Gooseberry Crumble

Great list -I think there's a decent chance it will give the committee a run for its money!

Here's my three deadpool teams TEAM BLUEBERRY CRUMBLE 1) Thomas Keneally (author of Schiendlers ark -inspiration for Oscar glorious film Schiendlers list) 2) Mary Wilson (widow of ex PM Harold Wilson) 3) James Lovelock (gaia theory) 4) Dorothy Malone 5)Julie Goodyear 6) Rosamunde Pilcher (British author) 7) Sidney Poitier 8) Hans Rausing SNR (Swedish billionaire inherited tetrapak empire) 9) Poul Schuter (former pm of Denmark) 10) Jack Nicholson 11) Hubert De Givenchy (fashion designer) 12) Frederick B Dent (US Secretary of commerce under Nixon Ford) 13) Arthur Irving (Canadian billionaire of the Irving Group) 14) Nick Nolte (us actor) 15) Barbara Bush 16) Queen Sofia of Spain 17) Nigel Lawson 18) Estelle Parsons (us actress) 19) Liz Dawn 20) Cleo Laine GOOSEBERRY CRUMBLE TEAM 1)The Dowager Duchess of Grafton 2) Paul Biya (President of Cameroon) 3) Lee Radziwill (American socialite and sister of Jackie Kennedy) 4) Lord Snowden 5) Pat Boone (us singer) 6) Mary Carlisle (silent movie star) 7) Austin Mitchell( Former UK Labour MP) 8) Robert Fyfe Scottish actor -(Last of the summer wine) 9) Dale Winton 10) Henrik Prince of Denmark 11) Gene Hackman 12) Brunhilde De Ponsel (Goebbels press Secretary) 13) James Watson (scientist and cofounder of DNA helix) 14) Franco Zeffirelli (Italian film director) 15) Wilbur Smith( British novelist) 16) Benjamin B Ferencz( the last Nuremberg Prosecutor) 17) Lionel Blair 18) Gina Lollobrigida (Italian actress) 19) John Cunliffe (author /creator of Postman Pat) 20) Imelda Marcos APRICOT CRUMBLE TEAM 1) Sir Bernard Ingham ( former Press Secretary to Margaret Thatcher) 2) Winnie Ewing SNP royalty 3) Johnny Gold (owner of Famous celebrity haunt Tramps nightclub in London) 4) Barbara Walters 5) Jim Bowen (Bullseye presenter) 6) Nicky Haslem (British socialite and interior designer _friend to the stars) 7) Joan Kennedy (of the famous US political Dynasty) 8) Robert Benton (US film director of Kramer Vs Kramer fame) 9) Hugh Hefner 10) Pierre Cardin 11) Gerald Kaufman (Labour MP) 12) Geoffrey Boycott 13) Robert Bergland (former US Secretary of agriculture under Jimmy Carter) 14) Barbara Sinatra (widow of Frank Sinatra) 15) Petula Clarke 16) Loretta Lynn 17) Elizabeth Kelly( British actress played Aunt Nellie in EastEnders) 18) Burt Reynolds 19) Cindy Adams (US gossip columnist) 20) Shirley Bassey But which Crumble seems best?! Which Crumble will taste best......?

Also you've listed Antony Armstrong Jones and Lord Snowden separately -their the same person!

Should have wrote dead under Zsa Zsa and then subbed her with Cindy Adams as you did with Melvin Laird but other than that perfect. Cheers and happy new year

Overall a fairly solid and decent list. My initial thoughts and feelings Im glad Doris Day has been removed.She seems rather healthy and vibrant for her age.I don't think 2017 is her year. Im surprised Gene Hackman wasn't included,I feel the amount of time hes been out of the public eye completely is indicative of his long term ailing state. I don't think this year is Olivias year but I can understand why shes been kept on it.Shes kind of there now until the end. I hope their right about Robert Mugabe-I desperately hope their wrong about Betty White but the case for her being there is strong especially as the only remaining name from one of the biggest sitcoms from the 1980s she would be a bad miss if she wasn't on the list and died. I think the talk? prediction of this being a record breaking year is justified but there could be a few on there who are like creeking old doors who could go on for a few years yet and thwart any record breaking.Olivia strikes me as one of those.She seems very robust for a lady of 100. Pierre Cardin-a decent pick.I think internationally famous people from the world of fashion are going to become more frequent on the list in years to come,Calvin Klein,Karl Lagerfield etc Im glad Mary Tyler Moore is still there as I think this is her year and the committee would have ended up rueing the decision to remove her if they had. More thoughts at another time but yes an impressive list.

Right my shadowlist is now in my signature !Its basically 100 percent what I sent the OP for the crowdsourced deathlist.. Quite an unusual mix not sure how I will fare but what the heck!

