# Bob Crow is going to be the worst contestant since Swampy.



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 27, 2009)

At least Swampy looked pleased and excited to be there. Unlike this humourless Spartist orc.


----------



## ovaltina (Nov 27, 2009)

on what?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 27, 2009)

ovaltina said:


> on what?


 
Sorry. HIGNFY. There's a relevant thread somewhere but I couln't find it.


----------



## quimcunx (Nov 27, 2009)

Slumming it again? What frightfully working class gossip magazine telly are you watching now, maurice?


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Nov 27, 2009)

Hatton vs Currie was the worst ep ever, but this'll come close.

Crow will have a huge chip on his shoulder
Hislop will look like a tory twat (sorry, folks)
Merton will attempt to diffuse tension a la Paula Yates ep


----------



## 1927 (Nov 27, 2009)

Did anyone tell him it was meant to be a fun quiz?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 27, 2009)

That's a fucking awful shirt.


----------



## DeepStoat (Nov 27, 2009)

Maurice Picarda said:


> At least Swampy looked pleased and excited to be there. Unlike this humourless Spartist orc.



I supposed you'd have the nation chortling from your sparkling witicisms.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 27, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> I supposed you'd have the nation chortling from your sparkling witicisms.


 
No, I was on television once. It didn't go terribly well.


----------



## DeepStoat (Nov 27, 2009)

Maurice Picarda said:


> No, I was on television once. It didn't go terribly well.



Talking front of just a few people is enough to make most people wibble.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 27, 2009)

Lobster moment was facepalm


----------



## TheDave (Nov 27, 2009)

To be honest the BBC should just wipe their files and burn all copies of that episode and never speak of it again.


----------



## madzone (Nov 27, 2009)

What a dick


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 27, 2009)

madzone said:


> What a dick


Which one? The only person who came out of that well was Paul Merton, because he had the good sense to stay largely silent.


----------



## madzone (Nov 27, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Which one? The only person who came out of that well was Paul Merton, because he had the good sense to stay largely silent.


 The tone was set by the unfunny, aggressive guy with the massive working class chip on his shoulder. It was cringeworthy.


----------



## 1927 (Nov 27, 2009)

I actuaally thought Jimmy Carr was quite funny.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 27, 2009)

1927 said:


> I actuaally thought Jimmy Carr was quite funny.



wash your mouth out


----------



## badlands (Nov 27, 2009)

Bob Crow would kick your weedy arses


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 27, 2009)

badlands said:


> Bob Crow would kick your weedy arses


 
Probably, yes. He's not the first choice for a lighthearted panel show, though, is he?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 27, 2009)

madzone said:


> The tone was set by the unfunny, aggressive guy with the massive working class chip on his shoulder. It was cringeworthy.



of course pug faced little eton nobber with a smug streak a mile wide didn't play it up AT ALL


----------



## TheDave (Nov 27, 2009)

badlands said:


> Bob Crow would kick your weedy arses



How does that change the fact that he's an unfunny cunt?


----------



## badlands (Nov 27, 2009)

TheDave said:


> How does that change the fact that he's an unfunny cunt?



The longer version is normally a fairer edit.

So I'll reserve judgement.

But I take your point.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 27, 2009)

Yes, that's it.

The counter-revolutionary running dogs of the BBC edited out all of Bob's gags for the Saturday show.


----------



## badlands (Nov 27, 2009)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Yes, that's it.
> 
> The counter-revolutionary running dogs of the BBC edited out all of Bob's gags for the Saturday show.



Shall we wait and see


----------



## madzone (Nov 27, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> of course pug faced little eton nobber with a smug streak a mile wide didn't play it up AT ALL


 I thought he did well to try to recover any sense of comedy at all.The rest were just stunned into silence.


----------



## badlands (Nov 27, 2009)

So the comedian Jimmy Carr was funny was he?

Hislop just did his shit twee Oxbridge chinless shit.

Armstrong was, well, him, which is fantastically unfunny.

Merton chose well to keep quiet.


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 27, 2009)

If you ever find yourself wondering how on earth Margaret Thacher got elected, and re-elected, and re-elected think of  Bob Crow as a 1970s shop steward, union convenor or activist. There were Bob Crows every fucking where.


----------



## badlands (Nov 27, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> If you ever find yourself wondering how on earth Margaret Thacher got elected, and re-elected, and re-elected think of  Bob Crow as a 1970s shop steward, union convenor or activist. There were Bob Crows every fucking where.



What about today?

Bob Crow or a banker?


----------



## Nemo (Nov 27, 2009)

I'm no fan of Bob Crow's, but the fact that there's so much outrage whipped up against him strongly suggests he must be doing something right.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 27, 2009)

Crow fucked up by deciding upon class war with Ian Hislop and using the fact Hislop went to Oxbridge as the evidence he needed. As a socialist, he should aspire for the time when the children of his members have as much chance of going to Oxbridge as anyone else. It made him sound like an ignorant arse who was proud of his ignorance.

Jimmy Reid, now there was a union leader to admire, and not afraid of education.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2009)

Well i thought he was fantastic. 

What did he say?


----------



## madzone (Nov 27, 2009)

Nemo said:


> I'm no fan of Bob Crow's, but the fact that there's so much outrage whipped up against him strongly suggests he must be doing something right.


 By being an embarrasingly unfunny cunt on a comedy show


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 27, 2009)

He was alright when he got in his digs at the EU and privatisation. Less good attacking Hislop.

ETA: playing the working class hero when you're a high earner is also very tiresome. He really doesn't have more in common with Chinese workers than Ian Hislop.


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Nov 27, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Crow fucked up by deciding upon class war with Ian Hislop



To quote Clive Anderson on the Piers Moron guest-captaincy funtime edition, "Ian is a regular on this show, and a lot of people here have come to see him."


