with black skin, not its use as the colour of dogs.
So used in context as a dogs name because of its colour, why should it be changed?
The only reason would be because some ignorant people can't distinguish the context. Is the way of the world to be determine by the ignorant?
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over."
The dog is called nigger because of being nigger brown, its colour. The word nigger originates as a colour descriptor and is only perjorative through use in the USA to describe people with black skin, not its use as the colour of dogs.
So used in context as a dogs name because of its colour, why should it be changed?
The only reason would be because some ignorant people can't distinguish the context. Is the way of the world to be determine by the ignorant?
I believe the use isn't purely American.
The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.
In my view the ex Lib Dems who have switched to Green did so because they hated the Conservatives more than they loved the Lib Dems and could not tolerate the Lib Dems going into coalition with the Conservatives.
However, when it comes to voting, these Conservative hating ex-Lib Dems will surely vote for the party which is most likely to keep out the Conservatives ie Labour or Lib Dem not Green?
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
I dont have a particular problem with the dog being given a different name in the remake, but I object to it being edited out of the original. One of the great things about old films is they give an insight into the social mores of the time it was made. There were some fascinating films made about the slums of London around the time of the war, which were remarkable for entirely featuring children from middle class London stage schools, they were supposed to be documentary, or atleast a public information films, but the plummy RP voices of the well educated children rather gave the game away when the kids in question would have sounded uneducated in vocabulary and cockney in accent. Doing that now would cause a huge fuss.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
And yet people watch films like The Wolf of Wall Street, which averages over 3 uses of the work f**k per minute for the whole tedious three hours. In the time Dambusters was made using that word even once would have had the film closed down if not the studio.
Personally "The Wolf of Wall Street" fails on two accounts, its unpardonably profane for no real reason, but in some ways, more importantly, it's cr@p!
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
... .
It was worse than that, its was because the dog was so called by a white male heterosexual war hero with a Victoria Cross. The BBC are completely happy for various rappers to use the same term in their lyrics at every opportunity.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
Has the dog gone completely in the remake? Since it neither designed the bomb nor flew the planes, it could easily be omitted (although the code word would need to be changed, of course). It is not as if the Captain's goldfish played an important role in The Cruel Sea.
Has any other film had such an odd structure as Dambusters, which is almost like two unrelated documentaries shown back to back? It would be like tacking The First of the Few onto the front of Battle of Britain.
Its important insamuch that one is always seriously pissed off with a film that bears little or no relation to the book, or like the Americans rewriting history about the capture of Enigma.
Its a nonsense and a re-wrining of history. Once you start where does it all end?
I haven't watched the US film about Enigma on primciple, nor will I ever watch a BBC rewrite of any film (or re-edit)
In Live and let Die the BBC remove the frames where the US agent is stabbed whilst he is standing by the lamppost
We live in a sanitised world. Its ok to report about all the stabbings and knife crime in real life (CF the stabbings in Australia) but not in a film.. Utterly ridiculous
Now that sort of nonsense over Enigma is indeed out of order, I entirely agree.
On the other hand the Americans did capture in reality a U Boat with an Enigma. They also broke the Japanese purple code and won the battle of Midway thanks to it. The Americans were not stupid. The film is an adventure, a bit of a silly adventure, with the Enigma as the McGuffin.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over."
The dog is called nigger because of being nigger brown, its colour. The word nigger originates as a colour descriptor and is only perjorative through use in the USA to describe people with black skin, not its use as the colour of dogs.
So used in context as a dogs name because of its colour, why should it be changed?
The only reason would be because some ignorant people can't distinguish the context. Is the way of the world to be determine by the ignorant?
Gibson's lab was black, not brown (nigger or otherwise).
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
On the other hand the Americans did capture in reality a U Boat with an Enigma. They also broke the Japanese purple code and won the battle of Midway thanks to it. The Americans were not stupid. The film is an adventure, a bit of a silly adventure, with the Enigma as the McGuffin.
Enigma wasnt too bad. It was U-571 that was inexcusable
"The film's depiction of American heroics in capturing an Enigma machine angered Britons. The Allies captured Enigma-related codebooks and machines about 15 times during World War II. All but two of these actions were by British forces. The Royal Canadian Navy captured U-774 and the U.S. Navy seized U-505 in June 1944. By this time the Allies were already routinely decoding German naval Enigma traffic."