Thanks. I think I will go with the second approach and start my own full list this year but then be bound by applying a 25 name list rule to my own list in relation to my previous years list. Thanks again

1) Well, I choose to abide by the 25 rule, but I don't think it's necessary. Shadow Lists don't really have "rules", since it is not an official competition. However, it is generally believed that Shadow Lists should consist of Deathlist-y picks, but some people *cough* Sir Creep *cough* tend to not abide by this and then gloat about how better they are doing then the rest of us because they stuffed their team with Daily Mail cancer mums instead of international celebrities. 2) There is no difference between this thread and the "Your 2017 list" thread. The "Your 2017 list" thread was just created by a newbie who didn't know what they were doing (no offense). 3) Well, usually people send in their Shadow List for the Crowdsourced, but you, of course, CAN change it later on. I sent in mine for the Crowdsourced a couple of weeks ago, and have made some tweaks. Cheers thanks very much. My crowdsourced list really didn't abide by the 25 names rule at all so I'm just debating with myself if I should bother with a shadow list or just leave it but I accept that it's no big deal. So will decide bit later on. I agree with the committee having the 25 name rule for themselves whilst drawing up the list but I just approached crowdsourced as if it was a complete clean slate and thus up to me how many if any of the official list to carry forward as if I'm being asked to envisage a new list from scratch rather than in relation to an existing list. Anyway most of my names if not all are famous to some degree and definitely no cancer mum types either!

Couple of small points of clarification please Are Shadowlists by "convention" supposed to be bound by the keep 25 from the committee list rule? How if at all are Shadowlists different from the"your 2017 list" that also now exists and should your shadowlist basically be the same 50 as those you may have sent in to the crowdsourced deathlist or can it be different or tweaked? Is that in the spirit of the thread /idea? My crowdsourced list is very different from the official deathlist and certainly doesn't have 25 of the names retained. Many thanks

I'd urge you to get excited about the new three Crumble teams...! Gooseberry Crumble Blueberry Crumble Apricot Crumble I'm hoping my crumbles make an impression in their debut year!

Confirmation email now received and read. Many Thanks OP

Yeah I sent in my three Crumble teams a few week's back and mentioned it on forum. I just assumed OP had received them as they didn't question it when I posted it and just said crumbs lol! I took that as my confirmation rightly or wrongly!

I like the occasional longshot in life!

Anybody considered the lovely Duchess of Kent for any of their lists pools for 2017? She's 83 now and looks frail and doddery in some photos but less so in others.

He's on one of my lists and definitely worth others considering. He's far from a likely hit, more of a gamble or punt but one worth having in or considering to make up your list, Every list should have a few less likely punts or gambles in in my opinion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadpool Well Stan Lee did create Deadpool... So perhaps we on here aptly should be a little more grateful to him?! But seriously Deadpool the film was a phenomenal success this year with a sequel in the pipeworks so strengthening the argument about how relevant Stan Lee is to contemporary popular culture.

Suing the magazine seems a bit extreme. Hey the difference between being able to walk a couple of steps and none at all could affect his benefits or summat. Maybe, but he won't have a leg to stand on in court! Oh, my coat! Ooh Naughty!!!!

It's fascinating watching people debate who's classed as a must have person on the list and who isn't. I can't quite definitively make up my mind. Senior royals IE Queen and Prince Philip yes and when appropriate in the future Charles and Camilla But less senior royals whilst desirable probably not strictly must haves eg The Duke of Gloucester, Duchess of Kent etc For me the debate isn't really just about who's a must have but rather what percentage of the list should strictly speaking be must haves? I suppose the issue is how we rank and classify people who aren't the must haves. That then leads onto how we decide amongst the non must haves who is desirable for the list and there's no way objectively to keep everyone happy on that because of the subjectivity of it all versus the sheer quantity of possible candidates! I have no answers as such just pondering! I think I'd keep Stan Lee though because his achievements are still afresh and dynamic in popular culture and his marvel universe isn't just something that was big in the past. Arguably though the committee could have afforded to have left him off the 2016 list and made space for someone else but hey ho it's done now.

Even if that one is true, surely the conspiracy nutters skeptics would be able to understand that reporting that she was attempting to commit suicide might have driven her to commit suicide and be more successful rather than get the help she needed and the news would almost certainly have reported had she died. No that story came from 2004.I'm referring to something quite different in 2003. As I recall it the "over Iraq" bit and "tried to kill herself" were hard to verify and it came down to a more plausible possibility that she had a bit of a meltdown in general and more acted out dangerous behaviour than made a serious attempt. Tbh I can't be arsed to dig into it again but the fact she didn't appear on a pile of dead pool teams the following year would suggest the hard evidence was never there in the first place. And, of course, she remains alive to this day. I didn't mention or raise Tony Blair's daughter because I felt that was inappropriate regardless of whether or not it's true. I just responded to another person who raised it and another who commented on it. I was a bit shocked that anyone mentioned it as that is something they had a moral right to keep private.

