Santa_Rosa

Good enough for me. The government promised it, they should deliver. Regardless of what my Guardian, or anyone else's Mail says. God I hope the Lib Dems get their act together before the next election - I can't vote for these clowns any more.

It does, but other people were watching it. Unfortunately, despite my efforts, my front room is still a democracy Like I say, I was reading the excellent OSM, or at least trying to. I kept being interrupted by buffoons not really talking about cars and doing that annoying thing where they say something really loud and unfunny, pause for a second, and say something else really loud and unfunny. IT'S THE MOST IRRITATING THING... ...IN THE WORLD! Not for me it wasn't. And here's John Humphreys and Fiona Bruce and Dermot Thingy, they all love me, I'm so popular. It's one big happy familiy at the beeb you know.. If I was Fiona Bruce (and I often wish I was) I'd have left the melon headed tosspot and his booming voice in the lift until all that remained was a pile of bones, a tweed jacket and a pair of Lee Coopers. Aye, that bit was funny. Try Flight of The Conchords, My Name is Earl and the hopefully soon to return of the mighty Harry Hill's TV Burp.

Really? I was vaguely amused and it caused me to raise my eyes from the Observer Sport monthly, but not so much as a titter left my lips. I genuinely can't understand the excitement about this programme. James May is very good, but the other two with their "ooh, aren't we controversial with our near to the knuckle gags and May is gay jibes" can piss right off. I don't mind the special shows (that polar one was excellent) but all the boys club, jeans and jacket studio banter is just bollocks IMO.

I'd march against it definitely.

Starbars. With a cup of strong coffee. Followed by a lovely tab. Probably the only time I miss smoking...

I don't really want to get into a debate about this but surely, in these circumstances, namely that this is a new scheme to be introduced which many people are wary of (for a variety of reasons including cost, civil liberties etc...), the onus is on the government and those in favour of this policy to prove why it is good and not for those who are not in favour of it to prove why it isn't beneficial. Or, as Solove's essay puts it: "I don't need to justify my position. You need to justify yours. Come back with a warrant."

The only thing I can think of is it will mean that everyone, having shelled out £300 or whatever, will be too broke to go out and do any terrorising. Everyone will have stop in and watch Emmerdale (Farm) which, as we all know, contains subliminal controlling references hidden deep in dialogue between the Dingles and Betty.

I voted no, and feel even more that it was the right way to vote after reading that essay. Fascinating stuff that has really made me think about it in a new light. I particularly like his point around 'breathing room' Anything that lets the government, or anyone I don't want to know for that matter, know more about the way I live my life is a bad thing IMO. The fact that I live it perfectly legally is neither here nor there. As yer man says, privacy is much more than that. When you consider the expense and the fact that, as far as I can see, it will make little real difference to the 'War on Terror' (that favourite phrase of the scaremongerer) makes it an even bigger no for me. Just the thought of a copper stopping me in the street and demanding "Papers please!" (I can't even say it without putting on a cod, Herr Flick-style German accent)sends a chill down my spine.

If I've got a few bob at the end of the month, I put it into my savings. A bit boring, but quite wise even if I do say so myself.

I'm with you villasquare. I'm a beleiver, just one who is becoming more and more disappointed with each transferless day. If nowt else happens between now and the end of Aug, I might ask for a new category 'A bit unsure now'

Stereotype implies fictional characters Tony and, as anyone who lives up here will tell you, Viz is a factual periodical!

I was kidding. So Golliwogs, ridiculous caricture dolls of a race of people who, up until recently, have been oppressed for centuries partly down to the stereotypes that are reinforced by are these caricatures, are same as Action Man/Barbie/cartoon depictions of English business men etc? You didn't get negative racist meaning from your Golly. I had one too, neither did I. But that's because we were brought up in such a way that meant we could see them as purely toys. What about kids in familires that are less open minded and who are more pre-disposed to prejudice? For these, exposure to negative stereotypes against a race of people who have constantly had to fight against them for many years, could be another factor that helps turn them into a BNP voter. Maybe the conclusion to draw from this is that we should ban racist people - in an ideal world we would (I have a dream today!). Until we can, we should fight against things that give them an excuse to be. They do in Sunderland mate. Why do you think I have stayed up here so long?