----------



## badlands (Nov 27, 2009)

I'd pay to watch Crow kick fuck out of Cameron


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 28, 2009)

To paraphrase Gahndi

'yer a big man but yer outta shape Crow'


----------



## badlands (Nov 28, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> To paraphrase Gahndi
> 
> 'yer a big man but yer outta shape Crow'



Cameron could bite his bulky ankle.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 28, 2009)

Nemo said:


> I'm no fan of Bob Crow's, but the fact that there's so much outrage whipped up against him strongly suggests he must be doing something right.



This.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 28, 2009)

sleaterkinney said:


> That's a fucking awful shirt.


It outclassed Bob Crow on the humour front though.


----------



## badlands (Nov 28, 2009)

Crow could take his panelists down to The New Den.

That would be lovely.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 28, 2009)

I don't think Bob Crowe did himself any favours by his appearance. 

He was not really known for his humour before the programme. 

And after the programme he is still not known for it !


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 28, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> of course pug faced little eton nobber with a smug streak a mile wide didn't play it up AT ALL


He didn't go to Eton.


----------



## Jenerys (Nov 28, 2009)

badlands said:


> So the comedian Jimmy Carr was funny was he?



The comment about Crow looking like a baby made me lol

I agree with LBJ, Merton did the wisest thing. 

I hate shows like that. Does bring back bad memories of Paula Yates. A piece of me died when she told the unfunny story of the socks she'd had shoved down her bra floated off in a swimming pool. Then nine or ten years later she's on again and she's had the tit job and she's off her tits


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 28, 2009)

Mrs Magpie said:


> He didn't go to Eton.



if he went state I'll eat my hat.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 28, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> Lobster moment was facepalm



Massively.  I really cringed when he said that


----------



## Diamond (Nov 28, 2009)

Just got back in and am prompted to watch this by the thread.

I saw Bob Crow on newsnight a while back and he didn't come across very well.

Will be interesting to see how he does...


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Nov 28, 2009)

Diamond said:


> Will be interesting to see how he does...



It won't, believe me.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 28, 2009)

I'm not sure why he's chosen Hislop as his target...


----------



## cesare (Nov 28, 2009)

I think there was something very unpleasant about inviting Crow to participate in the first place, and from what you've said (I didn't see it) a  re Crow accepting the invitation. 

I think Crow was mistaken in appearing. He doesn't need programmes that passed their humour zenith with the demise of Angus Deayton. 

Hislop is a funny, intelligent, but very unpleasant little man. Private Eye's fucking boring boring boring nowadays. It doesn't say anything more than what was available on-line far before Private Eye takes an interest in it lol. Fucking magnifying glass to read the font ... stalwarts relying on front page caption to evoke any dying interest in what the internet speculated on days before, fuck's sake 

So the Beeb and Private Eye think it'll be massive lols to persuade the single most effective union leader on to a humour show and make him look a prat, and he accepts. Facepalms all round.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 28, 2009)

I'm not sure why he went on in the first place but it wasn't the greatest HIGNFY...unremarkable really.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> I think there was something very unpleasant about inviting Crow to participate in the first place, and from what you've said (I didn't see it) a  re Crow accepting the invitation.
> 
> I think Crow was mistaken in appearing. He doesn't need programmes that passed their humour zenith with the demise of Angus Deayton.
> 
> ...



I disagree, the eye comes up with a lot of dirt that's always worth reading.

If you look to the cartoons only then you're missing the vast majority of the purpose.

The Napier stuff was worth its weight in gold.


----------



## cesare (Nov 28, 2009)

Diamond said:


> I disagree, the eye comes up with a lot of dirt that's always worth reading.
> 
> If you look to the cartoons only then you're missing the vast majority of the purpose.
> 
> The Napier stuff was worth its weight in gold.



I don't look to its cartoons. It's weighed down in point 6ish font and a format unchanged since I was a kid and my dad giggling at it back in the 70s. I can't be bothered attempting to plough through its cleverer-than-thou shit anymore - fronted by that nasty little cunt Hislop maintaining sales via the BBC. Yeah, I'll watch it if there's nothing else on. I'll buy Private Eye if I hear they've got something more than what's available on the internet i.e. hardly ever. They're going down, same as the other papers.


----------



## Diamond (Nov 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> I don't look to its cartoons. It's weighed down in point 6ish font and a format unchanged since I was a kid and my dad giggling at it back in the 70s. I can't be bothered attempting to plough through its cleverer-than-thou shit anymore - fronted by that nasty little cunt Hislop maintaining sales via the BBC. Yeah, I'll watch it if there's nothing else on. I'll buy Private Eye if I hear they've got something more than what's available on the internet i.e. hardly ever. They're going down, same as the other papers.



That's nonsense. 

They've got the best investigative journalists going and, and this is a very big and, they're prepared to back them when it comes to trial.


----------



## cesare (Nov 28, 2009)

Diamond said:


> That's nonsense.
> 
> They've got the best investigative journalists going and, and this is a very big and, they're prepared to back them when it comes to trial.



What is a 'very big'? What?

The BBC and Ian Hislop/Private Eye combine to reduce this country's most effective union leader to parody, with his own collusion in that celeb stakes - it's fucking pitiful all round.

The Eye's gonna go under. Back in the day I'd have worried about that. But I don't care now and hope they do.


----------



## Combustible (Nov 28, 2009)

Watching it now and it is quite cringeworthy.  It was probably a mistake going on but once he was one why he didnt just at least try to crack a few jokes rather than just making the odd dig at Hislop. I mean he had the EU followed by Thatcher and didn't say anything much about either.


----------



## DeepStoat (Nov 28, 2009)

Mrs Magpie said:


> He didn't go to Eton.



Armstrong did


----------



## DeepStoat (Nov 28, 2009)

DeepStoat said:


> Armstrong did



No he didn't


----------



## madzone (Nov 28, 2009)

Combustible said:


> Watching it now and it is quite cringeworthy. It was probably a mistake going on but once he was one why he didnt just at least try to crack a few jokes rather than just making the odd dig at Hislop. I mean he had the EU followed by Thatcher and didn't say anything much about either.


