Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
Watson does marry Mary in the books; Holmes complains about Watson deserting him for her. But AFAICR she was not mentioned much in the books afterwards, and she was written out. Doyle didn't even bother saying how she died.
Ed Balls is 100/1 to be next Labour Leader w the tote... someone is asking for £200@80 on Betfair
That's very reasonable if you think that (1) Corbyn will last until the next election, (2) Labour will lose that election, (3) Balls will compete for and win a seat in that election, (4) he will then stand in the ensuing leadership contest, and (5) that he'd win.
FWIW, I think that (2) follows (1) almost inevitably, and that (4) follows (2) and (3) almost as inevitably. So the questions are about whether Balls is interested in returning and whether Corbyn will last the distance. Lots of 'if's there but 100/1 is quite generous all the same
An inevitable consequence of the political decisions made in reaction to the 2008 financial crisis - to protect the the tory client vote at the expense of the young poor.
A generation fucked. And they know it.
The young would get hardest hit from most governments in a time of recession.
If we'd had 3m unemployed, you know who it would be.
The young *in the UK* have jobs (if they want them) but they don't have as much spare cash as they might have had 10-20 years ago and there are probably, now, slightly fewer avenues to career success, if defined in terms of well-remunerated employment.
But they probably have more choices than 40-50 years ago, purely because of the changes in gender participation in the workforce, and labour market reform.
But they haven't a hope of owning their own home. That immediately changes their relationship with the State. Should it? No of course not, and it doesn't in many other countries, but in the UK it does.
Correct.
I think this is a problem for Conservatives like us, unless they all inherit homes from their parents pronto, because down the line they will be voting for rent controls and heavy taxes on the upper middle classes, and, ultimately, rather Left-wing governments, if we can't demonstrate now that they have a chance of sharing a piece of the pie.
Agree but what government will brave a correction of house prices on the one hand, and be bold enough to follow through on the perennial "200,000 homes per year" promises on the other? It has to come from housebuilding, and I think the various neighbourhood plans which give communities an interest in local development are a great idea (no idea whose it was).
James Delingpole is terrible, but then most people associated with Breitbart are.
RE Meryl Streep's speech: It's odd that the same people who hate political correctness are the same people who want to police whether or not Hollywood celebrities use their platform to speak out on things which matter to them. At the end of the day, there are many groups in American society who are worried about what the next four years will bring under Trump, but do not have the platform/visibility to have their voice heard. Meryl Streep speaks for those people, and I'm glad she did what she did. If some right-wing celeb came out and used their platform for Trump, I'd disagree with what they were saying, but I'd never call into question their right to say what they believe in.
I think the question is not so much whether it should be illegal as whether it should be improper. Where are the limits? "I'd like to thank my sponsors, [insert advert here]?"
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
James Delingpole is terrible, but then most people associated with Breitbart are.
RE Meryl Streep's speech: It's odd that the same people who hate political correctness are the same people who want to police whether or not Hollywood celebrities use their platform to speak out on things which matter to them. At the end of the day, there are many groups in American society who are worried about what the next four years will bring under Trump, but do not have the platform/visibility to have their voice heard. Meryl Streep speaks for those people, and I'm glad she did what she did. If some right-wing celeb came out and used their platform for Trump, I'd disagree with what they were saying, but I'd never call into question their right to say what they believe in.
I think the problem was mis-using the awards ceremony for that purpose.
I don't see what's wrong with using an Awards ceremony to express your political views. It's a high-profile event, you'll get more attention for your message that way. This isn't the first time I recall someone expressing their political views at an Awards ceremony either.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
Ed Balls is 100/1 to be next Labour Leader w the tote... someone is asking for £200@80 on Betfair
That's very reasonable if you think that (1) Corbyn will last until the next election, (2) Labour will lose that election, (3) Balls will compete for and win a seat in that election, (4) he will then stand in the ensuing leadership contest, and (5) that he'd win.
FWIW, I think that (2) follows (1) almost inevitably, and that (4) follows (2) and (3) almost as inevitably. So the questions are about whether Balls is interested in returning and whether Corbyn will last the distance. Lots of 'if's there but 100/1 is quite generous all the same
Especially as you can lay half back at 79/1 and effectively get about 125/1
I backed him at 185/1 for £20, forgot I'd had that til i just looked
James Delingpole is terrible, but then most people associated with Breitbart are.
RE Meryl Streep's speech: It's odd that the same people who hate political correctness are the same people who want to police whether or not Hollywood celebrities use their platform to speak out on things which matter to them. At the end of the day, there are many groups in American society who are worried about what the next four years will bring under Trump, but do not have the platform/visibility to have their voice heard. Meryl Streep speaks for those people, and I'm glad she did what she did. If some right-wing celeb came out and used their platform for Trump, I'd disagree with what they were saying, but I'd never call into question their right to say what they believe in.
So why didn't she do this the many months ago when Trump actually made his comments mocking the disabled journalist, prior to the general election? And why didn't she say something (if she must say something political at all) more gracious to Trump now about hoping he governs for all Americans following his inauguration next week?
It smacks of self-indulgent grandstanding and - as those in the Arts far too often do - hectoring their audience in the expectation they'll be cheered along, because they assume that everyone agrees with them.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
James Delingpole is terrible, but then most people associated with Breitbart are.
RE Meryl Streep's speech: It's odd that the same people who hate political correctness are the same people who want to police whether or not Hollywood celebrities use their platform to speak out on things which matter to them. At the end of the day, there are many groups in American society who are worried about what the next four years will bring under Trump, but do not have the platform/visibility to have their voice heard. Meryl Streep speaks for those people, and I'm glad she did what she did. If some right-wing celeb came out and used their platform for Trump, I'd disagree with what they were saying, but I'd never call into question their right to say what they believe in.
I think the question is not so much whether it should be illegal as whether it should be improper. Where are the limits? "I'd like to thank my sponsors, [insert advert here]?"
Is thanking your sponsors/advertising really comparable to expressing your personal political views? Besides, in terms of celebs using a personal platform to advertise, Instagram is the place to be.
James Delingpole is terrible, but then most people associated with Breitbart are.
RE Meryl Streep's speech: It's odd that the same people who hate political correctness are the same people who want to police whether or not Hollywood celebrities use their platform to speak out on things which matter to them. At the end of the day, there are many groups in American society who are worried about what the next four years will bring under Trump, but do not have the platform/visibility to have their voice heard. Meryl Streep speaks for those people, and I'm glad she did what she did. If some right-wing celeb came out and used their platform for Trump, I'd disagree with what they were saying, but I'd never call into question their right to say what they believe in.
So why didn't she do this the many months ago when Trump actually made his comments mocking the disabled journalist, prior to the general election? And why didn't she say something (if she must say something political at all) more gracious to Trump now about hoping he governs for all Americans following his inauguration next week?
It smacks of self-indulgent grandstanding and - as those in the Arts far too often do - hectoring their audience in the expectation they'll be cheered along, because they assume that everyone agrees with them.
Why be gracious to someone who mocks the disabled?
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
The Spectator is often left to provide the platform to say the things that no other publication dare.
Charles Moore is often unreadable. And not in a good way.
I find him consistently excellent.
Delingpole I find a bit of a bore, and rather embarrassing to boot.
Charles Moore's columns are simply a distillation of that weeks Telegraph letters to the editor.
I think he writes convincingly, and often makes me think about things from new angles I hadn't considered.
Of course, he does write from the perspective of a lucid social conservative. But that should be what makes him interesting in-and-of itself, even if you don't agree with him.
Yes he is a good writer when not everyone is. But dished up week after week is a bit much for my tastes.
Can you think of a columnist who is ALWAYS good and on point? I can't. It's humanly impossible.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
The Spectator is often left to provide the platform to say the things that no other publication dare.
Charles Moore is often unreadable. And not in a good way.
I find him consistently excellent.
Delingpole I find a bit of a bore, and rather embarrassing to boot.
Charles Moore's columns are simply a distillation of that weeks Telegraph letters to the editor.
I think he writes convincingly, and often makes me think about things from new angles I hadn't considered.
Of course, he does write from the perspective of a lucid social conservative. But that should be what makes him interesting in-and-of itself, even if you don't agree with him.
Yes he is a good writer when not everyone is. But dished up week after week is a bit much for my tastes.
Can you think of a columnist who is ALWAYS good and on point? I can't. It's humanly impossible.
Agree. I can't remember, that said, when I read something off from Nick Cohen or Mark Steyn.
Cohen is ludicrous on Brexit. Even if you're a Remoaner, he's just nuts.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
Kill the child.
Welcome Herod.
Normal for a PB Tory :-)
wouldnt the Tory just eat the baby as they normally do ?
An inevitable consequence of the political decisions made in reaction to the 2008 financial crisis - to protect the the tory client vote at the expense of the young poor.
A generation fucked. And they know it.
The young would get hardest hit from most governments in a time of recession.
If we'd had 3m unemployed, you know who it would be.
The young *in the UK* have jobs (if they want them) but they don't have as much spare cash as they might have had 10-20 years ago and there are probably, now, slightly fewer avenues to career success, if defined in terms of well-remunerated employment.
