Messages

Finally watched Batman v Superman.

The horror...the horror... It is all so dark and dull. Jesse Eisenberg is rubbish - but he's not really to blame for that, I think. The writing for Lex Luthor is execrable to begin with. And the other characters don't do much better.

Exactly as I feared it would be.

Thanks all So he's a sanctimonious prick for sure, and a massive hypocrite in general, even if not on the issue of this particular type of hedonism.

Vaz's offence isn't being gay or cheating on his wife; it's paying vulnerable people to let him rape them.

I'm not sure I agree with that as a statement for all sex workers, but it's an unpleasant business to be sure.

[Platoon]

Platoon is the best Vietnam movie.

FMJ is second.

Apocalypse Now is overrated and drags on just like the Godfather does.

Discuss

[is]

What in particular earns Keith Vaz the term 'Moral Crusader'?

Has he ever campaigned for the sanctity of married life, heteronormal society and sobriety?

As far as I can see he's sat on a committee and recommended changes to keep sex workers safe and relax 'moral crusading'. So.... hypocrite shoe is really on the other foot there, at least as far as such things as http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3774587/Keith-Vaz-accused-hypocrisy-committee-s-inquiry-prostitution-included-4-000-fact-finding-trip-Copenhagen.html goes.

Sitting on the committee isn't hypocritical. Saying whats good for the goose isn't good for the gander is.

(Not that I approve it's a load of silly f***ing nonsense)

Yoinks! I'm about to go to the American Ambassador's estate for some twaddle celebrity cricket match, which will have free Pimms and food.

Bah! Piers ****ing Morgan is going to be one of the Cricket captains.

I need a shower.

Paying for your own security checks has been common for a long while I think. My girlfriend in University, a whole decade ago at this point, certainly paid for her own when she started part time work as a carer.

Less pleasant and less easy to avoid was the general bigotry, of a very vocal nature, throughout the rest of the city. Some very despairing remarks and the token hilarious "Why isn't there a STRAIGHT pride?!" almost became a drinking game. Sad, sad little people.

To which the answer is, there is, every other day of the year...

TBH the parade has got a bit shit in recent years

[The BFG]

Caught The BFG over the weekend. My wife has never read any Roald Dahl as she's jenny foreigner, and so this was her first introduction to the BFG. And she loved it completely, as did all the smaller folk (who made up the bulk of the audience) - so job done in my book. There are a few small changes to the book to add a bit more schmaltz and drama, but only in the most minor way, and all for the better in the execution of a cinematic piece. It's beautiful to look at and the performances are spot on, with a suitably precocious (but not too precocious mind) child and a warm, bumbling turn from Mark Rylance as the Big Man himself.

The BFG was probably my favourite Dahl book as a kid (and then The Glass Elevator) and so it was a well known tale for me but still had enough energy, care and craft in it that I enjoyed it from start to finish. Jermaine Clement does a good turn as one of the bad Giants too (the only one with any real dialogue), and his last line almost puts a kind of pathos to their monstrosity - something missing from Dahl's cavalier attitude to the macabre. Though not to say that's any fault in Dahl, as that casual approach to death and dismemberment is a huge part of his appeal. Anyway [spoiler]"But I is always hungry"  made me think of Vampires and other such beasts who are doomed by their appetites, embracing their monstrous nature because they can't escape it... just something which surprised me in the BFG! [/spoiler].

Yeah that's another one that really irritates me. I voted for Labour at the GE but honestly, Ed Milliband? Honestly.

(how stupid is the British system though where in practice our participation in democracy is a vote for an MP who may or may not  be part of a party that then needs to make a significant majority - more than say 3.8% - in a parliamentary system for any of it to make any jot of difference... *BUT* we spend all of our time arguing over party-level politics and leaderships and make every vote of even minor consequence part of the whip)

I can think of one solid concrete example of a person who makes their living via driving around the country but is extremely unlikely to be able to afford any kind of meaningful voluntary contribution towards paying for the roads and assorted infrastructure that makes this possible, even if they didn't pay any tax whatsoever.

I'm just going to go and suggest something utterly bonkers and unthinkable, but maybe Labour wouldn't be doomed for a generation if the MPs didn't keep throwing wobblies about the leadership election of 2015 and just got on with things.

Honestly, I think they've got a point. I'm glad Corbyn shifted the debate about policy, but he bumbles along, does stupid stuff without telling even his shadow cabinet (like the appallingly timed Chakrabarti peerage), has seemingly one idea for PMQs, and is proving himself tactically inept when it comes to the EU. I say this is as a one-time Corbyn fan. He at the very least needs much better advisers and to stop thinking the support of the converted means a damn in the wider scheme of things.

I think he does stupid stuff from time to time. I think they all do. I think the stupidest thing any Labour MP could do though - if they were really concerned about the party being electable - is spend all their energy for over a year publicly attacking their leader (in the Sun, the Mail, the Telegraph...), crying wolf everytime someone slightly admonishes them for encouraging infighting, and completely ignore their role as opposition so they can slander all of the new people attracted to the Labour party (and lump everyone who disagrees with them as entryists, trots, greens in disguise whatever). Who are they appealing to? What new voters have been gained by this soap opera of their own making? Compare with the number of jaded voters who have been firmly alienated after thinking for a brief moment that they might actually join a political party and have more of a say than pissing in the wind every 5 years.

I really don't think Jeremy Corbyn is the savviest of politicians, and I could never be part of Momentum. I think all this parties within parties is the height of stupidity (though would love Progress to be looked at so closely for balance). However his opposition have really lost any respect I had for them over the last few months - because they do far more damage to everything whilst claiming they are doing both the right thing and the clever thing. The sheer hypocrisy is just so depressing. All these Labour councillors, MPs, etc who slag off the new membership completely undermine the already-sketchy foundation of representation by a political party. And so much poison on both sides - but again, hypocrisy there as some of the nastiest trolling nonsense against 'momentum' goes without comment - it's depressing to think these are all people who actually agree with each other.

It's all so bloody stupid and it's being conducted in a particularly repellent, myopic fashion.

I'm just going to go and suggest something utterly bonkers and unthinkable, but maybe Labour wouldn't be doomed for a generation if the MPs didn't keep throwing wobblies about the leadership election of 2015 and just got on with things.

Still smarting over the defeat of Richard III eh Molch. Not that you're wrong mind, I'm heading back to Dale in a couple of weeks and plan on leaving immediately for Hebden Bridge.

Yeah - even the one in Rochdale is s'ok, though it's the main boozer in town it's relatively good compared to anything in centre but the Baum.

The one in Heywood is quite lovely.

Their only hope is when Labour party members overwhelmingly reelect Corbyn because THEY WANT A TRUE LABOUR PARTY rather than a vote-winning compromise party, all the Tory-lite members will leave and join the remains of the SDP/LDs to form a " ooooh, we're not nasty tories or commy labourites" party.

The Labour that was, if you believe the rhetoric, focused on vote-winning compromise did spectacularly badly at either winning votes or making constructive compromises. And had the least electable leader of all time to boot.

How does it work?