 Because he's not funny maybe? 

He couldn't be more of a stereotype if he tried.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2009)

Who were the other guests and who was the host?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2009)

Hislop and Merton aren't really guests. They are fixtures. Jimmy Carr was the other guest. He is a comedian of whom no doubt you would disapprove. Alexander Armstrong - again, no friend of the revolution - hosted. So the balance to Crow was fairly centre-right, which I suppose was unfair, give what a tit he was.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2009)

If he wasn't funny he wasn't funny. And frankly,  it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to  imagine him not being funny. I was just thinking that of the 4 other people in that studio, 2 had been to private school and 3 to Oxbridge. So maybe the built in class bias of the BBC was uppermost in his mind for some reason last night? But if he wasn't funny, then he wasn't funny.


----------



## madzone (Nov 28, 2009)

He was beyond unfunny. He was Anne Widdecombe unfunny. He was so unfunny I mght vote Conservative


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 28, 2009)

That's grossly unfair to Widdecombe.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Nov 28, 2009)

It's odd, because trade union officials are usually noted for their sparkling performances on light entertainment shows.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Nov 28, 2009)

Jack Jones was always twinkly and amusing, God rest him.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> So the Beeb and Private Eye think it'll be massive lols to persuade the single most effective union leader on to a humour show and make him look a prat, and he accepts. Facepalms all round.



They didn't make him look like a prat, he did that himself.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 28, 2009)

It was rather a sorry sight seeing Crow get constantly victimised by everybody. Seemed like an illustration of the prevailing attitude towards unions these days, the same thing we saw with the post office, whereby nobody can tolerate even a minor and temporary inconvenience for the sake of workers getting a fair(er) deal. Plenty of willful ignorance there as well, people complaining about the trains not running on time when Crow _doesn't run the trains_ he runs the union 


Was pretty foolish of Crow to go after Hislop I reckon, but I can see why he did it. The smug little tosspot would probably give me the red mist as well if I had to share a studio with him.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Crow fucked up by deciding upon class war with Ian Hislop and using the fact Hislop went to Oxbridge as the evidence he needed.


... especially when choosing Cambridge as the one attended by Hislop ...  

Not exactly difficult to find out he actually went to Oxford so not the best of starts ...


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ETA: playing the working class hero when you're a high earner is also very tiresome.


And damaging.  Hypocrisy is not an attractive trait in anyone.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 28, 2009)

Bob Crow seems like a top man to me, is it cos he's working class aye? (you gotta say that in an Ali G voice)


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 28, 2009)

He's working class?


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 28, 2009)

i will watch the repeat tonight anyway but i imagine it was a left wing witch hunt version of Griffin on Question Time


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i will watch the repeat tonight anyway but i imagine it was a left wing witch hunt version of Griffin on Question Time


 
Don't watch the repeat then. It won't live up to your fantasy, which sounds much better.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> The BBC and Ian Hislop/Private Eye combine to reduce this country's most effective union leader to parody...


I really don't think he really needed their help ...  He _is_ a living parody, and so self-unaware that he can't see that.

I saw some interview with him a couple of weeks ago, I forget where, and he was asked about his appearance on the show.  He was clearly relishing it and saw it as an opportunity to cross swords ... sorry ... rapier wits ... with Hislop and Merton.    

Way, way, way too big an opinion of himself.


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 28, 2009)

Mrs Magpie said:


> That's grossly unfair to Widdecombe.


I agree entirely ... she _was_ funny ... not necessarily on the traditional definition of funny, but funny nonetheless!


----------



## detective-boy (Nov 28, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> Plenty of willful ignorance there as well, people complaining about the trains not running on time when Crow _doesn't run the trains_ he runs the union...


I think you'll find the point of the joke was about how his antics make the trains late / go missing / unreliable rather than how the timetabling is shot to fuck ...


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 28, 2009)

detective-boy said:


> I really don't think he really needed their help ...  He _is_ a living parody, and so self-unaware that he can't see that.
> 
> I saw some interview with him a couple of weeks ago, I forget where, and he was asked about his appearance on the show.  He was clearly relishing it and saw it as an opportunity to cross swords ... sorry ... rapier wits ... with Hislop and Merton.
> 
> Way, way, way too big an opinion of himself.



The very fact that Tory twats like yourself hate him means he is doing SOMETHING right, even if he isn't contestant-savvy


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2009)

detective-boy said:


> I really don't think he really needed their help ...  He _is_ a living parody, and so self-unaware that he can't see that.
> ...
> 
> Way, way, way too big an opinion of himself.


----------



## Maggot (Nov 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> I don't look to its cartoons. It's weighed down in point 6ish font and a format unchanged since I was a kid and my dad giggling at it back in the 70s. I can't be bothered attempting to plough through its cleverer-than-thou shit anymore - fronted by that nasty little cunt Hislop maintaining sales via the BBC. Yeah, I'll watch it if there's nothing else on. I'll buy Private Eye if I hear they've got something more than what's available on the internet i.e. hardly ever. They're going down, same as the other papers.


HOw does Hislop maintain sales through the BBC?

Private Eye is one of the last places to still do investigative journalism. I don't know how many of their pieces are available on the internet, that's not the point. In PE the stories are all there in one place.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2009)

Maggot said:


> HOw does Hislop maintain sales through the BBC?


 
It can't _hurt_ sales to have Gnome's representative on Earth appearing on a prime-time smugathon, can it?