But they probably have more choices than 40-50 years ago, purely because of the changes in gender participation in the workforce, and labour market reform.
But they haven't a hope of owning their own home. That immediately changes their relationship with the State. Should it? No of course not, and it doesn't in many other countries, but in the UK it does.
Correct.
I think this is a problem for Conservatives like us, unless they all inherit homes from their parents pronto, because down the line they will be voting for rent controls and heavy taxes on the upper middle classes, and, ultimately, rather Left-wing governments, if we can't demonstrate now that they have a chance of sharing a piece of the pie.
Agree but what government will brave a correction of house prices on the one hand, and be bold enough to follow through on the perennial "200,000 homes per year" promises on the other? It has to come from housebuilding, and I think the various neighbourhood plans which give communities an interest in local development are a great idea (no idea whose it was).
I don't think those numbers (probably need 250k per year) are achievable without mass state-sponsored housebuilding, be it directly or via heavy incentives and subsidies to private housebuilders. I don't think that'd lead to a slump in house prices, unless there was a major crash with a glut of unsold homes, but it would probably reduce or remove much of the rapid house price inflation.
I'm open minded given the political alternatives. But the Government would have to face down mass opposition in the Shires.
On the neighbourhood plans, and new villages/towns approach we currently have, 150k per year is probably sustainable for the next 15 years.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
Bringing two themes together, CumberFreeman are two of the worst celebs for spouting off on politics. If one of their Sherlock stories involved the IRA sneaking a codeword into Trump's inaugural, we'd have a full house.
James Delingpole is terrible, but then most people associated with Breitbart are.
RE Meryl Streep's speech: It's odd that the same people who hate political correctness are the same people who want to police whether or not Hollywood celebrities use their platform to speak out on things which matter to them. At the end of the day, there are many groups in American society who are worried about what the next four years will bring under Trump, but do not have the platform/visibility to have their voice heard. Meryl Streep speaks for those people, and I'm glad she did what she did. If some right-wing celeb came out and used their platform for Trump, I'd disagree with what they were saying, but I'd never call into question their right to say what they believe in.
I think the problem was mis-using the awards ceremony for that purpose.
I don't see what's wrong with using an Awards ceremony to express your political views. It's a high-profile event, you'll get more attention for your message that way. This isn't the first time I recall someone expressing their political views at an Awards ceremony either.
Repeating an offence doesn't make it all ok.
If the actor wants to make an announcement, they have plenty of ways to do that. Hijacking a ceremony because they feel entitled to do so, is not a pleasant way to do it.
Is this the first time ever that Martin McGuinness has given a two hour warning before something major happens?
I thought the IRA often gave warnings before they bombed, maybe my memory is playing up
Sometimes they'd give warnings even if there were no bombs, just for the LOLs. A factory my family know well had a couple of such warnings in the eighties. It caused absolute chaos.
BA used to get several bomb threats a day. None from PIRA or related Irish Republican groups.
Edit: the point being that there were plenty of hoaxers around making such threats and most if not all can be weeded out. I'm surprised at the action of that factory.
I was once running late into the night on negotiating a contract in Pakistan and at risk of missing my BA flight out of Islamabad. "Don't worry" I was told by the other side, "We can get a few hours delay by phoning in a bomb threat..."
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
Kill the child.
Have Moriarty kill the child.
Have the child be Moriarty who was then sent back in time.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
Watson did marry in the original stories, but she was never seen or heard from; and then it transpired that she had died.
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
Watson does marry Mary in the books; Holmes complains about Watson deserting him for her. But AFAICR she was not mentioned much in the books afterwards, and she was written out. Doyle didn't even bother saying how she died.
The books were about a bromance.
Fair enough; I didn't know that. I've seen most of the ITV adaptations and have read the long stories and had never seen reference to her before.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
Two different arguments I'm afraid.
Being young is genuinely difficult for most. Housing costs being the big change. Education a huge problem. Anxiety levels one of the bigger worries. Having spent much of my 20s reading this place, I'd say there is huge, huge sympathy on here for much of today's youth.
However, there is also very much less sympathy for the snowflakiness of some of today's youth - particularly regarding their interaction with politics, and especially when it verges on shouting down free speech. A sentiment I'd echo.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
Having dated a few Millennials this last year, I am much more cognisant of their struggles, and less dismissive of their complaints. It really IS a lot harder for them.
I was one of the last of the lucky generation: I got a full free student grant, with an extra travel allowance (and lived in Uni housing in London W1). When I graduated I loafed on the dole, squatted big empty Georgian houses in Bloomsbury. By the time I finally got a job it was a cushy number on Fleet Street - reviewing paperbacks for the Mail on Sunday. Took me three hours a week but paid me a decent weekly salary, enough to rent a shared townhouse in a nice crescent in Islington.
Then came lad magazines, which paid really well, and were great fun - "Go to Malaysia and write about pirates!"
ALL of that has gone.
The student grants have gone, now it's student debt The dole has shrivelled The big empty squattable houses in central London have disappeared; squatting itself is much harder Fleet Street freelancer barely exist, and are paid peanuts The lad magazines have died; journalism is dying....
My entire life, as was, is now out of reach and/or unfeasible for the young aspiring writer.
Aw fvck 'em, they just need to come up with good ideas....
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
Kill the child.
Which will probably happen (or else, it'll be adopted by some cousin or whatever), but it still changes the character bigly.
James Delingpole is terrible, but then most people associated with Breitbart are.
RE Meryl Streep's speech: It's odd that the same people who hate political correctness are the same people who want to police whether or not Hollywood celebrities use their platform to speak out on things which matter to them. At the end of the day, there are many groups in American society who are worried about what the next four years will bring under Trump, but do not have the platform/visibility to have their voice heard. Meryl Streep speaks for those people, and I'm glad she did what she did. If some right-wing celeb came out and used their platform for Trump, I'd disagree with what they were saying, but I'd never call into question their right to say what they believe in.
So why didn't she do this the many months ago when Trump actually made his comments mocking the disabled journalist, prior to the general election? And why didn't she say something (if she must say something political at all) more gracious to Trump now about hoping he governs for all Americans following his inauguration next week?
It smacks of self-indulgent grandstanding and - as those in the Arts far too often do - hectoring their audience in the expectation they'll be cheered along, because they assume that everyone agrees with them.
I don't know why Meryl Streep didn't speak out many months ago. She probably didn't think he'd win the election, so now his attitudes towards groups such as the disabled take on a greater importance than they did when he was a candidate. I don't know why she has to say something 'gracious' - Trump himself isn't even gracious to those who disagree with him, as his twitter demonstrates. Furthermore, given that Trump the president-elect has behaved in much the same vein as he did when he was a candidate, I think it's clear that he won't be governing for all Americans.
I don't agree that it smacks of 'self-indulgent grandstanding' and 'hectoring their audience' at all. She's merely using her platform to speak out on something she believes is important. Celebrities are still members of society who see what's going on and also have the right to have and express their views. I know this site hates the Arts because it has a lot of liberals in it, but it really isn't the end of the world. At the end of the day Conservatives are in government in most of the time and have generally shaped the political centre. Liberal celebs expressing their views won't change that.
James Delingpole is terrible, but then most people associated with Breitbart are.
RE Meryl Streep's speech: It's odd that the same people who hate political correctness are the same people who want to police whether or not Hollywood celebrities use their platform to speak out on things which matter to them. At the end of the day, there are many groups in American society who are worried about what the next four years will bring under Trump, but do not have the platform/visibility to have their voice heard. Meryl Streep speaks for those people, and I'm glad she did what she did. If some right-wing celeb came out and used their platform for Trump, I'd disagree with what they were saying, but I'd never call into question their right to say what they believe in.
So why didn't she do this the many months ago when Trump actually made his comments mocking the disabled journalist, prior to the general election? And why didn't she say something (if she must say something political at all) more gracious to Trump now about hoping he governs for all Americans following his inauguration next week?
It smacks of self-indulgent grandstanding and - as those in the Arts far too often do - hectoring their audience in the expectation they'll be cheered along, because they assume that everyone agrees with them.
Why be gracious to someone who mocks the disabled?
You miss the point: she's more interested in giving a message about herself, rather than a message to Trump and the voters.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
My daughter is 24. I've first hand experience of how hard it is to be young now.
At the risk of being accused of 'yesbuttery', I do think that being young is always difficult, in every generation. It's the nature of the problem that varies.
When one lacks experience, assets (and often, but not always) earning power, life is tough. I shall spare you any Four Yorkshireman anecdotes from my youth (or my fathers, or his and so on).
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
The tally of actors I can't watch with much enthusiasm, continues to grow apace. I wish they'd all pack it in.
Already given up on Sherlock.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
No, JUST NO.
Sherlock is awesome.
It isn't though. Watson is dull - Freeman is reduced to just wincing and gurning - and Sherlock himself is also getting tiresome. They've cut out swathes of the deliberations of visual evidence he used to do, in a very entertaining way, and it's now reduced to him issuing insults and put-downs for over an hour, whilst solving the case itself in a quickfire summary of three minutes right at the very end of the show.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Nick Cohen and James Delingpole both eviscerated Sherlock in the Spectator, very entertainingly
I gave up watching it ages ago. The first two or three were good, even great, but then came a dramatic decline.