I dont have a particular problem with the dog being given a different name in the remake, but I object to it being edited out of the original. One of the great things about old films is they give an insight into the social mores of the time it was made. There were some fascinating films made about the slums of London around the time of the war, which were remarkable for entirely featuring children from middle class London stage schools, they were supposed to be documentary, or atleast a public information films, but the plummy RP voices of the well educated children rather gave the game away when the kids in question would have sounded uneducated in vocabulary and cockney in accent. Doing that now would cause a huge fuss.
Yes I agree.. a remake changing the name is fair enough, but editing history Is not a good idea IMO
Lancashire Telegraph journalist Tyrone Marshall: Arrived at White Hart Lane. Christmas dinner for the pre-match meal, but pigs in blankets have been crucially overlooked.
Mr. Max, thanks for that interesting post, I had no idea about the change you detail.
Makes me feel a bit more confident about my bets on Hamilton to beat the wins in a season and record and Mercedes to perhaps sweep the board.
I'm not sure about McLaren, though. I'd be surprised if the Honda's as good as the Mercedes, and the McLaren cars have been a bit ropey for the last few years. Good driver lineup, but if Williams do struggle to keep pace then I'd put Red Bull as a more serious competitor for Mercedes.
That said, I still think the Silver Arrows will dominate next year.
Mr. Evershed, a historical note is that Septimius Severus defeated two rivals to claim the empire - those rivals being Niger and Albinus [a rather nice pair of names].
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur in the context though is it?
Cant you take context into account when things happen? That seems to be the main problem with political correctness
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
And yet people watch films like The Wolf of Wall Street, which averages over 3 uses of the work f**k per minute for the whole tedious three hours. In the time Dambusters was made using that word even once would have had the film closed down if not the studio.
Personally "The Wolf of Wall Street" fails on two accounts, its unpardonably profane for no real reason, but in some ways, more importantly, it's cr@p!
Yes, people do because the word there is deliberately used by the makers in service of the film.
And people watch films that have slurs in them. It's not "never use a bad word" it's "the dog's name distracts from what the film is about".
I can't help thinking that Kerry Smiths downfall was nothing to do with the Chinks remark but because he also dared to offend a tiny and intolerant minority that has undertaken a march through the institutions that would make Gramasci blush.
... .
.
Well, firstly afaik the BBC had nothing to do with the decision.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
who did then..
Some combination of Stephen Fry (the writer) and the production company, on the grounds that it'd damage the film's chances of commercial success in the USA.
Has the dog gone completely in the remake? Since it neither designed the bomb nor flew the planes, it could easily be omitted (although the code word would need to be changed, of course). It is not as if the Captain's goldfish played an important role in The Cruel Sea.
Has any other film had such an odd structure as Dambusters, which is almost like two unrelated documentaries shown back to back? It would be like tacking The First of the Few onto the front of Battle of Britain.
Its important insamuch that one is always seriously pissed off with a film that bears little or no relation to the book, or like the Americans rewriting history about the capture of Enigma.
Its a nonsense and a re-wrining of history. Once you start where does it all end?
I haven't watched the US film about Enigma on primciple, nor will I ever watch a BBC rewrite of any film (or re-edit)
In Live and let Die the BBC remove the frames where the US agent is stabbed whilst he is standing by the lamppost
We live in a sanitised world. Its ok to report about all the stabbings and knife crime in real life (CF the stabbings in Australia) but not in a film.. Utterly ridiculous
Now that sort of nonsense over Enigma is indeed out of order, I entirely agree.
On the other hand the Americans did capture in reality a U Boat with an Enigma. They also broke the Japanese purple code and won the battle of Midway thanks to it. The Americans were not stupid. The film is an adventure, a bit of a silly adventure, with the Enigma as the McGuffin.
Saying that "The Americans were not stupid" is surely stereotyping them and therefore a racist comment which should be censored?
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over."