----------



## treelover (Nov 28, 2009)

Do any of PE's investigations make an impact in the wider world? I can't think of any recent media storm that was instigated by the Eye's relevations, though that may say something of the media's priorities.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> i will watch the repeat tonight anyway but i imagine it was a left wing witch hunt version of Griffin on Question Time



not on the same scale, but definitely heading that way and quite unpleasant to watch

Crow fucked it though, he attacked hislop to aggressively and to early, if he'd managed to position himself as the underdog first he could have won some sympathy and then gone in hard


----------



## Diamond (Nov 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> What is a 'very big'? What?
> 
> The BBC and Ian Hislop/Private Eye combine to reduce this country's most effective union leader to parody, with his own collusion in that celeb stakes - it's fucking pitiful all round.
> 
> The Eye's gonna go under. Back in the day I'd have worried about that. But I don't care now and hope they do.



The fact that they are prepared to fund their journalists when it comes to trial.

It sounds like you welcome the prospective end of a vital part of British investigative journalism.

If so, that's a staggeringly moronic position to take.


----------



## THINK! (Nov 28, 2009)

I think Bob crow came over  as what he is: a completely humourless dunce!


----------



## madzone (Nov 28, 2009)

smokedout said:


> not on the same scale, but definitely heading that way and quite unpleasant to watch
> 
> Crow fucked it though, he attacked hislop to aggressively and to early, if he'd managed to position himself as the underdog first he could have won some sympathy and then gone in hard


 
Or if he was actually clever and insightful enough to be amusing.


----------



## JWH (Nov 28, 2009)

treelover said:


> Do any of PE's investigations make an impact in the wider world? I can't think of any recent media storm that was instigated by the Eye's relevations, though that may say something of the media's priorities.



MMR?

But also - media storms aren't always a good judge of the quality and/or usefulness of investigative journalism. Private Eye runs columns about local government and property development that are far superior to anything the "proper" newspapers do, and that councils and councillors change their behaviour to avoid ending up in them shows that they have a significant effect imo.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 28, 2009)

madzone said:


> Or if he was actually clever and insightful enough to be amusing.



oh he's clever enough and even managed to squeeze a couple of laughs

but if he'd let the posh kids get a few digs in he could then have come back as a working class hero fighting back against the oxbridge toffs

i think he was nervous, his early initial attack on Hislop was too aggresive and seemed unprovoked* and that alienated the audience

*it actually wasnt truly unprovoked because the very existance of that smug little tory cunt is actually provocation enough


----------



## cesare (Nov 28, 2009)

Diamond said:


> The fact that they are prepared to fund their journalists when it comes to trial.
> 
> It sounds like you welcome the prospective end of a vital part of British investigative journalism.
> 
> If so, that's a staggeringly moronic position to take.



I don't welcome it at all. Not sure why you equate my criticism of the Eye nowadays compared to thirty years ago as welcoming "the prospective end of a vital part of British investigative journalism."


----------



## Diamond (Nov 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> I don't welcome it at all. Not sure why you equate my criticism of the Eye nowadays compared to thirty years ago as welcoming "the prospective end of a vital part of British investigative journalism."



It's just this bit that you wrote below...



cesare said:


> What is a 'very big'? What?
> 
> The BBC and Ian Hislop/Private Eye combine to reduce this country's most effective union leader to parody, with his own collusion in that celeb stakes - it's fucking pitiful all round.
> 
> *The Eye's gonna go under. Back in the day I'd have worried about that. But I don't care now and hope they do.*


----------



## cesare (Nov 28, 2009)

Diamond said:


> It's just this bit that you wrote below...



Oh right, I see what you mean. Well it used to bother me, for a long time. It started when Hislop replaced Richgard Ingrams really. And (imo) it's been on a steady decline into establishment ever since, hastened by Hislop becoming even more of an establishment figure on an entertainment show. But there's only so much  I can do before I start to not really care any more, and hope the Eye gets some decent competition - which probably won't happen. It'd need to fold and leave a gap. 

If I were younger, I probably wouldn't have quite the same view. Nothing to compare it with iyswim. But nowadays I find it hard to plough past the stuff that you see posted on the net anyway, trying to search for any odd nuggets. I'm not saying that I dislike it - if I was going to buy any periodical it would be the Eye. But I just don't find it as enjoyable anymore and I certainly don't think of it as the last bastion of investigative journalism.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2009)

It's true the Eye breaks stories you don't get anywhere else: _Newspaper carries advertising supplement!_ or _Person in public life is in some way connected with other person in public life!_ and then again _Politician makes two speeches, twelve years apart, which are inconsistent!_

The reason the stories don't tend to appear anywhere else is that they are shit.


----------



## THINK! (Nov 28, 2009)

He just came over as what he is": a fat, over-weight, resentful,l slightly hate-fill'd, not particularly articulate moron who hasn't got much to say.


----------



## stethoscope (Nov 28, 2009)

THINK! said:


> He just came over as what he is": a fat, over-weight, resentful,l slightly hate-fill'd, not particularly articulate moron who hasn't got much to say.



Haven't you already said something similar above?



THINK! said:


> I think Bob crow came over  as what he is: a completely humourless dunce!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 28, 2009)

It is a well-known fact that weight has an inverse relationship with the amount you have to say.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is a well-known fact that weight has an inverse relationship with the amount you have to say.


----------



## ajk (Nov 28, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is a well-known fact that weight has an inverse relationship with the amount you have to say.



Especially if you're fat _and_ over-weight.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 28, 2009)

cesare said:


> Oh right, I see what you mean. Well it used to bother me, for a long time. It started when Hislop replaced Richgard Ingrams really. And (imo) it's been on a steady decline into establishment ever since, hastened by Hislop becoming even more of an establishment figure on an entertainment show. But there's only so much  I can do before I start to not really care any more, and hope the Eye gets some decent competition - which probably won't happen. It'd need to fold and leave a gap.
> 
> If I were younger, I probably wouldn't have quite the same view. Nothing to compare it with iyswim. But nowadays I find it hard to plough past the stuff that you see posted on the net anyway, trying to search for any odd nuggets. I'm not saying that I dislike it - if I was going to buy any periodical it would be the Eye. But I just don't find it as enjoyable anymore and I certainly don't think of it as the last bastion of investigative journalism.