The writers can't plot. That's all there is to it. Because plotting is HARD.
Aren't the plots just following Doyle's SH books? I remember high and mightily dismissing the thinness of one only to understand that it was a pretty close match to the original story.
The Six Thatchers is loosely based on The Six Napoleons (in which the hidden object *is* the Black Pearl of the Borgias).
But Watson doesn't get married. And nor should he ever have done so in the TV series. It has completely changed the dynamic. Having a baby is even worse. No matter what happens now, the relationship can never be restored to what it should be.
Kill the child.
Have Moriarty kill the child.
Have the child be Moriarty who was then sent back in time.
James Delingpole is terrible, but then most people associated with Breitbart are.
RE Meryl Streep's speech: It's odd that the same people who hate political correctness are the same people who want to police whether or not Hollywood celebrities use their platform to speak out on things which matter to them. At the end of the day, there are many groups in American society who are worried about what the next four years will bring under Trump, but do not have the platform/visibility to have their voice heard. Meryl Streep speaks for those people, and I'm glad she did what she did. If some right-wing celeb came out and used their platform for Trump, I'd disagree with what they were saying, but I'd never call into question their right to say what they believe in.
So why didn't she do this the many months ago when Trump actually made his comments mocking the disabled journalist, prior to the general election? And why didn't she say something (if she must say something political at all) more gracious to Trump now about hoping he governs for all Americans following his inauguration next week?
It smacks of self-indulgent grandstanding and - as those in the Arts far too often do - hectoring their audience in the expectation they'll be cheered along, because they assume that everyone agrees with them.
I don't know why Meryl Streep didn't speak out many months ago. She probably didn't think he'd win the election, so now his attitudes towards groups such as the disabled take on a greater importance than they did when he was a candidate. I don't know why she has to say something 'gracious' - Trump himself isn't even gracious to those who disagree with him, as his twitter demonstrates. Furthermore, given that Trump the president-elect has behaved in much the same vein as he did when he was a candidate, I think it's clear that he won't be governing for all Americans.
I don't agree that it smacks of 'self-indulgent grandstanding' and 'hectoring their audience' at all. She's merely using her platform to speak out on something she believes is important. Celebrities are still members of society who see what's going on and also have the right to have and express their views. I know this site hates the Arts because it has a lot of liberals in it, but it really isn't the end of the world. At the end of the day Conservatives are in government in most of the time and have generally shaped the political centre. Liberal celebs expressing their views won't change that.
I think we understand the views of the liberal-Left very well on this: it's all ok because agree with them.
Off topic, but just catching up with the Golden Globes news.
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
If Trump can mock the disabled in front of an adoring, cheering crowd; what's wrong with Streep using the platform she was given to call him out over it?
Firstly, I don't think Trump should be mocking the disabled. But he was running for political office.
It's not just Streep. Whenever many actors get up to receive an award *for their work in acting* they feel that what people really should be privileged to hear in gratitude is their political views, for which they expect to be applauded.
If you have a platform use it. Seems obvious to me. And if you are outraged that your future head of state openly mocks the disabled you should have every right to say so. If people do not agree they can switch off, turn over or fume.
So it's fine because you agree with what she's saying.
Fair enough, but I disagree: just because you are given a platform doesn't mean you should use it to say whatever you want, even if you can.
It's remarkably self-indulgent and pompous, and disrespectful to both the hosts and the audience. It ends with actors lecturing their (captive) paying audiences at the end of plays.
If they want to make a political statement, they can either go into politics, speak at a rally or convene a special political press conference to do so.
No, I believe in people's right to say what they like when they like and for others to judge them on that. I do agree with Streep that it was absolutely disgusting for Trump to mock a disabled man, but that is by the by.
Mr. T, not checked, but my understanding is that the average earnings for writers are declining. Obviously there are successful chaps such as yourself and the odd megastar (like JK Rowling) but mostly it's very difficult indeed.
It's an unusual place to be, psychologically, when your book sales are not quite where they might be (to be polite) but the reviews are mostly 5*...
James Delingpole is terrible, but then most people associated with Breitbart are.
RE Meryl Streep's speech: It's odd that the same people who hate political correctness are the same people who want to police whether or not Hollywood celebrities use their platform to speak out on things which matter to them. At the end of the day, there are many groups in American society who are worried about what the next four years will bring under Trump, but do not have the platform/visibility to have their voice heard. Meryl Streep speaks for those people, and I'm glad she did what she did. If some right-wing celeb came out and used their platform for Trump, I'd disagree with what they were saying, but I'd never call into question their right to say what they believe in.
So why didn't she do this the many months ago when Trump actually made his comments mocking the disabled journalist, prior to the general election? And why didn't she say something (if she must say something political at all) more gracious to Trump now about hoping he governs for all Americans following his inauguration next week?
It smacks of self-indulgent grandstanding and - as those in the Arts far too often do - hectoring their audience in the expectation they'll be cheered along, because they assume that everyone agrees with them.
I don't know why Meryl Streep didn't speak out many months ago. She probably didn't think he'd win the election, so now his attitudes towards groups such as the disabled take on a greater importance than they did when he was a candidate. I don't know why she has to say something 'gracious' - Trump himself isn't even gracious to those who disagree with him, as his twitter demonstrates. Furthermore, given that Trump the president-elect has behaved in much the same vein as he did when he was a candidate, I think it's clear that he won't be governing for all Americans.
I don't agree that it smacks of 'self-indulgent grandstanding' and 'hectoring their audience' at all. She's merely using her platform to speak out on something she believes is important. Celebrities are still members of society who see what's going on and also have the right to have and express their views. I know this site hates the Arts because it has a lot of liberals in it, but it really isn't the end of the world. At the end of the day Conservatives are in government in most of the time and have generally shaped the political centre. Liberal celebs expressing their views won't change that.
I think we understand the views of the liberal-Left very well on this: it's all ok because agree with them.
All other points can jog on.
I thought you also agreed that it was wrong for Trump to mock the disabled.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
My daughter is 24. I've first hand experience of how hard it is to be young now.
At the risk of being accused of 'yesbuttery', I do think that being young is always difficult, in every generation. It's the nature of the problem that varies.
When one lacks experience, assets (and often, but not always) earning power, life is tough. I shall spare you any Four Yorkshireman anecdotes from my youth (or my fathers, or his and so on).
Being young..
(1) Shit. You lack self-confidence, money, experience or respect, but want it all anyway on your own terms (and this can affect both your attitude and aggression). I basically hated myself until I was about 27-28 when I got comfortable in my own skin. (2) Not shit. You look fabulous and take for granted your freedom, independence and options until its too late. You eat and drink whatever, wherever, whenever, with virtually no consequences to it. And you feel pretty immortal and that the world could be your oyster, somehow, someday and there's no rush.
But, oh, the might-have-beens. I often look back and wince and regret missing opportunities I had (particularly with the.. ahem.. opposite gender) which are now closed to me for good!
Then again, I am calmer, and more seasoned now, and have money, even if I have put on weight I don't want, and have a couple of grating health issues.
So we can add awards ceremonies to jazz clubs as places where the politically fragile need safe spaces? Bless.
Meanwhile, elsewhere on the thread we see discussion about whether millennials are snowflakes.
Perhaps, rather, we can add Award Ceremonies to the places where celebrigoons can be discouraged from making arses of themselves by complaining 14 months after the fact and 2 months after it can make a practical difference :-) .
James Delingpole is terrible, but then most people associated with Breitbart are.
RE Meryl Streep's speech: It's odd that the same people who hate political correctness are the same people who want to police whether or not Hollywood celebrities use their platform to speak out on things which matter to them. At the end of the day, there are many groups in American society who are worried about what the next four years will bring under Trump, but do not have the platform/visibility to have their voice heard. Meryl Streep speaks for those people, and I'm glad she did what she did. If some right-wing celeb came out and used their platform for Trump, I'd disagree with what they were saying, but I'd never call into question their right to say what they believe in.
I don't agree that it smacks of 'self-indulgent grandstanding' and 'hectoring their audience' at all. She's merely using her platform to speak out on something she believes is important. Celebrities are still members of society who see what's going on and also have the right to have and express their views. I know this site hates the Arts because it has a lot of liberals in it, but it really isn't the end of the world. At the end of the day Conservatives are in government in most of the time and have generally shaped the political centre. Liberal celebs expressing their views won't change that.
I think we understand the views of the liberal-Left very well on this: it's all ok because agree with them.
All other points can jog on.
I thought you also agreed that it was wrong for Trump to mock the disabled.
If the actor wants to make an announcement, they have plenty of ways to do that. Hijacking a ceremony because they feel entitled to do so, is not a pleasant way to do it.
I don't agree it's an 'offence', nor that they are 'hijacking' the awards ceremony. Yes, there are plenty of ways for a celeb to express their view - but awards ceremony will obviously get their views the most attention.
@SeanT I shouldn't be surprised that dating millennials is the way you've managed to hear of the obstacles facing young people! But it was interesting to hear about your experience when you were young. Sounds pretty exciting!
