Bob The Badger

Just now, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

He'll have obviously been high on the list for their replacements though. 

Yeah I'd have thought so too. He's on 5Live a lot and he's really good imho. Very funny. 

It would be a huge boost for his career I'd have thought, so takes a real moral conviction to turn any chance of jumping the queue down.  

Good for him. 

9 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

He's receiving money from the BBC though ergo there is an employment contract in place. 

He can't take the money then say this doesn't then exist so he doesn't have to abide by his employers rules - by the very fact he is accepting the BBCs money there is also an implied contract that he also has to abide by their rules. 

Does that mean I can insist the electrician I hired last week to do a job on my house doesn't talk politics down the pub in case people overhear him and think I endorse his beliefs? Ergo?

2 hours ago, David said:

I'm not entirely sure why there is so much controversy, comes down to this for me, if it's within his contract to abide by impartiality rules and refrain from taking sides on politic issues, that is a breach of contract, sack him.

If there is nothing in the contract preventing him, let the bloke crack on.

It seems that straightforward to me too. Maybe we're missing something?

Finally got around to Clarksons Farm II and watched 4 episodes.

Somewhat disappointed tbh.

It feels very contrived. Whereas it was funny seeing him make basic and understandable rookie mistakes in the first series, you now know they are intentional and scripted.

Does anybody really think he still doesn't know how to operate a hitch, that he doesn't know cows will get out of a field or that the thumb accident wasn't filmed after the event?

And why did they show the cocks crowing at 4.07 am with the sun rising in late September/early October?  Ok, we get it cocks crow (although the only crow at dawn is largely an urban myth), but at that time of year it would have been 6.30 or so. It probably didn't seem funny, I dunno.

It was Caleb's innocence and rural charm and Clarkson's genuine ignorance that made the first one so brilliant, but that is no longer present and what was a fly-on-the-wall documentary has turned into a sitcom.

I highly doubt Clarkson will get his Flying the Flag for British Agriculture this year with his ability to just buy more and more expensive kit with his Amazon chequebook. Farmers are on their arse and him spending cash on more and more exotic projects will (I think) just make them frustrated.

Having said ALL that, I'm quite enjoying it, just that now much of the novelty has evaporated it's gone from being excellent to not bad.

Based on the high standards of the first one, 6/10. Based on its own merits, 6.5 or 7/10.

5 hours ago, Ellafella said:

I disagree with that; it was clear and obvious to 95% of those watching that the player feigned being tripped. The correct decision is fk to Derby and yellow card to the Plymouth player. Many Plymouth fans have admitted to it not being a penalty. So, the conclusion is we were cheated out of a point and Plymouth cheated 2 points. 
The poor standard of referees in League One is clearly impacting on results and League positions. By putting the focus on White you are taking the focus off the real issue: cheating players and poor referees. 

 

I was watching with my brother-in-law (a Hereford and Arsenal fan - please do judge him) and he thought it was a penalty and I'm undecided.

But you seem to have polled everybody at the game and who was watching on TV other than us two.

I say 'seem to' because the only other conclusion I can arrive at is that you pulled that 95% stat from right out of your ass, and I'm sure you wouldn't do that.

All teams have a bunch of supporters who blame the ref at every available opportunity because it's the easiest way out. 

We remember the decisions that went against us and forget the ones that went in our favour. It called loss aversion and it a highly researched well understood element of psychology. 

Their penalty was iffy, but I needed to see it 4 or 5 times to think he may not have caught him and even now I'm not sure.

We lost fair and square. 

5 hours ago, Jimbo Ram said:

It’s a Sin on Netflix, drama set in the 80s with a group of gay friends as AIDS hit…harrowing and compelling…

In my top 5 dramas/mini-series of the last 5 years. Outstanding.

Thanks to the person who recommended Suburra Blood on Rome. 8 episodes in and enjoying it a lot. 

It would be unfair to Gomorrah but it's a lot like Gomorrah. 

Doesn't quite hit those lofty heights but if you like Italian gang stuff you'll enjoy it. Infinitely better than Ganglands the French drama I dragged myself through recently. 

15 hours ago, CBRammette said:

It is  - is it the Tamar? I once went to visit a client who had a farm in both counties and as I hadnt been to Cornwall he drive us over his little stone bridge and back. Sorry not the most thrilling story!! 

I just did an audit of the most thrilling stories I've heard

Yours came in at number 4, so you're right, not the most thrilling, but not to be sniffed at.

And let's face it, nobody was ever going to beat the time my dad put the tea cosy on his head as a joke, or the one when my Gran's false teeth fell in her soup.

Happy days.

7 minutes ago, Norman said:

Question. Why do some of you have to be such dicks to other people who have a different opinion?

Says the mam who attacked nurses during lockdown for taking time out to record a Tik Tok video.

Much against my better judgment, Mrs Badger got me to watch Bullet Train the other night.