The dog is called nigger because of being nigger brown, its colour. The word nigger originates as a colour descriptor and is only perjorative through use in the USA to describe people with black skin, not its use as the colour of dogs.
So used in context as a dogs name because of its colour, why should it be changed?
The only reason would be because some ignorant people can't distinguish the context. Is the way of the world to be determine by the ignorant?
I believe the use isn't purely American.
The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.
The dog was reportedly black not brown. The N word seems as i've always thought to have originated from the French or Spanish for Negro. Its always been perjorative though the use in the colour brown has probably arisen because ''as black inferiority was at one time a near universal assumption in English-speaking lands, the word in some cases could be used without deliberate insult.'' http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nigger
I would like to think that because there has been ignorance and contempt in the past would not excuse the repeat of it today.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
No, for anyone who's grown up with that word being severely offensive. It's not a word you hear, think about, then react to. The initial reaction is automatic.
those who seek to find something offensive will do so. the reaction will be automatic. You have been programmed in political correctness. A career in the Civil Service or Human Remains (HR) awaits you.
It seems more like you're the one seeking to find it offensive that I find racial slurs jarring.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
The dogs name in Dambusters isn't a racial slur
What?
It isn't meant as a racial slur, and only can be taken as one if you ignore the context.
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
I find it distracting. I hear the word, the first association is with how that word is commonly used.
Comments
PS: even better that you have good taste. I was given a nice bottle of Glen Farcas last week, 1991 Family cask, beautiful.
"Mr. Roger, what if it's atrocious weather or he's going on muddy fields and is wearing wellingtons?"
I was thinking more Soho than Skafell.
Well, I suppose that does prove your Scottish credentials
[Kind of you to say so].
Mr. Roger, it seems we dwell in distant realms.
It's the same with censoring Tom And Jerry because of the mammy character. Or Tin Tin in the Congo.
They are of their time.
So DNV is prob less than 25% of the Green total (Some Green voters would have voted for other "others" last time I suppose)
Mike always makes this point without making clear that the party he is talking abouts 2010 vote is included in DNV/Others
It was one of the most important programmes in my early life and who didn't want to be Sir Desmond Glazebrook! I'm a banker.
In Newcastle - Scotch is a type of beer.
Secondly by "completely happy" you mean "edit it out of their broadcasts"
Mr. Scrapheap, as mentioned below, it holds up as well today as (I imagine) it did upon first broadcast.
Edited extra bit: Miss Plato, I did not know that.
The worst case of such confusion was when I watched the first season of Heroes, and Horn-Rimmed Glasses told Claire [his adopted daughter] to 'get your tight little fanny down here'.
And I never put cross-ply and radial tyres on my car...
Yes Minister is wonderfully clever and smug.
Oh how the locals laughed! The mickey taking was beyond belief, but in good spirits.
(Is mickey taking permitted? It may be derogatory to our celtic cousins?)
'With all due respect' is a nice example.
Once the BBC decided that Guy Gibson's dog could not be mentioned because he was called "Nigger", That was the beginning of the end and the politically correct loons took over."
Some years ago I went to one of my locals 'The Admiral Duncan' on Old Compton St to find a man on the door who said " Sorry mate you can't come in. It's gays only". I asked him what he was talking about.....
He explained that to change it from a straight pub to a gay one they had to keep straights out for a month after which it would become a 'gay pub' and then anyone could come in.
It's the same with PC. It has to start like this until people learn what 'offensive' means and then they can relax
Hilarous. Just LOL brilliant.
Vaux stuff was horrible - we'd avoid their pubs.
Party Animals was a show that only lasted one season but I really liked at the time.
"It has to start like this until people learn what 'offensive' means and then they can relax."
Classic.
I bow to the master piss-taker.
*perplexed face*
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/jun/11/itv.broadcasting
The BBC on the other hand just avoided showing the film altogether.
I feel a bit sorry for effeminate men who are straight - they must get so many remarks that make no sense. I've had several straight guys working for me who were routinely assumed to be bent. And I had to correct others' assumptions.
One used to play it up just so he could take the piss later and embarrass someone. He was extremely funny.
Two things to note:
same engine as Williams, but I believe that Williams had the Mercedes team-style set-up of the engine, whereas Force India had the orthodox, less efficient, version. So there is room for relative improvement despite using the same engine.
