I started out as this little public school twat on telly. I meant no harm. I was a fucking waste of oxygen, but no more than that. I played a sort of anti-authoritarian, leftish-liberalish heir of Peter Cooke.
People liked me.
I got a little I got lucky when it turned out my colleague was funny. But everybody loved me. I had power, I had authority!
I had everything.
I started to believe.
I started to believe that I knew so much better, and that people were all fools. That my school was actually quite good. That the Conservatives were not actually all that bad after all. That maybe "the market" wasn't some crazy load of old bollocks, but could actually improve all our lives! ... or at least, mine.
Then it all started to slip...slip...slip....slip away.
Suddenly I became a Tory cunt.
"Perhaps we deserve the bankers that we get..." I said today on TV.
...
Ian Hislop, you sellout little fuck. "Perhaps we deserve the bankers that we get?". No of course we don't you prick.
You might as well say: "perhaps we deserve all the painful bowel cancer we get?".
What a fucking idiot this man has become.
Showing posts with label bell end. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bell end. Show all posts
Tuesday, 22 November 2011
Saturday, 30 January 2010
John Terry's scandal stories - a victory for tabloid bell-ends, not for free speech
Really, do we have to know all the details of John Terry's infidelities? No, not really. It's not like he threw a game or killed a neighbour and disposed of the body with acid is it? He hasn't fiddled homeless Haitian eathquake victims out of powdered milk in order to buy a gold plated Rolls Royce. It's no big deal. But here are the tabloids, supported by the "World's biggest bell-end" Max Clifford, claiming that the lifting of an injuction brought out by John Terry to keep the story out of the papers is in some way a victory of free speech over draconian privicy laws.
It is not. It is simply purient tittle-tattle.
There is no free speech justification for this, there is no public interest argument. The tabloids exist on the back of the misadventures of people in the public eye, alternating with contrived, exaggerated or simply made up stories protraying the same people in a more sympathetic light. Both of these types of stories are either supplied by, or fuelled by "the World's biggest bell-end" Max Clifford and his PR ilk. Why do the tabloids keep regurgitating this rubbish? Because they think that people enjoy reading about this sort of thing. I would prefer they did some actual journalism from time to time, but they don't because that would cost money.
Clifford has reported already signed up the lady involved with Terry, he said so on a radio interview on Five Live this morning that was two parts hypocritically damning of Terry and how he has brought it on himself, and one part smarmy in justification of his trade. If you do not know his trade: his trade is in the public humilation and misery of others and how to get make money out off it. What an absolute arsehole.
The next time you hear about the papers moaning about how their sales are down, or how the internet is killing them because its free, consider this: without the tabloids "the World's biggest bell-end" Max Clifford would not have any clients to buy his stories. The world would be a finer place if Clifford was out of work
Whilst Terry's actions may be morally dubious, the reason the papers are going for him is for revenge for applying for a high court injunction. They know that these injunctions are killing them, since thier trade is in the kind of idle tittle-tattle that these injunctions prevent them from publishing, so they are trying to teach Terry and any other public figures watching what will happen if you don't let them have their slice of salactiousness. The outrage is driven and supplied entirely by the tabloids, not by public opinion.
It is not. It is simply purient tittle-tattle.
There is no free speech justification for this, there is no public interest argument. The tabloids exist on the back of the misadventures of people in the public eye, alternating with contrived, exaggerated or simply made up stories protraying the same people in a more sympathetic light. Both of these types of stories are either supplied by, or fuelled by "the World's biggest bell-end" Max Clifford and his PR ilk. Why do the tabloids keep regurgitating this rubbish? Because they think that people enjoy reading about this sort of thing. I would prefer they did some actual journalism from time to time, but they don't because that would cost money.
Clifford has reported already signed up the lady involved with Terry, he said so on a radio interview on Five Live this morning that was two parts hypocritically damning of Terry and how he has brought it on himself, and one part smarmy in justification of his trade. If you do not know his trade: his trade is in the public humilation and misery of others and how to get make money out off it. What an absolute arsehole.
The next time you hear about the papers moaning about how their sales are down, or how the internet is killing them because its free, consider this: without the tabloids "the World's biggest bell-end" Max Clifford would not have any clients to buy his stories. The world would be a finer place if Clifford was out of work
Whilst Terry's actions may be morally dubious, the reason the papers are going for him is for revenge for applying for a high court injunction. They know that these injunctions are killing them, since thier trade is in the kind of idle tittle-tattle that these injunctions prevent them from publishing, so they are trying to teach Terry and any other public figures watching what will happen if you don't let them have their slice of salactiousness. The outrage is driven and supplied entirely by the tabloids, not by public opinion.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
The question of Garth Crooks
Garth Crooks has been off my radar, but last night he turned up on Radio Five Live and spent 3 hours spouting ill-informed, patronising drivel. And I though: if he can do it, so can I! So here I am.
Among Garth's more outlandish statements was this one on the topic of building a new football stadium and how it can improve things for your club: "it works, Arsenal are the proof of that!".
Well are they now? Lets think....no they are not. In the preceding ten years to the move the the Emirates, at the gloriously ancient and marbled Highbury they won three championships and four FA Cups, including two doubles in 1998 and 2002. Since moving to the swanky new Emirates, they may be able to cram in another 20,000 or so glory hunters a match, and I dare say their corporate facilities are smashing if you like that sort of thing, but they have won a sum total of fuck all.
Is that proof that moving to a new ground works? It is to Garth, and he makes his living knowing about this sort of thing.
Among Garth's more outlandish statements was this one on the topic of building a new football stadium and how it can improve things for your club: "it works, Arsenal are the proof of that!".
Well are they now? Lets think....no they are not. In the preceding ten years to the move the the Emirates, at the gloriously ancient and marbled Highbury they won three championships and four FA Cups, including two doubles in 1998 and 2002. Since moving to the swanky new Emirates, they may be able to cram in another 20,000 or so glory hunters a match, and I dare say their corporate facilities are smashing if you like that sort of thing, but they have won a sum total of fuck all.
Is that proof that moving to a new ground works? It is to Garth, and he makes his living knowing about this sort of thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)