Well, I actually liked it and I laughed several times and smiled a lot.

Brad Pitt actually does humour very well.

An amusing romp.

I expected to be giving it a 5 or 6, but I think it deserves a 7.5/10 and I apologise unreservedly for doubting it.

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

It's still a different case than the one you put forward. There were over 1,300 Albanian nationals alone in UK prisons last year - they were tried, sentenced and imprisoned here, which is exactly what would happen to your French IRA terrorist. The government often has difficulty repatriating foreign criminals after they've completed their sentences, because we have a legal system which (for now, at least) complies with the ECHR. I wouldn't mind betting that quite a few of those Albanians never go back to Albania, no matter how much we might want to deport them, even though they're unlikely to have their Albanian citizenship revoked and the Albanian government may well be pleased to see them again.

Yeh they do have a few who they struggle to repatriate, but we'd have 1,300 here if the Albanians took their citizenship away, so you made my point for me

30 minutes ago, Crewton said:

It wasn't really comparable though, because if foreigners commit crimes in THIS country, they're tried in this country and, if convicted, serve their sentences in this country unless their own country agrees they can complete their sentence there. Afterwards, the government may have the problem of deporting them if they've subsequently been made stateless, but that's another argument. 

Begum's situation is entirely different to the "what if" presented. 

It's not another argument, it's very much part of the argument.

Somebody of that age will get out presuming they even go to jail and they don't get off somehow.

You need to know what you're going to do at that stage.

When you start stripping nationals of their citizenship, you need to understand the long-term ramification and whether that may come back to bite you down the line.

There are good reasons why countries don't always just do what is in their short-term political interest and that is because of the long-term consequences.

If we expect other countries to deal with our criminals because we won't have them back then we must be prepared for it to happen to us.

If she had been dumped on us by another country people would be up in arms, ESPECIALLY the right wing. They'd be going absolutely apeshite

13 hours ago, The Last Post said:

Wow that's a curve ball, It was to stop parents taking their children to foreign lands to get married...ir forced, How can the British Government stop families taking their Children abroad...here's an idea...take their passports off them.

 Sailed through Parliament yesterday...Next.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61228240

Ah, I see what you're doing now.

Taking your opinion online to find support, half-reading/understanding something that you think does that and then throwing a link up as some sort of *proof*.

I heard Pauline Latham interviewed yesterday and she said it was all driven by them asking another Government to stop the practice of allowing marriages and them being told we couldn't ask that when we allow 16-year-olds to get married.

I'm pretty sure it was Bangladesh.

My point in bringing this up was to point out hypocrisy from our Government, I've no clue what your point was. But tbh reading back through some of your posts I have no clue what you're talking about most of the time.

Maybe I'm playing draughts and you're busy playing 5D chess.

End of...

Next.

I await your next sign off with bated breath. 

3 hours ago, The Last Post said:

1. The Government are there to protect the public, If or "what if" she should return she'd be hailed a heroin by some and a serious threat by others, 

2. I didn't miss your point, The whole point of your initial post was assumption or what ifs...you know...the stuff where people like to put a scenario in as a counter argument.

3. They'd stay in the Country where their initial withdrawal was cancelled, Then up to that Country to decide where to send them

4. The home secretary can be challenged "what if" that was to happen and she was set free, Remember the London Bridge terror attack.

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50594810

 

I'm truly incredulous at this. 

Our Military exists because of what ifs. Our entire foreign policy is based around what ifs. All planning for anything takes into account what ifs. 

You have to be winding me up. 

3 hours ago, The Last Post said:

1. The Government are there to protect the public, If or "what if" she should return she'd be hailed a heroin by some and a serious threat by others, 

2. I didn't miss your point, The whole point of your initial post was assumption or what ifs...you know...the stuff where people like to put a scenario in as a counter argument.

3. They'd stay in the Country where their initial withdrawal was cancelled, Then up to that Country to decide where to send them

4. The home secretary can be challenged "what if" that was to happen and she was set free, Remember the London Bridge terror attack.

  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50594810

 

I feel like I'm being punked. 

How can you remove a persons citizen without basing it on what ifs?
 

What if we don't? What if we allow her home? What if she becomes a martyr? 

It's up to the country they're in when we withdraw their citizenship argument is ludicrous. 

How can we impose our criminals on other countries without being fine if they do it to us ffs?

Did you see the legal age to marry in this country went up yesterday to 18?

Do you know why?

Because certain Asian countries told us to put our house in order regarding child marriage before we lectured them on allowing it because we were being hypocritical. 

We'd be raging hypocrites stripping our own citizens and leaving other countries to figure it out if we weren't prepared to deal with their trash too. 
 

3 hours ago, The Last Post said:

Never went over my head...your pretty naive, What if ?, There's a shed load of "what if's"

As someone who is aware of these cases, As I have to go through a security check every 5 years, Name, Address, How many years I've lived at my current address, As there are people in my family who deal with some very nasty individuals/cases.