I've always liked The Eye but i had no idea how much of a twat Hislop was until Question Time. Granted he was up the establishments arse on the subject of Diana , ridiculing Al Fayed for putting forward perfectly plausable scenarios on the death of his son, but apart from that i always thought it sound...


----------



## madzone (Nov 28, 2009)

THINK! said:


> He just came over as what he is": a fat, over-weight, resentful,l slightly hate-fill'd, not particularly articulate moron who hasn't got much to say.


 Fat people can be funny too


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 28, 2009)

I don't  understand why this thread is lasting so long.  The programme was not particularly interesting.  Bob Crow is no fatter than he has been for the last few years.  Crow and Hislop had a bit of a minor set-to mostly started by Crow - but why not?  Hislop can handle that sort of thing and did it well.  There was a bit of set-piece teasing of Crow through the pictures of tube trains in the questions which he handled well.  The humour was a bit flat and quite unmemorable.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 28, 2009)

Hocus Eye. said:


> I don't  understand why this thread is lasting so long.  The programme was not particularly interesting.  Bob Crow is no fatter than he has been for the last few years.  Crow and Hislop had a bit of a minor set-to mostly started by Crow - but why not?  Hislop can handle that sort of thing and did it well.  There was a bit of set-piece teasing of Crow through the pictures of tube trains in the questions which he handled well.  The humour was a bit flat and quite unmemorable.



Funnily enough since Angus went it hasn't been anywhere near as good and i will only watch tonights just to see if the various posters above or right or not.


----------



## YouSir (Nov 28, 2009)

No comedy, not particularly interesting. Bob Crow, for all his admirable qualities, isn't particularly funny, at least not on TV and I've no idea what result the producers were playing for, drama with him and Hislop? There wasn't any really, was just a bit petty and tedious. Bad choices all round. Except for Merton, who kept his mouth shut.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 28, 2009)

when you find yourself saying 'Jimmy Carr pretty much carried it' you know you have a stinker of a show.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2009)

trevhagl said:


> Funnily enough since Angus went it hasn't been anywhere near as good and i will only watch tonights just to see if the various posters above or right or not.



Deayton would have brought the figures down to...uh...up to 3 privately schooled 3 Oxbridge types out of the other 4 people in the studio.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 28, 2009)

And presumably, the proudly plebian Merton will shortly be eased out, as he barely says a word, these days. Probably best to replace him with someone who knows the show well, has presented a few times, can cope with the intellectual cut and thrust, but above all, has the right _background_. 

It's only an hour a week, after all. The GLA and the Met more or less run themselves.


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 29, 2009)

well after all that i missed the fucker as the bairn ran into technical problems when he tried to watch one of his programmes and we had to switch the hard disc off , so i lost the recording.

So can anyone actually tell me what Crow said to Hislop?


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Nov 29, 2009)

references to Hislops education (Crow suggested cambridge, Hislop said "well, oxford, actually..." or therebouts).   Also, there was mention of oysters and Crow suggested that this was Hislops main diet, and Hislop said Crow was a fine to talk about diets...  silly shit, back-and-forth, tbf.


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 29, 2009)

Just watched it after all the hype about the episode (in this thread). Felt a bit sorry for Bob Crow because he was basically the butt of most of the jokes, a lot of times unfairly I thought (like making out he was solely responsible for problems with the Tube rather than the people that actually own it!). However he shot himself in the foot a number of times. He didn't seem able to comprehend this was a comedy programme and not a serious news debate, so he started going off on one about the EU and privatisation which nobody really wants to hear on something that's supposed to be funny. Then there was the accusations that Hislop eats a diet of lobsters coming from somebody who earns £80k a year!

I think the problem is is that certain types of person are attracted to the organised left, ie, humourless, aggressive and take life far too seriously (as this website demonstrates from time to time). These types of people should stick to shouting at people in the streets rather than embarrassing themselves on national TV by trying to be funny (altho the egos that go with these types of people would probably mean he actually thought he did well out of it!)


----------



## rapattaque (Nov 29, 2009)

Bob Crowe did a (Van) Rompuy - Pumpy joke. He said it twice because he mistook no-one laughing at it the first time as a sign they hadn't heard it. I liked that bit.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Nov 29, 2009)

Crow revealing himself to be an epic tool yet again. Now there's a surprise.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Nov 29, 2009)

madzone said:


> Fat people can be funny too



I know I am.


----------



## Harold Hill (Nov 29, 2009)

CyberRose said:


> Just watched it after all the hype about the episode (in this thread). Felt a bit sorry for Bob Crow because he was basically the butt of most of the jokes, a lot of times unfairly I thought (like making out he was solely responsible for problems with the Tube rather than the people that actually own it!). However he shot himself in the foot a number of times. He didn't seem able to comprehend this was a comedy programme and not a serious news debate, so he started going off on one about the EU and privatisation which nobody really wants to hear on something that's supposed to be funny. Then there was the accusations that Hislop eats a diet of lobsters coming from somebody who earns £80k a year!
> 
> I think the problem is is that certain types of person are attracted to the organised left, ie, humourless, aggressive and take life far too seriously (as this website demonstrates from time to time). These types of people should stick to shouting at people in the streets rather than embarrassing themselves on national TV by trying to be funny (altho the egos that go with these types of people would probably mean he actually thought he did well out of it!)



The Labour left MPs never took themselves too seriously and they've had plenty on.  Less cringeworthy than Alan Duncan and the Tories appear.


