Jon

Gotta love Jez!! 

15 hours ago, Clarry said:

I thought it was great fun. My niece loved all the digging at incels. I suppose it's a show more aimed at teenagers than old gits!

Yep.  She-Hulk very much challenges male masculinity.  It's no surprise therefore that many blokes didn't much care for it. I thought it was superb and an excellent light hearted addition to the MCU cannon. 

16 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

 

Just finished this. Really quite shit to be honest. 
 

Very promising start but just went nowhere. I haven’t researched the true story yet but my instinct is there’s not much to it so they didn’t know how to end the show

Yep.  In terms of remaining accurate to the real events, only the letters are factual.  The rest is just basically made up to dramatise a fairly boring story 

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Im starting to think he is actually mentally insane

Starting? 

3 hours ago, a m ole said:

Goalkeepers in caps

EMI MARTINEZ? 

They're more important than the rest of the team so are allowed to shout.  

12 hours ago, tomav84 said:

the watcher on netflix anyone?

very silly so far but oddly engrossing

Yeah it was a bit shit really. Based on a true story but massively embellished, to its detriment.  I watched it all but yeah, just too silly really for what could have been a good suspense mystery 

14 hours ago, Rolta said:

I'm feeling more confident beating the She Hulk drum the further it gets through its season.

For the record, I don't know anything about the character in the comics, and I know sometimes this makes a big difference, but it's a high-quality and well made show with an actual heart. It's not cliched at all—it's pretty damn original. There's nothing like it, and nothing like it in the MCU, which is fresh considering there have been however many shows and films. It's light hearted more often than not, but I find it enjoyable and engaging.

I really enjoyed the last episode and the not secret big cameo.

It got plenty of stick for whatever reason, but I don't get that at all. Maybe I'm being naive or something, because even the show often references and predicts the very backlash that surprises me.

I've said it before, but I watch it with my gf—I'm not sure if that's making a difference. I also finish work late on a Thursday and have pretty light Fridays, so its vibe works quite well on a Thursday night at 10pm when I'm knackered and I don't want to watch anything too long.

Yep.  It's been superb. Proper sitcom with decent storylines done really well.  It is what it is. It's light hearted. 

Anyone watch Inside Man on the beeb? It was absolutely ludicrous, preposterous nonsense.

But also strangely gripping. The actions and motivations were nonsense, but it was a well done programme nonetheless.  

I'm guessing PussEKat has been seeking advice from Big Ron on this issue? 

8 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

 

Ed Davey is ok but a sort of duller version of Starmer.  

Is that even possible?

2 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

As a chant,  not easy.

Brown lives matter

10 hours ago, Rolta said:

She Hulk is a completely different tone and style to anything else they've done, more like a sitcom. It's grown on me a fair bit as I think it's genuinely entertaining and I like She Hulk herself. Her friends are a bit annoying though. I like it that the stakes are completely different. No skybeam here. 

I've enjoyed Ms Marvel too as you say, but it gets a bit cheesy after a while. I still have one more episode. 

Yep.  She Hulk I watch with my daughter and we're really enjoying it. Lighter in tone as you say.  Light entertainment/ sitcom style, but genuinely done really well.  

Ms Marvel was OK-ish. But I found it fairly forgettable.  

9 hours ago, Rolta said:

Of the TV Shows you haven't watched Hawkeye and Loki are both really good. I'd say they're maybe the best two TV shows. I thought they were both two of the best things in the whole MCU.

 

Spot on.  

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

He has definitely done this - but for me what's telling is who he's selling himself to - he's not selling himself to the electorate, he's selling himself to business, to the press barons, to the donor class - his key vision in this aspect is "I am different to the last leader and I promise not to be a threat to your hegemony".

Well yeah, he called off the witch hunt once he'd drowned his witch. The sole purpose of Labour's anti-semitism drive (supported by the Tory party) was the removal of Corbyn.

That's one way to put it. Can i say McCarthyist purge or would that be a bit much?

He's definitely done this, and I think it's the right thing - I think he'll have a long term view on how to lessen some impacts and improve relations with our European neighbours. I think he's got this right - albeit it's the action of promising no action - again aimed at not scaring the bankers or disrupting markets further.

I think you'd have to define patriotism there - Corbyn's patriotism was an interest in putting the people of the UK first - Starmer's seems more focused on the pound. That's very much open to interpretation and I'm sure you'd see it differently.

Again though, responsibility to who? Starmer is projecting a responsibility that keeps bankers and the donor class satisfied. Corbyn's financial responsibility was to working people, to labour. There's nothing that Starmer has said or is projecting that suggests anything but a continuation of an ideal that is sending us back to the Victorian era and making the planet unliveable - I personally don't see that as responsible option.