@Mortimer I don't agree that this generation has a 'snowflakeness' when it comes to politics. As someone who graduated from uni this year, hardly anyone I knew seriously talked about safe spaces or triggering. Most on political issues - during seminars or outside of uni - were a genuine debate with a range of views expressed. I have Conservatives in my own family and I don't tell them that I need a safe space every time I disagree with them.
A few young people in the headlines don't represent us all. When you look at the Labour leadership election last year for example, Owen Smith actually won 18-24 group - which rather disproves the idea that every young person is the Corbyn supporting tumblr cliche.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
Two different arguments I'm afraid.
Being young is genuinely difficult for most. Housing costs being the big change. Education a huge problem. Anxiety levels one of the bigger worries. Having spent much of my 20s reading this place, I'd say there is huge, huge sympathy on here for much of today's youth.
However, there is also very much less sympathy for the snowflakiness of some of today's youth - particularly regarding their interaction with politics, and especially when it verges on shouting down free speech. A sentiment I'd echo.
Yes. True. I sympathise with Millennial housing issues and work anxiety, but fuck that safe space *triggering* no-platforming bullshit
Here's a thing tho, the generation after the Millennials, the kids in their mid-late teens, or very early 20s, are showing signs of rebelling against THAT. I met a girl the other day, she's 19, and she's a flinty libertarian Thatcherite, who laughs at the stupid Guardian lefties. She says she's far from alone.
So we can add awards ceremonies to jazz clubs as places where the politically fragile need safe spaces? Bless.
Meanwhile, elsewhere on the thread we see discussion about whether millennials are snowflakes.
Do you realise how pompous it seems to post on here pontificating on a discussion that been had on these threads in the third person?
If you disagree: directly engage with the argument.
I wasn't aware there was an argument being put. If you feel vulnerable if you hear uncongenial political views, I suggest you toughen up. If ever there was a case for untrammelled freedom of speech, it's when someone is being given an award and is given 30 seconds or so to express themselves in response.
I was the first in my family to go to University, the second to have a driving licence (my elder brother beat me) and the third to buy a house (damn those brothers). Now they all seem routine. What was unimaginable to my parents.
But then we'd never had it so good in the fifties.
So what went wrong?
It's not money or possessions, it's more a sense of adventure. The big wide world was yours to sample. And it was all new then.
'Anything can happen'. That was the motto. Now it seems almost a curse to this generation.
If the actor wants to make an announcement, they have plenty of ways to do that. Hijacking a ceremony because they feel entitled to do so, is not a pleasant way to do it.
I don't agree it's an 'offence', nor that they are 'hijacking' the awards ceremony. Yes, there are plenty of ways for a celeb to express their view - but awards ceremony will obviously get their views the most attention.
@SeanT I shouldn't be surprised that dating millennials is the way you've managed to hear of the obstacles facing young people! But it was interesting to hear about your experience when you were young. Sounds pretty exciting!
@Mortimer I don't agree that this generation has a 'snowflakeness' when it comes to politics. As someone who graduated from uni this year, hardly anyone I knew seriously talked about safe spaces or triggering. Most on political issues - during seminars or outside of uni - were a genuine debate with a range of views expressed. I have Conservatives in my own family and I don't tell them that I need a safe space every time I disagree with them.
A few young people in the headlines don't represent us all. When you look at the Labour leadership election last year for example, Owen Smith actually won 18-24 group - which rather disproves the idea that every young person is the Corbyn supporting tumblr cliche.
Hijack - seize [something] while in transit and force it to go to a different destination or use it for one's own purposes.
If Brexit was not implemented, it's more likely that Theresa May would be 22'ed and face a leadership challenge.
That's quite likely, but you're ignoring the prevailing political dynamics that will lead to its failure. As I've posted before, Brexit is the last hurrah of Euroscepticism. It is staring intellectual, political, and economic defeat in the face. The British state will get crushed between Merkel and Trump. Brexit is a friendless project that serves nobody's interests, including our own.
The biggest block to France leaving the EU is someone calling a referendum on it. If one were called, there's a more than reasonable chance that it'd be won by the Frexiters.
@Mortimer I don't agree that this generation has a 'snowflakeness' when it comes to politics. As someone who graduated from uni this year, hardly anyone I knew seriously talked about safe spaces or triggering. Most on political issues - during seminars or outside of uni - were a genuine debate with a range of views expressed. I have Conservatives in my own family and I don't tell them that I need a safe space every time I disagree with them.
That is very fair comment.
Safe space trigger happies are funny, but if I have a serious concern it is with the academics and university leaderships who are willing to pander to them.
The caving in of Oxford University to the Rhodes Must Fall goofballs was just embarrassing.
I think we understand the views of the liberal-Left very well on this: it's all ok because agree with them.
All other points can jog on.
I said in a previous post that if a Trump supporting celeb did the same then I wouldn't criticise his right to do it.
I'm afraid that I've adopted Arthur Balfour's dictum - "Nothing matters very much, and few things matter at all". It's yet another tiny storm in a minuscule teacup.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
Two different arguments I'm afraid.
Being young is genuinely difficult for most. Housing costs being the big change. Education a huge problem. Anxiety levels one of the bigger worries. Having spent much of my 20s reading this place, I'd say there is huge, huge sympathy on here for much of today's youth.
However, there is also very much less sympathy for the snowflakiness of some of today's youth - particularly regarding their interaction with politics, and especially when it verges on shouting down free speech. A sentiment I'd echo.
Yes. True. I sympathise with Millennial housing issues and work anxiety, but fuck that safe space *triggering* no-platforming bullshit
Here's a thing tho, the generation after the Millennials, the kids in their mid-late teens, or very early 20s, are showing signs of rebelling against THAT. I met a girl the other day, she's 19, and she's a flinty libertarian Thatcherite, who laughs at the stupid Guardian lefties. She says she's far from alone.
There are Conservative young people out there. But I wouldn't put them in the majority. There is a middle ground between Corbynistas and Conservatives, and I'd say that most of the people I know are in that middle ground. There is the more wider issue though, that most young people simply aren't engaged with politics, so they fit into neither 'conservative', 'liberal', or 'socialist' boxes.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
My daughter is 24. I've first hand experience of how hard it is to be young now.
At the risk of being accused of 'yesbuttery', I do think that being young is always difficult, in every generation. It's the nature of the problem that varies.
When one lacks experience, assets (and often, but not always) earning power, life is tough. I shall spare you any Four Yorkshireman anecdotes from my youth (or my fathers, or his and so on).
My wife and I bought our first place in London in 1992 - a two-bedroomed flat, with garden, on St John's Way N19. It cost us £60,000. Between us we were earning around £30,000 - her as a primary school teacher in her first year of work, me as a B2B journalist with about a year's experience. The same place now would cost around £400,000, our equivalent joint income would probably be around £45,000.
In Leamington Spa, my eldest son, who is a 26 year-old graduate, takes home around £1,000 a month. The rent on a one bedroom flat is £600-£700 pcm.
I think we understand the views of the liberal-Left very well on this: it's all ok because agree with them.
All other points can jog on.
I said in a previous post that if a Trump supporting celeb did the same then I wouldn't criticise his right to do it.
I don't think this discussion is going anywhere.
I think it's bad form and inappropriate for actors to hector their audiences with their politics when accepting awards, and there's far too much of it about. And I think it's mainly about them, not those who are the subject of their tirades.
You disagree. Fair enough.
Nowhere have I said they have no right to do so, or that I'd restrict or prohibit that right. But that doesn't mean I think it's appropriate that they should. Particularly when they all do it.
I'd like to see a few more gracious speeches that are relevant to their awards, and a bit less grandstanding.
In the same way, I wouldn't incorporate my politics into a best man's speech, where I to be chosen to give one, and I'd probably feel embarrassed if others did, but I'd still expect all best men to have the right to fully craft their own as they see fit.
An inevitable consequence of the political decisions made in reaction to the 2008 financial crisis - to protect the the tory client vote at the expense of the young poor.
A generation fucked. And they know it.
The young would get hardest hit from most governments in a time of recession.
If we'd had 3m unemployed, you know who it would be.
The young *in the UK* have jobs (if they want them) but they don't have as much spare cash as they might have had 10-20 years ago and there are probably, now, slightly fewer avenues to career success, if defined in terms of well-remunerated employment.
But they probably have more choices than 40-50 years ago, purely because of the changes in gender participation in the workforce, and labour market reform.
But they haven't a hope of owning their own home. That immediately changes their relationship with the State. Should it? No of course not, and it doesn't in many other countries, but in the UK it does.
Once again as so often the focus is on the expensive SE. House/flat ownership is very possible for many potential younf buyers in many parts of the UK - probably more so than 10 years ago in the NE where prices remain below crash levels.
If the actor wants to make an announcement, they have plenty of ways to do that. Hijacking a ceremony because they feel entitled to do so, is not a pleasant way to do it.
I don't agree it's an 'offence', nor that they are 'hijacking' the awards ceremony. Yes, there are plenty of ways for a celeb to express their view - but awards ceremony will obviously get their views the most attention.
@SeanT I shouldn't be surprised that dating millennials is the way you've managed to hear of the obstacles facing young people! But it was interesting to hear about your experience when you were young. Sounds pretty exciting!
