Page 2 of 3
Posted: 11 Nov 2011, 21:29
by Purple Light
Met him in Otley once on my way home from school (he liked Otley) and he scared me!
RIP anyway to a great man. As an entertainer I thought he was pants but what he did for charity etc was absolutely incredible.
Posted: 11 Nov 2011, 22:37
by stufarq
Ah yes, a typically level-headed and unbiased article from Icke there. Not a single sweeping generalisation or unsubstantiated allegation in sight and plenty od dead people who won't be able to sue him. Who'd hve thought, watching
Saturday Superstore all those years ago, that the nice sports presenter would turn out to be such an utter wacko?
Posted: 11 Nov 2011, 22:57
by James Blast
I just posted a link, make yer ain mind up but if y've ever seen 'When Louis met Jimmy' yer view might be coloured different, sorry
colored dif'rnt
http://louistheroux.com/programmes/wlmJimmy.php
that linky's just a flava of the whole horror show
Posted: 11 Nov 2011, 23:15
by czuczu
Louis Theroux wrote:He was a complete one-off. Wrestler, charity fundraiser, deejay, fixer, prankster, and professional enigma.
He was also a plainspoken Yorkshire philosopher and psychologist.
There won’t be another one like him.
http://louistheroux.com/blog/?p=63
Posted: 12 Nov 2011, 12:38
by markfiend
I do like Louis Theroux but he proper stitches up his subjects.
Posted: 12 Nov 2011, 13:07
by DeWinter
I do love pedophile rumour-mongering. It's a bit like accusing someone of being a witch a few hundred years back. No evidence required and the mud always sticks.
If he did have interests that way, there's no evidence he ever acted on it, and considering how long he's been around you'd think some evidence would have come up that was a bit more concrete.
Posted: 12 Nov 2011, 19:55
by markfiend
DeWinter wrote:I do love pedophile rumour-mongering. It's a bit like accusing someone of being a witch a few hundred years back. No evidence required and the mud always sticks.
If he did have interests that way, there's no evidence he ever acted on it, and considering how long he's been around you'd think some evidence would have come up that was a bit more concrete.
Agreed
Posted: 13 Nov 2011, 00:40
by stufarq
Yeah, I did see the Theroux thing. Always found Jimmy a bit disconcerting since then but more because his ridiculous screen persona never let up and he just generally seemed a bit weird. That's a far cry from labelling him anything libellous or labelling Icke anything approaching sensible.
I'd considered mentioning the Theroux thing a couple of times but wasn't sure. But now that it's come up, may as well say it.
And yes, James, I did inexplicably* leave out random letters in my previous post.
*Well, unless you want the boring "mistyped" explanation.
Posted: 13 Nov 2011, 00:55
by Nikolas Vitus Lagartija
Love the link on David Icke's on-line shop for his "7 hour dot-connecting DVD" exploring global conspiracy theory. You couldn't make it up ...
Posted: 13 Nov 2011, 11:42
by markfiend
stufarq wrote:... he just generally seemed a bit weird. That's a far cry from labelling him anything libellous or labelling Icke anything approaching sensible.
Indeed. It's not illegal to be weird, which is a good thing!
Posted: 13 Nov 2011, 17:30
by Being645
markfiend wrote:DeWinter wrote:I do love pedophile rumour-mongering. It's a bit like accusing someone of being a witch a few hundred years back. No evidence required and the mud always sticks.
If he did have interests that way, there's no evidence he ever acted on it, and considering how long he's been around you'd think some evidence would have come up that was a bit more concrete.
Agreed
To me it seems to be a commonly spread way of slandering anyone in the English speaking world. In Germany, you would hardly ever hear such accusations - appart form pupils towards their teacher, or like within families, or religious or child raising instituions, but never towards anyone in the media. So, it really seems advisable to take some gloves on, before assessing such "information".
Posted: 13 Nov 2011, 17:48
by stufarq
Being645 wrote:[To me it seems to be a commonly spread way of slandering anyone in the English speaking world. In Germany, you would hardly ever hear such accusations - appart form pupils towards their teacher, or like within families, or religious or child raising instituions, but never towards anyone in the media. So, it really seems advisable to take some gloves on, before assessing such "information".
Interesting. It had never occurred to me before that this sort of thing wouldn't be common wherever media existed that could exploit it to make money. After all, paparazzi exist the world over. Nice to know there are some countries that still report the news rather than making up gossip.
Posted: 13 Nov 2011, 18:43
by Being645
stufarq wrote:Being645 wrote:[To me it seems to be a commonly spread way of slandering anyone in the English speaking world. In Germany, you would hardly ever hear such accusations - appart form pupils towards their teacher, or like within families, or religious or child raising instituions, but never towards anyone in the media. So, it really seems advisable to take some gloves on, before assessing such "information".
Interesting. It had never occurred to me before that this sort of thing wouldn't be common wherever media existed that could exploit it to make money. After all, paparazzi exist the world over. Nice to know there are some countries that still report the news rather than making up gossip.