Force India hit an aerodynamic dead end in mid-season development this year. Doesn't mean they will next year, but it's worth recalling that Ferrari has suffered year after year of aerodynamic mistakes, so Force India could go down a cul-de-sac again.
In the early eighties I shared a flat with a Geordie and some other lads. The Geordie was extolling how lovely a pint of Scotch was and found out there was a pub in Soho that sold it. We found the place and pushed our way through to the bar, him in front who ordered a round of pints of Scotch.
We stood there supping, and looking around saw that everyone else in the pub was male, moustached and wearing leather. My Geordie friend supped very quickly and suggested that we move on for the next pint...
My biggest problem with it was in going for the biggest satirical digs it could take at all targets, absolutely no-one was likable and apart from Malcolm Tucker no-one even had any admirable qualities (eg Intelligence), so I had no investment in anything happening to them, so the satire had less bite for me. Investment even in an antagonist would make the points made much more effective, but they were all pathetic people, which maybe is a point in itself, but was pretty uninteresting.
However, the penultimate episode of TTOI, which is essentially a bottle episode giving the highlights reel of a public inquiry, and where no-one is spewing expletives like punctuation as a result, is I would say legitimately great, and so good as to almost be effective even without knowing the characters or backstory from the rest of the series.
Also, according to the wikipedia entries for these seats, not a single one has a Green PPC so far. Of course wikipedia might be a bit behind the curve.
I just didn't care. If you can't invest in a character or two - a show simply isn't sticky enough.
"How did they know you weren't gay?"
Interesting question. My conversation with the doorman continued......
"But I'm meeting someone in here"
"Is he gay"
"I don't think so"
"well he won't have got in"
"But he looks gay"
"Do you wan't to go in and have a look?"
.....and there sitting in a corner was my Lebanese client not knowing anything had happened (until I dined out on it for the next six months)
Allan Draycott @allanholloway
20 December 1989: US forces invade Panama to overthrow dictatorship of Manuel Noreiga.
He looked gay too. Maybe he played for both teams and didn't tell me. It was an odd choice of venue back in the early 80s.
RT @Quaristice: The first EVER #Argos catalogue (1973) is online. Read it and weep. Just don't order anything. issuu.com/retromash/docs…
issuu.com/retromash/docs/argos-no01-1973-74
Some further comments here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dam_Busters_(film)
On the same basis, the BBC wouldn't broadcast those old Public Info films for their original purpose today (except in a specifically historical context) - though Harry Enfield and colleagues have probably done more than enough for people not to take them too seriously even sight unseen.
Incidentally, there's a nice take on the context-sensitivity of the original term in the Jackie Chan film where he goes to LA. He overhears a local using it to a fellow local, and tries it out ...
Has any other film had such an odd structure as Dambusters, which is almost like two unrelated documentaries shown back to back? It would be like tacking The First of the Few onto the front of Battle of Britain.
RT @Schmiffy12: ATTENTION PLEASE:
Today
5.25pm
5*USA
THE GREAT ESCAPE
#TomDickHarry
#GoodLuckRoger
The original was less mealy mouthed about what bombing dams really meant.
Its a nonsense and a re-wrining of history. Once you start where does it all end?
I haven't watched the US film about Enigma on primciple, nor will I ever watch a BBC rewrite of any film (or re-edit)
In Live and let Die the BBC remove the frames where the US agent is stabbed whilst he is standing by the lamppost
We live in a sanitised world. Its ok to report about all the stabbings and knife crime in real life (CF the stabbings in Australia) but not in a film..
Utterly ridiculous
The other bit that has gone from the original film are the scenes of drowning factory workers in the Ruhr as the dams burst.
The original was less mealy mouthed about what bombing dams really meant.
I didn't know that. I have an original unedited version on DVD.
As I see it, McLaren are in the best position to challenge Mercedes, then RB and then possibly a group of Williams, FI and Ferrari. Sauber are going nowhere fast and Caterham probably won't make it to the start line. I also don't see any new teams coming in this year either or next year for that matter. F1 is too expensive to run a proper business model and with viewer figures down severely over the last five years I don't see sponsorship income increasing any time soon.