@Mortimer I don't agree that this generation has a 'snowflakeness' when it comes to politics. As someone who graduated from uni this year, hardly anyone I knew seriously talked about safe spaces or triggering. Most on political issues - during seminars or outside of uni - were a genuine debate with a range of views expressed. I have Conservatives in my own family and I don't tell them that I need a safe space every time I disagree with them.
A few young people in the headlines don't represent us all. When you look at the Labour leadership election last year for example, Owen Smith actually won 18-24 group - which rather disproves the idea that every young person is the Corbyn supporting tumblr cliche.
Hijack - seize [something] while in transit and force it to go to a different destination or use it for one's own purposes.
I think the word fits.
I don't think the Golden Globes went in a different direction because of Meryl Streep's speech. RE the second definition, well that would apply to any celeb who expresses an aspect of their personal story during an Awards' ceremony. Like Halle Berry when she won her Oscar.
If Brexit was not implemented, it's more likely that Theresa May would be 22'ed and face a leadership challenge.
That's quite likely, but you're ignoring the prevailing political dynamics that will lead to its failure. As I've posted before, Brexit is the last hurrah of Euroscepticism. It is staring intellectual, political, and economic defeat in the face. The British state will get crushed between Merkel and Trump. Brexit is a friendless project that serves nobody's interests, including our own.
Tweeted just now:
The biggest block to France leaving the EU is someone calling a referendum on it. If one were called, there's a more than reasonable chance that it'd be won by the Frexiters.
They also tweeted a UK poll with Remain in the lead at 51%, up 3%.
Mr. T, sounds similar to my experience (direct and vicarious).
Trying to alter my approach to write more short stories, look at additional types of writing and so on. If I can make it work, I'd like to, but it might simply be that the numbers don't stack up.
Edited extra bit: try not to bang on about my own stuff too much but if anyone's interested in fantasy, sci-fi or paranormal books, mine are here (do check Kingdom Asunder): https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
Perversely, all else being equal, I'd be much better off just betting for a living.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
Having dated a few Millennials this last year, I am much more cognisant of their struggles, and less dismissive of their complaints. It really IS a lot harder for them.
I was one of the last of the lucky generation: I got a full free student grant, with an extra travel allowance (and lived in Uni housing in London W1). When I graduated I loafed on the dole, squatted big empty Georgian houses in Bloomsbury. By the time I finally got a job it was a cushy number on Fleet Street - reviewing paperbacks for the Mail on Sunday. Took me three hours a week but paid me a decent weekly salary, enough to rent a shared townhouse in a nice crescent in Islington.
Then came lad magazines, which paid really well, and were great fun - "Go to Malaysia and write about pirates!"
ALL of that has gone.
The student grants have gone, now it's student debt The dole has shrivelled The big empty squattable houses in central London have disappeared; squatting itself is much harder Fleet Street freelancers barely exist, and are paid peanuts The lad magazines have died; journalism is dying....
My entire life, as was, is now out of reach and/or unfeasible for the young aspiring writer.
What a tragedy for the young to be missing out on all that booze and drugs.
So we can add awards ceremonies to jazz clubs as places where the politically fragile need safe spaces? Bless.
Meanwhile, elsewhere on the thread we see discussion about whether millennials are snowflakes.
I've got no issue with Streep, or anyone, saying anything, anyhow, anywhere they like. Free Speech, innit? But I know how some liberals would react if an actor got up on stage to collect a gong, and then called for less immigration, or said he liked Trump's ideas, or spoke eloquently in favour of UKIP.
The actor's career would likely be over.
Mel Gibson keeps bouncing back. In fact, he was in the audience for Streep's little speech and not looking too happy about it :-)
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
My daughter is 24. I've first hand experience of how hard it is to be young now.
At the risk of being accused of 'yesbuttery', I do think that being young is always difficult, in every generation. It's the nature of the problem that varies.
When one lacks experience, assets (and often, but not always) earning power, life is tough. I shall spare you any Four Yorkshireman anecdotes from my youth (or my fathers, or his and so on).
I think that's a fair thing to say. It's just I've heard so many people dismiss my generation as somehow being the worst generation of young people all the time, that I find it refreshing when the commentary is not all negative.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
Two different arguments I'm afraid.
Being young is genuinely difficult for most. Housing costs being the big change. Education a huge problem. Anxiety levels one of the bigger worries. Having spent much of my 20s reading this place, I'd say there is huge, huge sympathy on here for much of today's youth.
However, there is also very much less sympathy for the snowflakiness of some of today's youth - particularly regarding their interaction with politics, and especially when it verges on shouting down free speech. A sentiment I'd echo.
Yes. True. I sympathise with Millennial housing issues and work anxiety, but fuck that safe space *triggering* no-platforming bullshit
Here's a thing tho, the generation after the Millennials, the kids in their mid-late teens, or very early 20s, are showing signs of rebelling against THAT. I met a girl the other day, she's 19, and she's a flinty libertarian Thatcherite, who laughs at the stupid Guardian lefties. She says she's far from alone.
Good to hear.
It is still the case though that the older you get the more likely you are to vote for a conservative, it was Streep's generation who elected Trump, while with a few exceptions like Sylvester Stallone and Clint Eastwood all actors of that generation are Democrats. Eastwood only got away with mocking Obama at the 2012 GOP convention because he was A list Hollywood royalty with nothing left to prove, it is easier to come out as gay in Hollywood than come out as a Republican
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
My daughter is 24. I've first hand experience of how hard it is to be young now.
At the risk of being accused of 'yesbuttery', I do think that being young is always difficult, in every generation. It's the nature of the problem that varies.
When one lacks experience, assets (and often, but not always) earning power, life is tough. I shall spare you any Four Yorkshireman anecdotes from my youth (or my fathers, or his and so on).
My wife and I bought our first place in London in 1992 - a two-bedroomed flat, with garden, on St John's Way N19. It cost us £60,000. Between us we were earning around £30,000 - her as a primary school teacher in her first year of work, me as a B2B journalist with about a year's experience. The same place now would cost around £400,000, our equivalent joint income would probably be around £45,000.
In Leamington Spa, my eldest son, who is a 26 year-old graduate, takes home around £1,000 a month. The rent on a one bedroom flat is £600-£700.
Something will eventually give.
I mentioned the other day that it's the boomers' affluence that's contributing to the problem. Back in the day, the ability of first time buyers to enter the market was a major moderator on house prices (there were plenty of others - we forget how regulated the mortgage market was until the early '80s).
In my social circle, all of the youngsters' house purchases have been part-funded by their parents. This would have been incredibly rare even thirty years ago. In several cases, that funding came via further advances on the parental home. It's entirely understandable, and I shall undoubtedly help my daughter when she flies the nest, but it's not great in the round.
If Brexit was not implemented, it's more likely that Theresa May would be 22'ed and face a leadership challenge.
That's quite likely, but you're ignoring the prevailing political dynamics that will lead to its failure. As I've posted before, Brexit is the last hurrah of Euroscepticism. It is staring intellectual, political, and economic defeat in the face. The British state will get crushed between Merkel and Trump. Brexit is a friendless project that serves nobody's interests, including our own.
That's like the Fight for Berlin was the last hurrah of the Red Army.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
Two different arguments I'm afraid.
Being young is genuinely difficult for most. Housing costs being the big change. Education a huge problem. Anxiety levels one of the bigger worries. Having spent much of my 20s reading this place, I'd say there is huge, huge sympathy on here for much of today's youth.
However, there is also very much less sympathy for the snowflakiness of some of today's youth - particularly regarding their interaction with politics, and especially when it verges on shouting down free speech. A sentiment I'd echo.
Yes. True. I sympathise with Millennial housing issues and work anxiety, but fuck that safe space *triggering* no-platforming bullshit
Here's a thing tho, the generation after the Millennials, the kids in their mid-late teens, or very early 20s, are showing signs of rebelling against THAT. I met a girl the other day, she's 19, and she's a flinty libertarian Thatcherite, who laughs at the stupid Guardian lefties. She says she's far from alone.
Good to hear.
It is still the case though that the older you get the more likely you are to vote for a conservative, it was Streep's generation who elected Trump, while with a few exceptions like Sylvester Stallone and Clint Eastwood all actors of that generation are Democrats. Eastwood only got away with mocking Obama at the 2012 GOP convention because he was A list Hollywood royalty with nothing left to prove, it is easier to come out as gay in Hollywood than come out as a Republican
I thought he got away with the Obama chair thing because everyone was dumbstruck with sheer embarrassment.
Mr. T, not checked, but my understanding is that the average earnings for writers are declining. Obviously there are successful chaps such as yourself and the odd megastar (like JK Rowling) but mostly it's very difficult indeed.
It's an unusual place to be, psychologically, when your book sales are not quite where they might be (to be polite) but the reviews are mostly 5*...
Average earnings for all writers - journalists to novelists - are in pretty steep decline.
I was having this debate with a novelist friend of mine at the weekend.
It is now almost impossible to to live solely as a writer of literary fiction, unless you 1. WIN a major prize, or 2. are already famous (e.g. Ian McEwan). If you write commercial fiction you have to get your book into the supermarkets - Tesco, Asda etc. That's all there is to it. If you don't, you won't make enough money. Yes the odd miracle happens in self publishing but that's what it is: miraculous. 1 in a million.