I'd cede to your knowledge here, I'm not sure I know enough about the Starmer team to really make a judgement.

This one I'm with you on to a large extent, he's good in the house I think, he makes reasoned clear arguments in a sensible way that doesn't make him look like a public schoolboy on a bender, and in fairness, while that's a low bar, he's well above it, he gives the appearance in the house of a competent and calm politician. He's very capable.

But with who and for what end? I'm not sure of any detailed ties or relationships, but his focus seems to be on international money - on the status quo.

Maybe - but you have to wander what the right time is given that he's been in the job for more than two years and pretty much all we've got at the moment in terms of Starmer's vision for a future Britain is "sell some bonds". I don't buy the don't have ideas because other people will steal them mantra - you have to have a vision, you have to have beliefs, that's what leadership is.

I guess in a way, you're right, it's quite possible to say he's started 'a job' but the job of the leader of the Labour party is to represent and inspire working people, to support their aims and ambitions and to protect them from the greed of the corporate superclass. 

I don't think he's doing that and more worryingly, I don't think that's his focus - surely if you're a voter that wants lasse faire and a dormant state, you have the Liberal party, if you want full economic control with the banks and the reduced state (and a whole load of criminal gangsterism) you have the Tory party?

Perhaps it would help if we referred more often to centrism by it's more accurate label - corporatism.

I will vote for him, because this Conservative party are as dangerous an organisation to have power as I can imagine - but I'm hoping we don't have to sacrifice the principles of the Labour party in order to get a Labour Prime Minister - otherwise, what's the point?

All very good points Scott and I agree with pretty much all of it, bar the odd thing.

But I diverge on your final declaration that you'd still vote for him (or Labour) at a GE. There's no way I could vote Labour under him.  Unless, and this is a big ask, he adopts a raft of socialist principles and policies in the run up to the GE. But even if that happened, I don't think I'd believe him. 

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think Mick is a symptom of people searching for something that looks and sounds like a leader of the Labour party and reflects the things they want.

 

I'm sure there was a guy a couple of years ago that did that.  

14 hours ago, blandy said:

. He’s good at the strategy stuff.

Is that the strategy of saying and doing absolutely nothing? 

But you're right.  If someone can tell him what to think, give him a steer, he'll be able implement a decent strategy around that. 

3 hours ago, icouldtelltheworld said:

 That the Labour Party has nothing to offer in these circumstances is infuriating.

Your whole post was spot on.  

7 hours ago, Genie said:

Isn’t that the same as what I said?  

Conservatives, but with less scandal and corruption?

They seem to be just promising a continuation of what we have, but with less lies (remains to be seen if/when they actually get into power).

Exactly.  

We're just like that lot, who we supposedly distrust and fundamentally disagree with, but we're gonna do the same kind of things, but with slightly less lying. 

Some 'labour' party. It's a shell of what it should be.  

34 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

Fair play for this, from a Labour fan.

Has anyone read the article BTW? They both rushed to her aide apparently, as any normal human would.

Also, they call him "Ms Sunak". 

40 minutes ago, blandy said:

 

It's less of a U-turn and more of saying whatever for personal gain. He's u-turned twice, basically and doesn't even believe what he says himself.

Rishi Rich, let me introduce you to Keir Starmer. 

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

This isn't remotely true

This is the Labour Party of the last 60 years

It's very much 'new labour'. It's certainly not what the labour party was established to represent. 

It's certainly not the party for me.  My environmentalism and socialism has been with the green party for some time now, only swayed by the Jez years.  It won't be returning under this duplicitous capitalist Representative for Wellingborough. 

13 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Inspirational.

This makes me feel physically stuck and is SO far away from what a Labour party should be doing and saying.  He's in the wrong party.  

2 hours ago, mrchnry said:

Starmers speech outlined some policies today under a Labour government, but its gone under the radar. People preferring to talk about Liz Truss' earrings. No wonder we're in such a mess. 

No real policies as such, just a focus on 'economic growth '. The idea that growing the economy will benefit everyone. No socialism. No renationalisation.  An abandonment of the promises he made to get elected Labour leader.  

A charlatan, a liar. A market capitalist in the vein of Maggie but with a red tie on.  Arsehole.  

1 hour ago, AlwaysAVFC said:

 

And as mentioned people can have very specific ideas what they want and some your very unlikely to to be able to get from a rescue.

Yep.  I've just got myself a jackapoo. I need a hypo allergenic dog as I'm mildly allergic to dogs, which really limited the available breeds and meant that I wasn't going to have much luck at rescue centres.