----------



## Chz (Nov 30, 2009)

I _almost_ felt sorry for Bob when he had a go at Hislop. Reminded me of Donny Tourette on on Buzzcocks when he had a go at Bill Bailey and was reminded that Bill was a professional funny-man and he *would* lose. But then Tourette's a much bigger twat than Bob will ever be. (even factoring the weight difference in)

Perhaps that's the problem - Brother Crow wasn't reprehensible _enough_ to be funny. Anne Widdicombe was hilarious, for example, and she's far more frightening than he is. To be fair to man, he fights like the possessed for his members - which is what he's paid to do. He just doesn't do the trade union movement any favours outside of the RMT.


----------



## IMR (Nov 30, 2009)

Harold Hill said:


> Less cringeworthy than Alan Duncan and the Tories appear.



Alan Duncan was terrible when he was on HIGNFY. He laughed much too long at a juvenile turd joke - autumnal shades of Mark Oaten?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

IMR said:


> autumnal shades of Mark Oaten?



H-block wallpaper.


----------



## ska invita (Nov 30, 2009)

CyberRose said:


> I think the problem is is that certain types of person are attracted to the organised left, ie, humourless, aggressive and take life far too seriously (as this website demonstrates from time to time).


Ive met some funny trade unionists, but there is also a tough man culture in trade unions, which unfortunately doesn't translate into standing tough when the time comes.


----------



## IMR (Nov 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> H-block wallpaper.



In his case, maybe H-block stands for Human Izal Block.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 30, 2009)

CyberRose said:


> Just watched it after all the hype about the episode (in this thread). Felt a bit sorry for Bob Crow because he was basically the butt of most of the jokes, a lot of times unfairly I thought (like making out he was solely responsible for problems with the Tube rather than the people that actually own it!). However he shot himself in the foot a number of times. He didn't seem able to comprehend this was a comedy programme and not a serious news debate, so he started going off on one about the EU and privatisation which nobody really wants to hear on something that's supposed to be funny. Then there was the accusations that Hislop eats a diet of lobsters coming from somebody who earns £80k a year!



Another Crow-ism - to Hislop - "_I've got more in common with a Chinese labourer than someone like yourself_" - audience collapse with hysteria.

Presumably he was comparing intellectual capacity......


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> Another Crow-ism - to Hislop - "_I've got more in common with a Chinese labourer than someone like yourself_" - audience collapse with hysteria.
> 
> *Presumably he was rcomparing intellectual capacity......*




Nice lazy racial stereotype there....

And given the spelling error perhaps you'd best leave that alone?!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

Wow.  And you probably don't know why cobblers. 

When you on ?


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 30, 2009)

Fullyplumped said:


> I know I am.



But, I fear, not intentinally.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 30, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Nice lazy racial stereotype there....



How is it a racial stereotype?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Wow.  And you probably don't know why cobblers.
> 
> When you on ?


It was a bullshit comment, though, butchers. Unthinking Marxist analysis that ignored the reality – that Crow earns a very nice living, just like Hislop. To compare himself with Chinese labourers on a few dollars a day was crass.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It was a bullshit comment, though, butchers. Unthinking Marxist analysis that ignored the reality – that Crow earns a very nice living, just like Hislop. To compare himself with Chinese labourers on a few dollars a day was crass.



I'm not talking abot Crows comment, i'm talking about cobblers. Fed had already picked him up on it though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not talking abot Crows comment, i'm talking about cobblers. Fed had already picked him up on it though.


Ah ok. Fair enough.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> How is it a racial stereotype?



Your allusion to chinese labourers being thick. Not racist but certainly racial.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 30, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Your allusion to chinese labourers being thick. Not racist but certainly racial.



El Bobbo chucked in the race card (why didn't he just say "_a labourer of no specific race_").

In my experience, folk with a level of intelligence sufficient to net a degree (admittedly not much if it's in a subject like meeja studies or history of art) generally have the smarts to enable them to avoid manual labour as a career, whether they're Chinese, Tahitian or whatever.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 30, 2009)

Oh dear Cobbles, not very bright are you.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> El Bobbo chucked in the race card (why didn't he just say "_a labourer of no specific race_").
> 
> In my experience, folk with a level of intelligence sufficient to net a degree (admittedly not much if it's in a subject like meeja studies or history of art) generally have the smarts to enable them to avoid manual labour as a career, whether they're Chinese, Tahitian or whatever.



No, you made the allegation regards intelligence, Crow merely made a rather un-nuanced point.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 30, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> No, you made the allegation regards intelligence, Crow merely made a rather un-nuanced point.



............That sounded like it had been made by a petulant 7 year old.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> ............That sounded like it had been made by a petulant 7 year old.



No, more someone trying (badly) to make a subtle point on a programme where time and context doesn't make for subtlety.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> No, more someone trying (badly) to make a subtle point on a programme where time and context doesn't make for subtlety.


It was a mistaken point, though, and shows that you have to be careful with Marxist analysis in the modern world. 150 years ago, he may have been right, but today, he and all of his members have more in common with Hislop and co than a Chinese labourer, such are the relations between rich and poor countries. We in the rich world all, to a greater or lesser extent, exploit the labours of low-paid Chinese workers, Crow and his members included. It showed him up as not a very good thinker, imo.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 30, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> No, more someone trying (badly) to make a subtle point on a programme where time and context doesn't make for subtlety.



No - he was trying to be funny but he clearly hasn't enough wit, or intelligence to manage it so he just came across as a rather dim and lacklustre apparatchik, capable only of spouting well rehearsed but meaningless dogma.

Mind you, that's all he is........


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It was a mistaken point, though, and shows that you have to be careful with Marxist analysis in the modern world. 150 years ago, he may have been right, but today, he and all of his members have more in common with Hislop and co than a Chinese labourer, such are the relations between rich and poor countries. We in the rich world all, to a greater or lesser extent, exploit the labours of low-paid Chinese workers, Crow and his members included. It showed him up as not a very good thinker, imo.