My friend is an example. Twenty years ago she was making £30,000 a year writing literary fiction. She's good. She's been Orange shortlisted. It wasn't huge money but it was very liveable.
Her latest novel got Costa shortlisted, and it sold... 900 copies. Accruing royalties of £1000? It took her a year or two to write. No one will now publish her, even though she's very well respected. She's flat broke.
An entire artistic eco-system has crashed.
So why is that? Is no one reading them any more, or do people just by them second hand for £0.1p (+P&P) off of Amazon?
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
Two different arguments I'm afraid.
Being young is genuinely difficult for most. Housing costs being the big change. Education a huge problem. Anxiety levels one of the bigger worries. Having spent much of my 20s reading this place, I'd say there is huge, huge sympathy on here for much of today's youth.
However, there is also very much less sympathy for the snowflakiness of some of today's youth - particularly regarding their interaction with politics, and especially when it verges on shouting down free speech. A sentiment I'd echo.
Yes. True. I sympathise with Millennial housing issues and work anxiety, but fuck that safe space *triggering* no-platforming bullshit
Here's a thing tho, the generation after the Millennials, the kids in their mid-late teens, or very early 20s, are showing signs of rebelling against THAT. I met a girl the other day, she's 19, and she's a flinty libertarian Thatcherite, who laughs at the stupid Guardian lefties. She says she's far from alone.
Good to hear.
It is still the case though that the older you get the more likely you are to vote for a conservative, it was Streep's generation who elected Trump, while with a few exceptions like Sylvester Stallone and Clint Eastwood all actors of that generation are Democrats. Eastwood only got away with mocking Obama at the 2012 GOP convention because he was A list Hollywood royalty with nothing left to prove, it is easier to come out as gay in Hollywood than come out as a Republican
That Clint Eastwood speech where he talked to the chair was absolutely hilarious. Even Reince Preibus thought that was weird. Although I was reading a few weeks ago that Clint Eastwood has some liberal views on issues like abortion. A pro-choice Republian is just....so weird to me. Especially as some senior GOPers have said that if you aren't pro-life you may not be a Conservative.
So we can add awards ceremonies to jazz clubs as places where the politically fragile need safe spaces? Bless.
Meanwhile, elsewhere on the thread we see discussion about whether millennials are snowflakes.
Do you realise how pompous it seems to post on here pontificating on a discussion that been had on these threads in the third person?
If you disagree: directly engage with the argument.
I wasn't aware there was an argument being put. If you feel vulnerable if you hear uncongenial political views, I suggest you toughen up. If ever there was a case for untrammelled freedom of speech, it's when someone is being given an award and is given 30 seconds or so to express themselves in response.
That's better.
I don't feel vulnerable hearing any political view (where do you get this idea I do?) but I do find it tiresome, repetitive and increasingly irritating when you're hectored in the theatre, or elsewhere on TV, in the expectation that you'd naturally agree with the speechmaker.
I think it comes down to good manners. Respecting your audience and their purpose in being there: when you're a captive crowd, and ambushed without warning, where you expect it not, with no right of reply, it grates. Provided you disagree, of course. Unless it's done in a subtle, clever and funny way. I've had many anti-Tory, left-wing jokes in comedy clubs that I've chuckled along to. Context and tone is important. It's all about respecting your audience, and, if you do, then they will respect you in turn.
My first response in Streep or Cumberbatch's case would be to stand up and heckle, except that I'm not fast or witty enough, and it'd make me look a tit as well, so I generally stay quiet and fume.
A full and throated debate?
I'd love that, and do love it. But there's a time and a place for it, and I doubt an awards ceremony is the right forum for it.
As it is, I now largely avoid attending or watching awards ceremonies. That's not me being precious. It's because they're boring and tedious.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
Two different arguments I'm afraid.
Being young is genuinely difficult for most. Housing costs being the big change. Education a huge problem. Anxiety levels one of the bigger worries. Having spent much of my 20s reading this place, I'd say there is huge, huge sympathy on here for much of today's youth.
However, there is also very much less sympathy for the snowflakiness of some of today's youth - particularly regarding their interaction with politics, and especially when it verges on shouting down free speech. A sentiment I'd echo.
Yes. True. I sympathise with Millennial housing issues and work anxiety, but fuck that safe space *triggering* no-platforming bullshit
Here's a thing tho, the generation after the Millennials, the kids in their mid-late teens, or very early 20s, are showing signs of rebelling against THAT. I met a girl the other day, she's 19, and she's a flinty libertarian Thatcherite, who laughs at the stupid Guardian lefties. She says she's far from alone.
Good to hear.
It is still the case though that the older you get the more likely you are to vote for a conservative, it was Streep's generation who elected Trump, while with a few exceptions like Sylvester Stallone and Clint Eastwood all actors of that generation are Democrats. Eastwood only got away with mocking Obama at the 2012 GOP convention because he was A list Hollywood royalty with nothing left to prove, it is easier to come out as gay in Hollywood than come out as a Republican
That Clint Eastwood speech where he talked to the chair was absolutely hilarious. Even Reince Preibus thought that was weird. Although I was reading a few weeks ago that Clint Eastwood has some liberal views on issues like abortion. A pro-choice Republian is just....so weird to me. Especially as some senior GOPers have said that if you aren't pro-life you may not be a Conservative.
West Coast Republicans are a different breed to Republicans elsewhere in my experience.
@youngvulgarian: So...If we're about to have elections in Northern Ireland, do we still think Article 50 can be triggered in March?
SF and indeed most parties don’t want to Brexit, so even though the starting gun for the election will be the Cash for Ash problem, Brexit will undoubtedly gwet involved.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
My daughter is 24. I've first hand experience of how hard it is to be young now.
At the risk of being accused of 'yesbuttery', I do think that being young is always difficult, in every generation. It's the nature of the problem that varies.
When one lacks experience, assets (and often, but not always) earning power, life is tough. I shall spare you any Four Yorkshireman anecdotes from my youth (or my fathers, or his and so on).
I think that's a fair thing to say. It's just I've heard so many people dismiss my generation as somehow being the worst generation of young people all the time, that I find it refreshing when the commentary is not all negative.
People have been alleging that young people are going to the dogs since the earliest days of literature (Martial is the first writer that I particularly recall whinging on the subject).
The difference is now is, of course, that all the criticism my generation received (I was a punk!) is lost in the pre-digital aether .
If Brexit was not implemented, it's more likely that Theresa May would be 22'ed and face a leadership challenge.
That's quite likely, but you're ignoring the prevailing political dynamics that will lead to its failure. As I've posted before, Brexit is the last hurrah of Euroscepticism. It is staring intellectual, political, and economic defeat in the face. The British state will get crushed between Merkel and Trump. Brexit is a friendless project that serves nobody's interests, including our own.
That's like the Fight for Berlin was the last hurrah of the Red Army.
It might be correct in the sense that Eurosceptics may substantially demobilise following Brexit.
I don't feel vulnerable hearing any political view (where do you get this idea I do?) but I do find it tiresome, repetitive and increasingly irritating when you're hectored in the theatre, or elsewhere on TV, in the expectation that you'd naturally agree with the speechmaker.
I think it comes down to good manners. Respecting your audience and their purpose in being there: when you're a captive crowd, and ambushed without warning, where you expect it not, with no right of reply, it grates. Provided you disagree, of course. Unless it's done in a subtle, clever and funny way. I've had many anti-Tory, left-wing jokes in comedy clubs that I've chuckled along to. Context and tone is important. It's all about respecting your audience, and, if you do, then they will respect you in turn.
My first response in Streep or Cumberbatch's case would be to stand up and heckle, except that I'm not fast or witty enough, and it'd make me look a tit as well, so I generally stay quiet and fume.
A full and throated debate?
I'd love that, and do love it. But there's a time and a place for it, and I doubt an awards ceremony is the right forum for it.
As it is, I now largely avoid attending or watching awards ceremonies. That's not me being precious. It's because they're boring and tedious.
I can agree with your last paragraph. But then I don't watch much TV (I haven't seen an episode of Sherlock in years so I couldn't contribute to the discussion of its apparently-many failings earlier).
The rest, I don't. If someone is presented with a prize and asked to speak for a few moments, that person is then entitled to make such use of that time as he or she thinks most fit. If you feel it your moral obligation to take your shining moment to warn the nation about the incoming president, not only are you entitled to use that time in that way, you must.
Whether it works is a quite different matter. By and large, I don't think that it does. To combine the two subjects in this post, I doubt that Martin Freeman's party political broadcast for Labour in the last election changed many votes.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
Two different arguments I'm afraid.
Being young is genuinely difficult for most. Housing costs being the big change. Education a huge problem. Anxiety levels one of the bigger worries. Having spent much of my 20s reading this place, I'd say there is huge, huge sympathy on here for much of today's youth.
However, there is also very much less sympathy for the snowflakiness of some of today's youth - particularly regarding their interaction with politics, and especially when it verges on shouting down free speech. A sentiment I'd echo.