Scream from the rooftops if you wish...it's of no concern of mine, The Government and the Judges have both decided she's a threat to the Nation, Now lets look at the word "Threat" it doesn't mean she will cause a terrorist act, It means there's a possible "threat" she "may" cause a terrorist act, She is one person who's sewed her own seeds and now reaping her fruits.

1.Yes, Take a look at Charles Salvador(ex Bronson) we're pretty good at making someone toe the Government line.

2.No I wouldn't, Like the many 1000s of Channel hoppers who we feed and keep warm, She'll be our responsibility 

I'm naive? And yet you think because the Government won't to revoke citizenship that makes it ok. 
 

And you clearly missed my point because it's not about what's legally, I never said anything about that.

If every country stripped people of citizenship because they posed a threat wtf would they all go?

The Home Secretary has the power to bang somebody up who poses a national threat indefinitely. So do that. 

10 minutes ago, The Last Post said:

All the above would have to come after her trial, A known terrorist helping an organisation...the New IRA.

"The IRA has never been listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department,* but the British Home Office lists any group under the IRA name, as well as various splinter organizations, as proscribed terrorist groups. The IRA no longer describes itself as an armed force and officially ended its armed campaign to reunify Ireland in July 2005"

I would then think that our judicial system would lock her up as a threat to our Nation for a very long time.

So in essence our lot would call the French to inform them we have one of there's as she's on a list of known terrorists, They would then tell us she is no longer one of ours so do as you please...and we do.

Ce la Vie ??

 

I'll try and simplify it because the point clearly went straight over your head.

What if for some reason she gets off as does happen? 

She is then stateless and no other country wants her including the French who say she's no longer French.

Would you be ok with her now being our responsibility?

Or would you be one of the many screaming at France to take responsibility for one of her own citizens?

Imagine this scenario.

Some brainwashed citizen of France ends up on these shores and starts to help the New IRA.

The Police catch up with her and arrest her.

We give France a call and the conversation goes like this (and feel free to do the French person in a John Cleese, Holy Grail voice for added comedic effect because it actually is that ridiculous.

'Hello, is that France?'

Oui, oui this is France, what do you want we are very busy you know English pig dog?"

'We've got this terrorist of yours, where should we send her?"

'We don't want her"

"But she has a French passport, she is one of your citizens"

<background murmuring and hushed voices>

'It's ok, we removed her citizenship she's nothing to do with us anymore. Now if you'll excuse me I have a tasty garlic baguette going cold"

<click>

'Hello? Hello?'

I wonder what the people on this board would be saying knowing that we don't only have to look after her for the relatively short time she will be in jail but for the rest of her life because we have nowhere to deport her to.

The sad reality is, and in the parlance that should be understandable to anybody, she's one of our own, she's one of our own, Shamima Begum is one of our own, whether we like it or not.

I don't like it and I doubt anybody does, but ho-hum, that's life.

2 hours ago, Magicman said:

She stole her older sisters passport, she travelled to a known ISIS cult engaged in war upon the non muslims. She knew what she was doing and has no regrets other than she was caught. Keep her in Syria let them try her in their courts. Make any uK citizen joining such groups accountable for treason by banned them from returning to the UK . She is an evil  brainwashed terrorist who chose that life .... end of.

So she was an evil terrorist that chose that life.

Er, but she was brainwashed.

Okkkkk.

Do you know what brainwashing does?

It removes conscious/reasoned choice.

More importantly, do you know that anybody not suffering from certain mental conditions can be brainwashed given the right/wrong circumstances?

End of.

Out in a week or so with a pretty stellar cast.

Watched the last 2 episodes of Ganglands first season and have to say I'm bummed.

It felt rushed and the writing was shoddy.

A few questions to those who have seen it that may act as spoilers to you if you haven't so stop reading.

Htf did they get out of the hotel when the Police were coming in? One minute they were in the room, he next in the car park.

Why was he still in the same hospital room 4 months later and handcuffed to a bed with no guard anywhere near him?

Why didn't the baddy kill the black girl with the mother and daughter?

The reason in the plot was that Liana would then come to get her and so Kriss could kill him. But seriously? This homicidal lunatic wouldn't have come looking for him when he'd just wiped out his sister and niece, the very niece whose kidnapping had led to the whole fiasco?

Why did Saber openly welcome his sister when she'd been plotting his downfall?

Why was Kriss the leader of a pan-European drug empire such a plank and why did he have a hotel that just happened to be worth what he owed in drug money?> I know, I know, he bought it because his dad owned it - which is what I mean about shoddy writing.

I thought this had real promise for the first couple of episodes but it totally went down the s hitter for me.

Mrs Badger enjoyed it, but she's watching season 2 on her own and we can check out Strike.