In classical marxist terms of ownership of the means of production he's 21001% correct. And you're wrong anyway - i get no surplus value from china, and you also substitute nation for class.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It was a mistaken point, though, and shows that you have to be careful with Marxist analysis in the modern world. 150 years ago, he may have been right, but today, he and all of his members have more in common with Hislop and co than a Chinese labourer, such are the relations between rich and poor countries. We in the rich world all, to a greater or lesser extent, exploit the labours of low-paid Chinese workers, Crow and his members included. It showed him up as not a very good thinker, imo.



Aye, the 'general' point is correct, but he shouldn't have tried it on a programme like that when he had no ability to develop the point or explain it. Bad choice. 

Whether or not he and other RMT members have more in common with Hislop is a whole different argument.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> apparatchik



Look up what this word means.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> No - he was trying to be funny but he clearly hasn't enough wit, or intelligence to manage it so he just came across as a rather dim and lacklustre apparatchik, capable only of spouting well rehearsed but meaningless dogma.




This is you you're talking about yes?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> In classical marxist terms of ownership of the means of production he's 21001% correct. And you're wrong anyway - i get no surplus value from china, and you also substitute nation for class.


I'm not wrong at all. Every time you buy a cheap good made in China, you are profiting from wages that would be impossible here. 

His comments simply show up the limits of classical marxist analysis where the world is divided into rich and poor nations. You can't extrapolate across borders in that way.

Where does Hislop stand in relation to the means production, in any case? He is editor, not owner, of Private Eye, and I doubt he takes much of a wage from that job in any case. He'll make most of his money from doing things like appearing on HIGNFY, for which no doubt he is paid a small fortune, but he's still an employee of the BBC, just one with a huge amount of leverage when it comes to pay. Just as, for instance, train drivers have a decent amount of leverage and earn a pretty decent wage. I don't begrudge them their wage at all, but a train driver has more in common with a teacher or even a doctor than s/he does with a cleaner, a road sweeper or a checkout assistant, let alone a worker in China.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 30, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> he shouldn't have tried it on a programme like that when he had no ability to develop the point or explain it.



Unfortunately he did - because he's clearly thicker than 2 short planks. Such a breathtaking demonstration of mental agility clearly demonstrated to millions of viewers why the RMT is impossoble to negotiate with.......


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Look up what this word means.



What - you mean that he hasn't slimed his way up the greasy pole of a self-serving bureaurocracy?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not wrong at all. Every time you buy a cheap good made in China, you are profiting from wages that would be impossible here.
> 
> His comments simply show up the limits of classical marxist analysis where the world is divided into rich and poor nations. You can't extrapolate across borders in that way.



Nonsense. You're doing exactly what you say he is!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> What - you mean that he hasn't slimed his way up the greasy pole of a self-serving bureaurocracy?



No, i mean look up what the word means then compare it your use.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Nonsense. You're doing exactly what you say he is!


It's not nonsense at all. Go to any musical instrument shop and compare prices there with 20 years ago. They cost about half what they did cost before adjusting for inflation, so they really cost around a quarter what they did. Why? Because they are now made in China, where wages are much lower. You may not be extracting the profit, but you _are_ profiting from the low wages.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where does Hislop stand in relation to the means production, in any case? He is editor, not owner, of Private Eye, and I doubt he takes much of a wage from that job in any case. He'll make most of his money from doing things like appearing on HIGNFY, for which no doubt he is paid a small fortune, but he's still an employee of the BBC, just one with a huge amount of leverage when it comes to pay. Just as, for instance, train drivers have a decent amount of leverage and earn a pretty decent wage. I don't begrudge them their wage at all, but a train driver has more in common with a teacher or even a doctor than s/he does with a cleaner, a road sweeper or a checkout assistant, let alone a worker in China.



Thereby proving Crow's point in _your_ schema - Hislop gets more than him therefore Crow is closer to chinese labourers. You can't use Marx's catergories when it suits and then dump then when it doesn't.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not nonsense at all. Go to any musical instrument shop and compare prices there with 20 years ago. They cost about half what they did cost before adjusting for inflation, so they really cost around a quarter what they did. Why? Because they are now made in China, where wages are much lower. You may not be extracting the profit, but you _are_ profiting from the low wages.



Wow, things are cheaper now because of cheap labour? I'd never realised. It still doesn't mean that i profited from them. And it certainly doesn't mean that i _exploited_ anyone as was your original claim.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Thereby proving Crow's point in _your_ schema - Hislop gets more than him therefore Crow is closer to chinese labourers. You can't use Marx's catergories when it suits and then dump then when it doesn't.


No, qualitatively different. Someone earning a reasonable wage here leads a totally different life from a poor worker in a poor country. Crow, with his £89k a year, has more in common with a millionaire than he does with a Chinese worker. He can buy all the food he needs, all the essential services he needs, all the clothes he needs, all the education for his kids he needs, all the health care he needs, etc. He is not lacking, nor need he fear lacking, any of life's essentials.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Wow, things are cheaper now because of cheap labour? I'd never realised. It still doesn't mean that i profited from them. And it certainly doesn't mean that i _exploited_ anyone as was your original claim.


You and I are both part of an exploitative system and when you save money, you are exploiting, sorry. You may feel you have no choice in the matter, but you still are. I think you're being very naive.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, qualitatively different. Someone earning a reasonable wage here leads a totally different life from a poor worker in a poor country. Crow, with his £89k a year, has more in common with a millionaire than he does with a Chinese worker. He can buy all the food he needs, all the essential services he needs, all the clothes he needs, all the education for his kids he needs, all the health care he needs, etc. He is not lacking, nor need he fear lacking, any of life's essentials.



All totally irreleveant if you're going to use the relationship to the means of production model - which you have done with hislop but not extended to Crow. You're being totally inconsistent.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> All totally irreleveant if you're going to use the relationship to the means of production model - which you have done with hislop but not extended to Crow. You being totally inconsistent.