Yes. True. I sympathise with Millennial housing issues and work anxiety, but fuck that safe space *triggering* no-platforming bullshit
Here's a thing tho, the generation after the Millennials, the kids in their mid-late teens, or very early 20s, are showing signs of rebelling against THAT. I met a girl the other day, she's 19, and she's a flinty libertarian Thatcherite, who laughs at the stupid Guardian lefties. She says she's far from alone.
Good to hear.
It is still the case though that the older you get the more likely you are to vote for a conservative, it was Streep's generation who elected Trump, while with a few exceptions like Sylvester Stallone and Clint Eastwood all actors of that generation are Democrats. Eastwood only got away with mocking Obama at the 2012 GOP convention because he was A list Hollywood royalty with nothing left to prove, it is easier to come out as gay in Hollywood than come out as a Republican
I thought he got away with the Obama chair thing because everyone was dumbstruck with sheer embarrassment.
Fair to say it could have been a bit better rehearsed
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
My daughter is 24. I've first hand experience of how hard it is to be young now.
At the risk of being accused of 'yesbuttery', I do think that being young is always difficult, in every generation. It's the nature of the problem that varies.
When one lacks experience, assets (and often, but not always) earning power, life is tough. I shall spare you any Four Yorkshireman anecdotes from my youth (or my fathers, or his and so on).
My wife and I bought our first place in London in 1992 - a two-bedroomed flat, with garden, on St John's Way N19. It cost us £60,000. Between us we were earning around £30,000 - her as a primary school teacher in her first year of work, me as a B2B journalist with about a year's experience. The same place now would cost around £400,000, our equivalent joint income would probably be around £45,000.
In Leamington Spa, my eldest son, who is a 26 year-old graduate, takes home around £1,000 a month. The rent on a one bedroom flat is £600-£700 pcm.
On a 400k property that would give you a potential mortgage of 350k with the Halifax, which would let you buy pretty much anywhere outside zone 1, depending on the property you wanted.
And there is Help to Buy, 5% deposits etc.
Even on the average London salary each you would have a lot of scope.
It's also nice to see some recognition on this site that being young right now is not so easy. I've seen far too many people dismiss all young people 'snowflakes'.
Two different arguments I'm afraid.
Being young is genuinely difficult for most. Housing costs being the big change. Education a huge problem. Anxiety levels one of the bigger worries. Having spent much of my 20s reading this place, I'd say there is huge, huge sympathy on here for much of today's youth.
However, there is also very much less sympathy for the snowflakiness of some of today's youth - particularly regarding their interaction with politics, and especially when it verges on shouting down free speech. A sentiment I'd echo.
Yes. True. I sympathise with Millennial housing issues and work anxiety, but fuck that safe space *triggering* no-platforming bullshit
Here's a thing tho, the generation after the Millennials, the kids in their mid-late teens, or very early 20s, are showing signs of rebelling against THAT. I met a girl the other day, she's 19, and she's a flinty libertarian Thatcherite, who laughs at the stupid Guardian lefties. She says she's far from alone.
Good to hear.
It is still the case though that the older you get the more likely you are to vote for a conservative, it was Streep's generation who elected Trump, while with a few exceptions like Sylvester Stallone and Clint Eastwood all actors of that generation are Democrats. Eastwood only got away with mocking Obama at the 2012 GOP convention because he was A list Hollywood royalty with nothing left to prove, it is easier to come out as gay in Hollywood than come out as a Republican
That Clint Eastwood speech where he talked to the chair was absolutely hilarious. Even Reince Preibus thought that was weird. Although I was reading a few weeks ago that Clint Eastwood has some liberal views on issues like abortion. A pro-choice Republian is just....so weird to me. Especially as some senior GOPers have said that if you aren't pro-life you may not be a Conservative.
Eastwood is basically a libertarian but he backed Trump too last year so I think he can safely be called a Republican now
I think we understand the views of the liberal-Left very well on this: it's all ok because agree with them.
All other points can jog on.
I said in a previous post that if a Trump supporting celeb did the same then I wouldn't criticise his right to do it.
I'm afraid that I've adopted Arthur Balfour's dictum - "Nothing matters very much, and few things matter at all". It's yet another tiny storm in a minuscule teacup.
This was the same Balfour of the Balfour Declaration. Was that in the 'didn't matter at all' or 'didn't matter very much' category?
Mr. Dawning, to add an answer from the other end of the spectrum, self-publishing has removed agents and publishers as the sole gatekeepers, but replaced that with a new problem. The market is flooded, so getting your book, even if it's good, noticed is very difficult. If you're a good writer but a bad marketer, that's probably worse than the other way around (lots of people bought Fifty Shades, got bored and stopped reading after fifty pages or so, but the author still got the sale).
I'd love that, and do love it. But there's a time and a place for it, and I doubt an awards ceremony is the right forum for it.
As it is, I now largely avoid attending or watching awards ceremonies. That's not me being precious. It's because they're boring and tedious.
I can agree with your last paragraph. But then I don't watch much TV (I haven't seen an episode of Sherlock in years so I couldn't contribute to the discussion of its apparently-many failings earlier).
The rest, I don't. If someone is presented with a prize and asked to speak for a few moments, that person is then entitled to make such use of that time as he or she thinks most fit. If you feel it your moral obligation to take your shining moment to warn the nation about the incoming president, not only are you entitled to use that time in that way, you must.
Whether it works is a quite different matter. By and large, I don't think that it does. To combine the two subjects in this post, I doubt that Martin Freeman's party political broadcast for Labour in the last election changed many votes.
Ok, that's a point of view I can appreciate, even if I don't quite agree with it.
TV and film stars are entitled to their opinions and to express them via the platforms they have. They did so before our referendum and the USA election.
But they, and those who welcome/share their views, are often the ones complaining about "divided society", and their comments don't help to heal that division. It makes me think the only options they will consider are
(a) Their vision of society (which Trump & Brexit voters have just shown to be unacceptable to them)
(b) A divided society, where they cry and moan that its not run by them anymore
Never (c) accept the decision and try to make things better
Mr. T, not checked, but my understanding is that the average earnings for writers are declining. Obviously there are successful chaps such as yourself and the odd megastar (like JK Rowling) but mostly it's very difficult indeed.
It's an unusual place to be, psychologically, when your book sales are not quite where they might be (to be polite) but the reviews are mostly 5*...
Average earnings for all writers - journalists to novelists - are in pretty steep decline.
I was having this debate with a novelist friend of mine at the weekend.
It is now almost impossible to to live solely as a writer of literary fiction, unless you 1. WIN a major prize, or 2. are already famous (e.g. Ian McEwan). If you write commercial fiction you have to get your book into the supermarkets - Tesco, Asda etc. That's all there is to it. If you don't, you won't make enough money. Yes the odd miracle happens in self publishing but that's what it is: miraculous. 1 in a million.
My friend is an example. Twenty years ago she was making £30,000 a year writing literary fiction. She's good. She's been Orange shortlisted. It wasn't huge money but it was very liveable.
Her latest novel got Costa shortlisted, and it sold... 900 copies. Accruing royalties of £1000? It took her a year or two to write. No one will now publish her, even though she's very well respected. She's flat broke.
An entire artistic eco-system has crashed.
So why is that? Is no one reading them any more, or do people just by them second hand for £0.1p (+P&P) off of Amazon?
Decline in sales is the major factor. And the ending of the Net Book Agreement, which guaranteed decent royalties from quite expensive books, and kept lots of little bookshops open
To be fair "literary" authors themselves are partly guilty. They tend to look down on plots and plotting as belonging to "genre" fiction - thrillers, detective fiction, sci fi. You can get away with a plotless novel if you are James Joyce, or maybe Martin Amis, but most writers aren't Joyce or Amis. So their plotless novels go unread.
And now I must go and do some plotting, myself.
I wouldn't be interested in reading a novel without a plot.
Mr. Dawning, to add an answer from the other end of the spectrum, self-publishing has removed agents and publishers as the sole gatekeepers, but replaced that with a new problem. The market is flooded, so getting your book, even if it's good, noticed is very difficult. If you're a good writer but a bad marketer, that's probably worse than the other way around (lots of people bought Fifty Shades, got bored and stopped reading after fifty pages or so, but the author still got the sale).
I've often wondered what enables one good author to achieve respectable sales, and another (no better) to achieve phenomenal sales.
Mr. F, can't comment much (don't have experience of phenomenal sales) but it seems to largely be random. Do people like the cover, or the title? Does your book get bought by a lovely big mouth with a huge social circle who always bangs on about the books they buy?
Anyway, working on various novels, but after they're done I may try a serial approach. Something like bundling three chapters together for 99p, then giving three away, then three for 99p, and, at the end, releasing a full book. E-books to create downwards pricing pressure but also make serials more viable.
Comments
The books were about a bromance.
FWIW, I think that (2) follows (1) almost inevitably, and that (4) follows (2) and (3) almost as inevitably. So the questions are about whether Balls is interested in returning and whether Corbyn will last the distance. Lots of 'if's there but 100/1 is quite generous all the same
"huge" 2, "Putin" 4, "Brexit" 6
As for "bigly", what he really says is "big league"! (Fantastic piece of branding, that.) I'll be looking out for "France".
