Things that piss you off that shouldn't

[chrisp65]

Re: The Voice, I was more concerned a week earlier when, although less was on show, the tit tape had clearly been poorly applied giving the illusion of one being off puttingly larger than the other.

[8pints]

 

Who does it better?

[chrisp65]

To sum up politics

 

 

 

"The Tories help the rich, Labour help the rest"

 

all governments are liars and murderers

 

all governemnts' first principle is to preserve that governent in office, by definition, this means the long term benefit and welfare of the country is secondary

[Houlston]

 

 

 

 

Do people really have nothing better to do

 

 

nope  .. people that want to be outraged will always find something to complain about  ...

 

 

 

 

BBC apologises over Holly Willoughby dress

 

The BBC has apologised after viewers of The Voice complained presenter Holly Willoughby's low-cut dress was "unsuitable" for the show.

 

More than 100 people complained to the corporation about the 32-year-old's cleavage-revealing frock for Saturday night's live final on BBC One.

 

The BBC said: "We're sorry if some viewers found Holly's dress to be unsuitable."

 

It added the dress "was glamorous and wholly appropriate for the occasion".

 

The live final, which was won by Andrea Begley, was broadcast largely before the 21:00 watershed.

 

However it prompted some complaints from viewers who said Willoughby's black lace dress was too revealing.

 

In a statement, the BBC said the presenter "enjoys fashion", adding: "We don't believe it (the dress) would have gone against audience expectations for a TV spectacle such as this."

 

Phillip Schofield, Willoughby's co-host on ITV's This Morning, also leapt to the star's defence writing on Twitter: "139 complaints over Holly's gorgeous Voice dress. Let's hope those outraged on behalf of their kids don't take them to the beach this summer."

 

BBC

 

Had a twitter convo with BOF re this last night.

 

If there was an opposite to a complaints line at the BBC I probably would have called it.

[bannedfromHandV]

 

Do people really have nothing better to do than to complain about someone eating a burger?

Why the **** do people even care?

Seriously, I'm not interested in politics so I don't care about this guy as a politician, but the fact anyone has to publicly defend the fact they've eaten a burger makes me want to destroy the human race.

Haven't you missed the point, though?

Are people complaining about him eating a burger or are they pointing out that his publicity shot may not actually have worked as intended.

 

 

Well they're supposedly meant to be 'of the people' and yet I don't think they even have a single idea of what 'the people' live like.

 

He thinks he's making a 'look at me I'm one of you' statements by eating a burger but he can't even get that right the stupid tw@t.

 

These people do not have a clue.

[AVFCforever1991]

 

 

Who does it better?

 

 

 

[legov]

 

all governemnts' first principle is to preserve that governent in office, by definition, this means the long term benefit and welfare of the country is secondary

 

 

But (theoretically) if that government doesn't do a good job, that government is likely to be booted out of office.

 

Therefore it is in the government's interest to look out for the benefit of the country - short-term benefit, perhaps, but nevertheless it has to be something beneficial to voters.

[chrisp65]

 

 

all governemnts' first principle is to preserve that governent in office, by definition, this means the long term benefit and welfare of the country is secondary

 

 

But (theoretically) if that government doesn't do a good job, that government is likely to be booted out of office.

 

Therefore it is in the government's interest to look out for the benefit of the country - short-term benefit, perhaps, but nevertheless it has to be something beneficial to voters.

 

 

They have to do the mathS to make sure more people will vote for them than vote for the opposition. In the UK at present that means they need to get less than a third of adults to vote for them.

So, you simply need to convince 33% of the adult population life would be worse under the others and jobs a goodun.

 

(last election, tories received 49% of the votes of the 65% that voted)

 

If the main aim of successive UK governments was the long term welfare and security of the whole UK I guess we'd be self sufficient in energy?

[8pints]

Although I'm not impressed with you taking Willie out of your quote

[legov]

 

 

 

all governemnts' first principle is to preserve that governent in office, by definition, this means the long term benefit and welfare of the country is secondary

 

 

But (theoretically) if that government doesn't do a good job, that government is likely to be booted out of office.

 

Therefore it is in the government's interest to look out for the benefit of the country - short-term benefit, perhaps, but nevertheless it has to be something beneficial to voters.

 

 

They have to do the mathS to make sure more people will vote for them than vote for the opposition. In the UK at present that means they need to get less than a third of adults to vote for them.

So, you simply need to convince 33% of the adult population life would be worse under the others and jobs a goodun.

 

(last election, tories received 49% of the votes of the 65% that voted)

 

If the main aim of successive UK governments was the long term welfare and security of the whole UK I guess we'd be self sufficient in energy?

 

 

But wouldn't it be harder for them to convince even that one-third of voters to vote for them, if they don't do anything?