No. My point with Hislop was to show the limits of 'relationship to means of production' as means of saying with whom you have most in common.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You and I are both part of an exploitative system and when you save money, you are exploiting, sorry. You may feel you have no choice in the matter, but you still are. I think you're being very naive.



...and i think you're being finger wagging guilty green priest. And there you go half using marx again and letting the guilt off the hook.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. My point with Hislop was to show the limits of 'relationship to means of production' as means of saying with whom you have most in common.




Fine no problem, but you replced that with how much money you have -and he has more (leaving aside cultural capital). Therefore Crow was right i_n your terms.
_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> ...and i think you're being finger wagging guilty green moralist. And there you go half using marx again and letting the guilt off the hook.


Not at all. Really not at all. Did you or I create this situation? No. Are we in positions of power within it? No. But does that mean that we are not in some ways concrete beneficiaries of the exploitation of others? No, it does not.


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> Such a breathtaking demonstration of mental agility clearly demonstrated to millions of viewers why the RMT is impossoble to negotiate with.......



It shows nothing of the sort. And, given you're clearly a foreigner to reality, the biggest area of concern for RMT has been on the Tube where Boris, who claimed he could get a no strike deal enforced even when he had no legal powers to do so, has consistently refused to have meetings even scuppering agreements. So, might I suggest, given you're remarkably distant relationship to reality, you go back to school and learn about what is actually happening as opposed to your own myopic dribblings. .


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> No, i mean look up what the word means then compare it your use.



From wankypedia:


*Apparatchik* (Russian: аппара́тчик, Russian pronunciation: [ɐpɐˈratɕɪk] plural _apparatchiki_) is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government; i.e., an agent of the governmental or party "apparat" (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility, with the exception of the higher ranks of management. James Billington describes one as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details."[1] It often is considered a derogatory term.[2]
 Members of the "apparat" were frequently transferred between different areas of responsibility, usually with little or no actual training for their new areas of responsibility. Thus, the term apparatchik, or "agent of the apparatus" was usually the best possible description of the person's profession and occupation.[3]
 Not all apparatchiks held lifelong positions. Many only entered such positions in middle age.[4]
 Today this term is also used in contexts other than Soviet Union. For example, it is often used to describe people who cause bureaucratic bottlenecks in otherwise efficient organizations. It is also frequently used to describe individuals, appointed to positions in any government, on the basis of ideological or political loyalty rather than competence.

Clearly, having little or no competence, he qualifies simply as an agent of the apparatus........


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 30, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> It shows nothing of the sort.



Yes it does - his pitiful performance shows that he's just a dogmatic mouthpiece, incapable of thinking on his feet (or lardy arse).


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> From wankypedia:
> 
> 
> *Apparatchik* (Russian: аппара́тчик, Russian pronunciation: [ɐpɐˈratɕɪk] plural _apparatchiki_) is a Russian colloquial term for a full-time, professional functionary of the Communist Party or government; i.e., an agent of the governmental or party "apparat" (apparatus) that held any position of bureaucratic or political responsibility, *with the exception of the higher ranks of management.* James Billington describes one as "a man not of grand plans, but of a hundred carefully executed details."[1] It often is considered a derogatory term.[2]
> ...



Read. The bits i've bolded especially.


----------



## IMR (Nov 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> From wankypedia



You're pushing 50, aren't you?


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> Yes it does - his pitiful performance shows that he's just a dogmatic mouthpiece, incapable of thinking on his feet (or lardy arse).



Unable to argue the facts you simply revert to your own petty prejudices. perhaops come back to us when you are a few thousand miles nearer the point.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 30, 2009)

butchersapron said:


> Read. The bits i've bolded especially.




If he's only scraping 80 grand or so, then he's hardly "higher management"...........

No, he's just a greasy pole climber who's got where he is purely through adherence to dogma rather than the application of any skills.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

He's the boss. I think that counts as higher mangement.


----------



## Cobbles (Nov 30, 2009)

Fedayn said:


> Unable to argue the facts you simply revert to your own petty prejudices. perhaops come back to us when you are a few thousand miles nearer the point.



The point is that his presence on the show was about as enjoyable as a refried bean fuelled fart in a lift.

If some PR genius at the RMT suggested that an appearance showcasing his sparkly wit, charm and warmth would the boost public's perception of him and the RMT, they've  presumably now been re-assigned to polishing the rails by hand.

No, the Public have reinforced their opinion that the doormat at RMT towers does indeed read "_please mind your knuckles_".........


----------



## Spion (Nov 30, 2009)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not at all. Really not at all. Did you or I create this situation? No. Are we in positions of power within it? No. But does that mean that we are not in some ways concrete beneficiaries of the exploitation of others? No, it does not.


A beneficiary of exploitation is not the same thing as being the exploiter


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

And you've decided that Crow's model is one to follow cobblers? Your call, but...


----------



## EastEnder (Nov 30, 2009)

He was a shit contestant, but no worse than I or most other people would've been.

Can't quite understand why he went on - they should stick to B list comedians & politicians desperate for publicity.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2009)

2grand


----------



## belboid (Nov 30, 2009)

the bille from the tory twats on this thread makes me think that hig Bobness was brilliant on the show, and should be back every week


----------



## Fedayn (Nov 30, 2009)

Cobbles said:


> The point is that his presence on the show was about as enjoyable as a refried bean fuelled fart in a lift.
> 
> If some PR genius at the RMT suggested that an appearance showcasing his sparkly wit, charm and warmth would the boost public's perception of him and the RMT, they've  presumably now been re-assigned to polishing the rails by hand.
> 
> No, the Public have reinforced their opinion that the doormat at RMT towers does indeed read "_please mind your knuckles_".........



Put the goal posts back you fucking clown.


----------



## cesare (Nov 30, 2009)

Seems it's repeated tonight at 11.20 BBC2. Might watch it this time


----------