Oh, the media here are not perfect, and there are plenty "nasty" papers as well. Also, they do, of course, report if stuff like that happens to be a topic for international media, such as the case around Michael Jackson ... but still, mostly they are not so extremely gossiping in a nasty way as they seem to be in Britain or America ... for a German person this implies that one has to get used to such mannerisms, and it might take some time before one finds the right degree of say, attacking on a "personal" level in debates as much as in joking ...
...
Posted: 14 Nov 2011, 12:58
by DeWinter
Well, it does have it's plus points. The UK is never likely to have a Chirac, Berlusconi, Bush or Clinton thanks to the press here. Their propensity for dirt-digging would have rendered them unelectable. On the other hand, the British press has done a great job of convincing everyone in the UK that behind every tree is a child molesting, benefit dependent, Islamofacist bogus asylum seeker with a copy of the Human Rights Act in his back pocket.
Posted: 14 Nov 2011, 13:58
by markfiend
On the gripping hand, it also means that the only people who ever can get elected are those who decided to become career politicians while still at college. The NUS leadership has been little better than a feeder for the Labour party at least since the early 90's.
Posted: 14 Nov 2011, 15:02
by Being645
DeWinter wrote:Well, it does have it's plus points. The UK is never likely to have a Chirac, Berlusconi, Bush or Clinton thanks to the press here. Their propensity for dirt-digging would have rendered them unelectable.
... can't but agree ...
DeWinter wrote:
On the other hand, the British press has done a great job of convincing everyone in the UK that behind every tree is a child molesting, benefit dependent, Islamofacist bogus asylum seeker with a copy of the Human Rights Act in his back pocket.
Oh, in that direction the German media are no better ... at least a good part of them ...
and anyway, the existence of Human Rights Acts is not all too well-known in Germany,
so the media don't meet with all too much resistance when launching dirt campaigns
against any group of low income or other dependence ... to the contrary, this would
easily sum up TV standard afternoon and early-evening (after job) TV new/entertainment
apart from stock exchange rates and other economy-crisis stuff for quite a few of our stations ...
Although, there are some selected good channels/regular features, I've long ago decided against TV
(which would also have one pay for those "propaganda" programmes)...
...
The internet does in effect offer more, more diverse and better information ...
...
Posted: 14 Nov 2011, 16:49
by Dan
markfiend wrote:On the gripping hand, it also means that the only people who ever can get elected are those who decided to become career politicians while still at college. The NUS leadership has been little better than a feeder for the Labour party at least since the early 90's.
Ironically it seems that those who *want* to be politician are those least suited to actually be one.
Posted: 14 Nov 2011, 16:53
by Quiff Boy
just to drag it back on topic briefly:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-yo ... e-15667111
The cortege went to Woodlands Cemetery where he was buried at an angle of 45 degrees facing the sea.
buried at an angle of 45 degrees? and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-yo ... e-15717221
Sir Jimmy Savile's coffin has been encased in concrete as a "security measure" amid speculation about its contents.
encased in concrete?
wtf? does anyone else find this to be an increasingly bizarre funeral/burial?
Posted: 14 Nov 2011, 17:11
by Dan
45 degrees?? And concrete?? That's going to give the archaeologists in 2000 years something to wonder about. And with all the jingle jangle jewellery they'll assume he was a king.
Posted: 14 Nov 2011, 17:16
by Quiff Boy
Posted: 14 Nov 2011, 17:24
by markfiend
Dan wrote:markfiend wrote:On the gripping hand, it also means that the only people who ever can get elected are those who decided to become career politicians while still at college. The NUS leadership has been little better than a feeder for the Labour party at least since the early 90's.
Ironically it seems that those who *want* to be politician are those least suited to actually be one.
Hear hear.
Posted: 14 Nov 2011, 23:36
by Debaser
Quiff Boy wrote:
buried at an angle of 45 degrees? and
As long as it 'upwards' it's fine by me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl3xDx37QSc
Posted: 15 Nov 2011, 00:29
by stufarq
DeWinter wrote:Well, it does have it's plus points. The UK is never likely to have a Chirac, Berlusconi, Bush or Clinton thanks to the press here. Their propensity for dirt-digging would have rendered them unelectable.
So we don't get anyone with a colourful past but we do get Thatcher, Blair, Brown...
Quiff Boy wrote: Sir Jimmy Savile's coffin has been encased in concrete as a "security measure" amid speculation about its contents.
encased in concrete?
wtf? does anyone else find this to be an increasingly bizarre funeral/burial?
Presumably to stop grave robbers checking for bling.
Posted: 15 Nov 2011, 00:41
by DeWinter
stufarq wrote:DeWinter wrote:Well, it does have it's plus points. The UK is never likely to have a Chirac, Berlusconi, Bush or Clinton thanks to the press here. Their propensity for dirt-digging would have rendered them unelectable.
So we don't get anyone with a colourful past but we do get Thatcher, Blair, Brown...
I think "colourful" is a polite way to describe the above! Sleazy at best, criminal at worst. Neither Thatcher or Brown could be accused of that, whatever you think of their politics.
Posted: 15 Nov 2011, 11:41
by markfiend
I note the pointed omission of Blair from the "not criminal" list.