 

Surely that has got to be one of the reasons why UKIP etc are siphoning votes away from the Tories.

Edited June 27, 2013 by legov

[legov]

Jesus Christ, the Optimist and Pessimist threads are worse than the Bannan one   at least the last one has comedic effect.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

 

 

 

 

But wouldn't it be harder for them to convince even that one-third of voters to vote for them, if they don't do anything?

 

 

 

Of course they do stuff, there would be blood on the streets if a government did nothing. The problem is successive governments have abused their position and slowly eroded our rights, and they get away with it because the other party will do much the same, and the voters don't know about the bad stuff until it is too late, usually because of bullshit national security reasons preventing proper journalism.

[mjmooney]

 

To sum up politics

"The Tories help the rich, Labour help the rest"

Only if you wish to sum it up incorrectly. I'm no fan of the Tories but Labour are no better.

 

I'm no fan of Labour, but the Tories are far, FAR worse.

[Stevo985]

 

Do people really have nothing better to do than to complain about someone eating a burger?

Why the **** do people even care?

Seriously, I'm not interested in politics so I don't care about this guy as a politician, but the fact anyone has to publicly defend the fact they've eaten a burger makes me want to destroy the human race.

Haven't you missed the point, though?

Are people complaining about him eating a burger or are they pointing out that his publicity shot may not actually have worked as intended.

 

One has led to the other, has it not?

 

People are saying it hasn't worked because people have apparently objected to his choice of burger.

[legov]

 

 

 

 

 

But wouldn't it be harder for them to convince even that one-third of voters to vote for them, if they don't do anything?

 

 

 

Of course they do stuff, there would be blood on the streets if a government did nothing. The problem is successive governments have abused their position and slowly eroded our rights, and they get away with it because the other party will do much the same, and the voters don't know about the bad stuff until it is too late, usually because of bullshit national security reasons preventing proper journalism.

 

 

You're talking about civil liberties. But that's just one issue.

 

To quote you again:

 

all governemnts' first principle is to preserve that governent in office, by definition, this means the long term benefit and welfare of the country is secondary

 

It sounds like you think discarding the long-term benefit of the country is a fundamental trait of any government. If so, I think you need to talk about more than just one issue, even if that issue is a very important one.

[BOF]

To sum up politics

"The Tories help the rich, Labour help the rest"

Only if you wish to sum it up incorrectly. I'm no fan of the Tories but Labour are no better.

As someone looking in from the outside, I beleve villajax has given the supposed/alleged/historic default position of both parties but the modern day realities are somewhat different - which is what you're saying.

[bannedfromHandV]

Tories, Labour, Lib Dem what does it matter? Seriously.

 

They all go to the same schools, colleges and Universities and have the same agenda, not to do what's best for the people but what is best for their clique.

 

They're too afraid to do what's right ultimately in case it proves unpopular and damages their chances of election/re-election, they're in bed with the rich and super-rich and anything they do I can assure you is to the benefit of these people and these people alone.

 

 

We cannot and will not continue to be governed by people who are so far removed from the average daily life that they can't even tell you the price of bread any more. It will come to a head, as the division between the top 1% and the rest gets bigger the further animosity will grow, given the right conditions and a trigger this animosity will boil over into pure outrage, not the 24 hour outrage we've become accustomed to but serious civil unrest.

 

I do not promote violence and would not support a violent reaction to the problems we face (as a species, not just in the UK but across the entire world) but there has to be some form of action.

 

Personally I see technology as being the saviour ultimately, we need to empower each and every citizen with the responsibility to help look after the best interests of the country and beyond and this can be achieved through technology though we are a million miles away from anything even remotely useful currently (YouGov being about as close as we get).

 

It needs a worldwide shift in attitude and culture though which on the surface seems impossible.

 

I could go on but it may become a rambling rather than a coherent response, I believe that there is another way for us all to exist without having to give up luxuries and for those luxuries to be easily accessible for all, I just struggle to articulate my thoughts.

[tonyh29]

To sum up politics

 

 

 

"The Tories help the rich, Labour help the rest"

Chindie has already summed it up but you don't believe that nonsense really  .. do you ?

[snowychap]

People are saying it hasn't worked because people have apparently objected to his choice of burger.

That's not exactly it though, is it?

Is it the choice that is a problem? Or what that choice may have said about him especially in light of him 'trying to say something about what he was up to during the day'?

[Stevo985]

 

People are saying it hasn't worked because people have apparently objected to his choice of burger.

That's not exactly it though, is it?

Is it the choice that is a problem? Or what that choice may have said about him especially in light of him 'trying to say something about what he was up to during the day'?

 

I genuinely don't understand

Edited June 27, 2013 by Stevo985