It's a long time since I've watched the film, but I have a vague feeling that dog in question features in the film clip.
A few thoughts.
The film remake in some aspects will be more historically accurate than the original book, since things that were classified then are de-classified.
When the original film was done, the dog's name wasn't intended to be jarring or particularly noteworthy to the audience. Times have changed etc, and it now is.
So you have the choice of changing the dog's name so it adheres to the spirit and intent of the original, or you keep the name but go away from the spirit and intent. I'd say changing the name is probably more accurate to the original film as it was meant for audiences.
Ukip 'rules out formal coalition'
Ukip would not enter a formal coalition after 2015, top party aides have said. The Financial Times reports that the eurosceptic party would be more likely to enter a supply and confidence arrangement if it held the balance of power, and then only in the event it was granted an EU referendum. One aide told the paper: “A coalition is out of the question. You only have to look at what has happened to the poor Liberal Democrats during this parliament to figure out why.”
UKIP have never said anything different.
Why the FT should think that this is news is beyond me, unless they are just filling space in the paper.
Secondly, how much were the events the films is showing at all affected by the name of the dog.
Personally, as an audience sample of one. I'd find them using the original name a jarring distraction each time it was used, because it's one of those words that has automatic power to it.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4958/justice-in-turkey
So used in context as a dogs name because of its colour, why should it be changed?
The only reason would be because some ignorant people can't distinguish the context. Is the way of the world to be determine by the ignorant?
The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.
'The reason would be because it distracts from what the film's supposed to be about.'
Only for a few small-minded idiots.
However, when it comes to voting, these Conservative hating ex-Lib Dems will surely vote for the party which is most likely to keep out the Conservatives ie Labour or Lib Dem not Green?
..and I pulled a bloke on my 30th birthday in a non gay bar called Pangea!
#diversity
Personally "The Wolf of Wall Street" fails on two accounts, its unpardonably profane for no real reason, but in some ways, more importantly, it's cr@p!
They also broke the Japanese purple code and won the battle of Midway thanks to it.
The Americans were not stupid.
The film is an adventure, a bit of a silly adventure, with the Enigma as the McGuffin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-571_(film)
"The film's depiction of American heroics in capturing an Enigma machine angered Britons. The Allies captured Enigma-related codebooks and machines about 15 times during World War II. All but two of these actions were by British forces. The Royal Canadian Navy captured U-774 and the U.S. Navy seized U-505 in June 1944. By this time the Allies were already routinely decoding German naval Enigma traffic."
Lancashire Telegraph journalist Tyrone Marshall: Arrived at White Hart Lane. Christmas dinner for the pre-match meal, but pigs in blankets have been crucially overlooked.
Mr. Max, thanks for that interesting post, I had no idea about the change you detail.
Makes me feel a bit more confident about my bets on Hamilton to beat the wins in a season and record and Mercedes to perhaps sweep the board.
I'm not sure about McLaren, though. I'd be surprised if the Honda's as good as the Mercedes, and the McLaren cars have been a bit ropey for the last few years. Good driver lineup, but if Williams do struggle to keep pace then I'd put Red Bull as a more serious competitor for Mercedes.
That said, I still think the Silver Arrows will dominate next year.
People react to words as they've experienced them. If the acronym of something spells S.H.I.T. then even if it has nothing to do with the word, when spoken you'll cause a reaction.
If a minor character was named Jimmy Savile (or pick any other notable name), it'd be a distraction to the audience because even though you know it's a completely different person you have that mental association of that name with a particular person.
Cant you take context into account when things happen? That seems to be the main problem with political correctness
And people watch films that have slurs in them. It's not "never use a bad word" it's "the dog's name distracts from what the film is about".
Why would an intelligent person take offence at something when they know the context?
The N word seems as i've always thought to have originated from the French or Spanish for Negro. Its always been perjorative though the use in the colour brown has probably arisen because ''as black inferiority was at one time a near universal assumption in English-speaking lands, the word in some cases could be used without deliberate insult.''
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nigger
I would like to think that because there has been ignorance and contempt in the past would not excuse the repeat of it today.