No. Because that's true. You've been down under for too long Nick, we've come full circle back here. I for one am now dressed like John Cleese in the Ministry for Silly Walks sketch. Just ask Major Ponsonnby-Smythe next to me.

Yeah, good point. I realised there was an element of contradiction in what I was saying. In fact I was about to edit when I saw your response Perhaps exposure is a key factor. The sheer abundance of Golliwogs, Black and White Minstrels etc meant that they permeated into the public consciousness more - certainly in modern times. Maybe Shylock and Fagin were the golliwogs of their day, but these days don't have the exposure that allows them to become 'dangerous' stereotypes. The more Golliwaogs exposure dies too, the more this will happen to them I guess. I don't think it's any coincidence that popular culture in the last 20 years or so doesn't have an equivalent to the Gollywog - ethnic minorities in film, tv etc are now generally represented in the same way as the majority of the populace - some idiots, some not. Can this go too far? Of course, as sent up in South Park with the 'Token' character, but surely it has got to be a good thing on the whole.

You really can't see the difference? IMO both Shakespeare and Dickens (although maybe not Lionel Bart) were genius's (genii?) who gave these characters flaws and traits that allowed the discerning viewer/reader to see their humanity and beyond their stereotyped characteristics. Are you suggesting Enid Blyton and Mrs Robinson managed to weave such complexities into their creations?

Fair enough :shock: I for one will be leaving NaziFlakes and Fair Trade For Fascist Farmers Coffee well and truly on the shelf.

I wouldn't either mate, not at all. But these things will die out in time and I won't be shedding any tears when they do.

You must have been watching a different Noddy to me then if you though the Gollies on that weren't sneaky sinister creatures to be feared and opposed. They scared me silly! That it's OK to caricature an entire race of people as moon faced, big-eyed, thicklipped buffoons that dress up as fireman, postmen etc for our entertainment. Same principle as the Black and White minstrels. What if a company decided to use the Jewish stereotype I mentioned earlier on their marmalade?

Yeah I read it BOF. The question wasn't aimed at you mate, rather just generally. Apart from the issue about whether it is harmless because kids don't think that way, I reckon we agree. You know, this bit:

Yeah, but I have never actually experienced this first hand - I only ever read about it on BNP posters/propaganda filth and the Daily Mail (who said they were the same thing?) I beleive this sort of thing happens very rarely and we only get to hear about it because the likes of Richard Littlejohn actively sniff out the very odd instances and then plaster it all over the gutter press and claim we're all off to hell in a handcart. As for Gollywogs, the point isn't whether you had one and didn't grow up a racist, the point is that it is perpetuating a stereotype that penetrates into people's subconscious. They, like the Black and White minstrels and daft 'comedys' like Mind Your Language are wrong and shouldn't exist in this day and age. They don't mean harm, but that doesn't mean they're not racist. What if there was a doll that portrayed Jewish people as hook-nosed, hand-wringing Shylock types. Would that be OK? Or one of Welsh people making the beast with two backs (or with one back and a very odd middle) with a sheep. And be careful, I've cambrian blood flowing along with claret and blue I take the point about kids not thinking that way, but I'm sure the constant bombarding of negative stereotypes and imagery that occured in less PC times was responisble for a lot of misery experienced by immigrants. The less of this type of thing that is around the better full stop. I'd ban the lot mate, whatever they're called

He has his future in Villa steel... But let's stop now.

Maybe, but only...If young Nigel says he's happy.

Yeah, good point that. I guess it's all about expectations. And mine have gone slightly stratospheric of late admittedly. Going from your bit about the timing, I suppose we agree that he would a squad player though? I could live with that if the signing was followed later in the summer by something (or things!) a bit tastier.

We clearly have a different definition of great then Risso. He's good, no doubt about it, but no better than we already have. In the championship he can yeah. In the Premiership I don't recall him doing any of those things very often. Like Earnshaw I think he has found his level, and IMO, it's not one that Villa should be operating on anymore. If we sign him though , I'll give the lad a fair go and cheer him on. I just think MON is aiming his sights higher.

Well I just hope that MON, who I think knows better, doesn't listen this time in the same way as DOL didn't back then (he did get something right after all!)