I backed him at 185/1 for £20, forgot I'd had that til i just looked
It smacks of self-indulgent grandstanding and - as those in the Arts far too often do - hectoring their audience in the expectation they'll be cheered along, because they assume that everyone agrees with them.
:-)
House prices are always entertaining. They rise, and are unaffordable. They fall, and papers complain of a slump, negative equity etc etc.
Conservatives: 42% (up 1 from Guardian/ICM in mid-December)
Labour: 28% (up 1)
Ukip: 12% (down 2)
Lib Dems: 9% (no change)
Greens: 4% (up 1)
Conservative lead: 14 points (no change)
ICM Unlimited interviewed an online sample of 2,000 adults aged 18+ on 6-8th January 2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jan/09/theresa-may-speech-mental-health-shared-society-cross-chief-says-his-humanitarian-crisis-label-for-nhs-fully-justified-politics-live
Conservatives: 42% (+1)
Labour: 28% (+1)
Ukip: 12% (-2)
Lib Dems: 9% (-)
Greens: 4% (+1)
Conservative lead: 14 points (-)
I'm open minded given the political alternatives. But the Government would have to face down mass opposition in the Shires.
On the neighbourhood plans, and new villages/towns approach we currently have, 150k per year is probably sustainable for the next 15 years.
Repeating an offence doesn't make it all ok.
If the actor wants to make an announcement, they have plenty of ways to do that. Hijacking a ceremony because they feel entitled to do so, is not a pleasant way to do it.
Have the child be Moriarty who was then sent back in time.
Being young is genuinely difficult for most. Housing costs being the big change. Education a huge problem. Anxiety levels one of the bigger worries. Having spent much of my 20s reading this place, I'd say there is huge, huge sympathy on here for much of today's youth.
However, there is also very much less sympathy for the snowflakiness of some of today's youth - particularly regarding their interaction with politics, and especially when it verges on shouting down free speech. A sentiment I'd echo.
I don't agree that it smacks of 'self-indulgent grandstanding' and 'hectoring their audience' at all. She's merely using her platform to speak out on something she believes is important. Celebrities are still members of society who see what's going on and also have the right to have and express their views. I know this site hates the Arts because it has a lot of liberals in it, but it really isn't the end of the world. At the end of the day Conservatives are in government in most of the time and have generally shaped the political centre. Liberal celebs expressing their views won't change that.
At the risk of being accused of 'yesbuttery', I do think that being young is always difficult, in every generation. It's the nature of the problem that varies.
When one lacks experience, assets (and often, but not always) earning power, life is tough. I shall spare you any Four Yorkshireman anecdotes from my youth (or my fathers, or his and so on).
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
All other points can jog on.
Meanwhile, elsewhere on the thread we see discussion about whether millennials are snowflakes.
It's an unusual place to be, psychologically, when your book sales are not quite where they might be (to be polite) but the reviews are mostly 5*...
(1) Shit. You lack self-confidence, money, experience or respect, but want it all anyway on your own terms (and this can affect both your attitude and aggression). I basically hated myself until I was about 27-28 when I got comfortable in my own skin.
(2) Not shit. You look fabulous and take for granted your freedom, independence and options until its too late. You eat and drink whatever, wherever, whenever, with virtually no consequences to it. And you feel pretty immortal and that the world could be your oyster, somehow, someday and there's no rush.
But, oh, the might-have-beens. I often look back and wince and regret missing opportunities I had (particularly with the.. ahem.. opposite gender) which are now closed to me for good!
Then again, I am calmer, and more seasoned now, and have money, even if I have put on weight I don't want, and have a couple of grating health issues.
So.. dunno.
If you disagree: directly engage with the argument.
@SeanT I shouldn't be surprised that dating millennials is the way you've managed to hear of the obstacles facing young people! But it was interesting to hear about your experience when you were young. Sounds pretty exciting!
@Mortimer I don't agree that this generation has a 'snowflakeness' when it comes to politics. As someone who graduated from uni this year, hardly anyone I knew seriously talked about safe spaces or triggering. Most on political issues - during seminars or outside of uni - were a genuine debate with a range of views expressed. I have Conservatives in my own family and I don't tell them that I need a safe space every time I disagree with them.
A few young people in the headlines don't represent us all. When you look at the Labour leadership election last year for example, Owen Smith actually won 18-24 group - which rather disproves the idea that every young person is the Corbyn supporting tumblr cliche.
But then we'd never had it so good in the fifties.
So what went wrong?
It's not money or possessions, it's more a sense of adventure. The big wide world was yours to sample. And it was all new then.
'Anything can happen'. That was the motto. Now it seems almost a curse to this generation.
Hijack - seize [something] while in transit and force it to go to a different destination or use it for one's own purposes.
I think the word fits.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/818487284983099393
The biggest block to France leaving the EU is someone calling a referendum on it. If one were called, there's a more than reasonable chance that it'd be won by the Frexiters.
Safe space trigger happies are funny, but if I have a serious concern it is with the academics and university leaderships who are willing to pander to them.
The caving in of Oxford University to the Rhodes Must Fall goofballs was just embarrassing.
In Leamington Spa, my eldest son, who is a 26 year-old graduate, takes home around £1,000 a month. The rent on a one bedroom flat is £600-£700 pcm.
Something will eventually give.
I think it's bad form and inappropriate for actors to hector their audiences with their politics when accepting awards, and there's far too much of it about. And I think it's mainly about them, not those who are the subject of their tirades.
You disagree. Fair enough.
Nowhere have I said they have no right to do so, or that I'd restrict or prohibit that right. But that doesn't mean I think it's appropriate that they should. Particularly when they all do it.
I'd like to see a few more gracious speeches that are relevant to their awards, and a bit less grandstanding.
In the same way, I wouldn't incorporate my politics into a best man's speech, where I to be chosen to give one, and I'd probably feel embarrassed if others did, but I'd still expect all best men to have the right to fully craft their own as they see fit.
There are unwritten rules and conventions.
Trying to alter my approach to write more short stories, look at additional types of writing and so on. If I can make it work, I'd like to, but it might simply be that the numbers don't stack up.
Edited extra bit: try not to bang on about my own stuff too much but if anyone's interested in fantasy, sci-fi or paranormal books, mine are here (do check Kingdom Asunder):
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thaddeus-White/e/B008C6RU98/
Perversely, all else being equal, I'd be much better off just betting for a living.
In my social circle, all of the youngsters' house purchases have been part-funded by their parents. This would have been incredibly rare even thirty years ago. In several cases, that funding came via further advances on the parental home. It's entirely understandable, and I shall undoubtedly help my daughter when she flies the nest, but it's not great in the round.
I don't feel vulnerable hearing any political view (where do you get this idea I do?) but I do find it tiresome, repetitive and increasingly irritating when you're hectored in the theatre, or elsewhere on TV, in the expectation that you'd naturally agree with the speechmaker.
I think it comes down to good manners. Respecting your audience and their purpose in being there: when you're a captive crowd, and ambushed without warning, where you expect it not, with no right of reply, it grates. Provided you disagree, of course. Unless it's done in a subtle, clever and funny way. I've had many anti-Tory, left-wing jokes in comedy clubs that I've chuckled along to. Context and tone is important. It's all about respecting your audience, and, if you do, then they will respect you in turn.
My first response in Streep or Cumberbatch's case would be to stand up and heckle, except that I'm not fast or witty enough, and it'd make me look a tit as well, so I generally stay quiet and fume.
A full and throated debate?
I'd love that, and do love it. But there's a time and a place for it, and I doubt an awards ceremony is the right forum for it.
As it is, I now largely avoid attending or watching awards ceremonies. That's not me being precious. It's because they're boring and tedious.
The difference is now is, of course, that all the criticism my generation received (I was a punk!) is lost in the pre-digital aether
The rest, I don't. If someone is presented with a prize and asked to speak for a few moments, that person is then entitled to make such use of that time as he or she thinks most fit. If you feel it your moral obligation to take your shining moment to warn the nation about the incoming president, not only are you entitled to use that time in that way, you must.
Whether it works is a quite different matter. By and large, I don't think that it does. To combine the two subjects in this post, I doubt that Martin Freeman's party political broadcast for Labour in the last election changed many votes.
I think you are a long way out on your numbers.
A combined income of 30k in 1992 is worth 75k now (not 45k) on average earnings increases.
https://www.measuringworth.com/ukearncpi/
On a 400k property that would give you a potential mortgage of 350k with the Halifax, which would let you buy pretty much anywhere outside zone 1, depending on the property you wanted.
And there is Help to Buy, 5% deposits etc.
Even on the average London salary each you would have a lot of scope.
But they, and those who welcome/share their views, are often the ones complaining about "divided society", and their comments don't help to heal that division. It makes me think the only options they will consider are
(a) Their vision of society (which Trump & Brexit voters have just shown to be unacceptable to them)
(b) A divided society, where they cry and moan that its not run by them anymore
Never (c) accept the decision and try to make things better
Anyway, working on various novels, but after they're done I may try a serial approach. Something like bundling three chapters together for 99p, then giving three away, then three for 99p, and, at the end, releasing a full book. E-books to create downwards pricing pressure but also make serials more viable.