The tweet hasn't been deleted. The FB post might have been but the tweet hasn't been as I've just looked at it!

What a naughty video title!! Other rumours doing the rounds and gaining traction over the alleged d notice news blackout is Tony Blair.

The media didn't report when Prince Harry went to war so it can be done.

Even if that one is true, surely the conspiracy nutters skeptics would be able to understand that reporting that she was attempting to commit suicide might have driven her to commit suicide and be more successful rather than get the help she needed and the news would almost certainly have reported had she died. No that story came from 2004.I'm referring to something quite different in 2003. With respect it's quite hard to analyse your chosen conspiracy theory properly if you refuse to give information regarding it. I highly doubt the information is still banned from being reported, especially as the likelihood is you acquired it from the internet yourself, so you could easily link that source. Unfortunately I'm unable to engage in any form of meaningful debate about this matter unless you are able to explain to me what it is that I am actually supposed to be having some form of meaningful debate about, so far the only information you have managed to impart is that you believe something important was not reported whilst the Iraq war went on the reasoning for this not being reported is government interference and not the fact we were going to war and that was a bit busy dominating every news network. You also appear to argue that Blair was using the information that was not reported in his discussion of why we needed to go to war and his ultimately proven wrong defence about weapons, I therefore suggest that Blair would not have wanted to keep this information from the public if was that useful to him. In summary you make little sense and impart little information, making this discussion a waste of my time, to return the favour I have written this rather elongated and cumbersome reply in order to repay the favour by wasting some of your time as you feast your eyes upon what could have been a two sentence post. You can send your thanks to Not Arsed, Not Arsedville, Buttfucknowhere. Even if that one is true, surely the conspiracy nutters skeptics would be able to understand that reporting that she was attempting to commit suicide might have driven her to commit suicide and be more successful rather than get the help she needed and the news would almost certainly have reported had she died. No that story came from 2004.I'm referring to something quite different in 2003. With respect it's quite hard to analyse your chosen conspiracy theory properly if you refuse to give information regarding it. I highly doubt the information is still banned from being reported, especially as the likelihood is you acquired it from the internet yourself, so you could easily link that source. Unfortunately I'm unable to engage in any form of meaningful debate about this matter unless you are able to explain to me what it is that I am actually supposed to be having some form of meaningful debate about, so far the only information you have managed to impart is that you believe something important was not reported whilst the Iraq war went on the reasoning for this not being reported is government interference and not the fact we were going to war and that was a bit busy dominating every news network. You also appear to argue that Blair was using the information that was not reported in his discussion of why we needed to go to war and his ultimately proven wrong defence about weapons, I therefore suggest that Blair would not have wanted to keep this information from the public if was that useful to him. In summary you make little sense and impart little information, making this discussion a waste of my time, to return the favour I have written this rather elongated and cumbersome reply in order to repay the favour by wasting some of your time as you feast your eyes upon what could have been a two sentence post. You can send your thanks to Not Arsed, Not Arsedville, Buttfucknowhere. Lose your attitude please and whilst your at it read probably what I wrote which was the suppressed info wasn't about Iraq. Your not being asked by me to analyse anything I haven't asked you to engage in anything I have merely said that Blair is supposed to have issued d notices in 2003 citing the Iraq war as the reason why risking a fall of the government was a national and international security risk. The allegations and information he suppressed using the d notice is not about the Iraq war itself but about something that could in his view have caused the government to collapse at a sensitive time in our history. Think of it as a suppressed scandal within the governing party because many in the media wanted to publish this information and felt Blair used national security as a convient excuse to hide a potential scandal. Think expenses scandal but much more severe. I was just trying to illustrate that d notices and news blackouts are possible. Afterall the media doesn't publish routinely any sensitive classified intelligence they've come across. It's difficult but not as difficult as some think. A news blackout on a royal death for 24 hours is hardly a conspiracy theory.

Even if that one is true, surely the conspiracy nutters skeptics would be able to understand that reporting that she was attempting to commit suicide might have driven her to commit suicide and be more successful rather than get the help she needed and the news would almost certainly have reported had she died. No that story came from 2004. I'm referring to something quite different in 2003.

https://www.datalounge.com/thread/18133926-24-hour-media-blackout-in-uk-re-prominent-death-Actually this rumour is gaining ground online as talk about a UK media blackout for 24 hours on a high profile death swirls and there's speculation that if true it's the big one. Rumour seems to have been given legs by a DJ in Ireland Hope it's not true Simon Cowell is...dead? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I mean: YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSS. IF it's true there's a government ordered media blackout and it isn't a wild Internet theory then it's either going to be a prominent member of the royal family, A serving member of the cabinet or an ex PM IE Tony Blair or a notorious criminal like Ian Brady where for public order reasons they don't want to realise the news straight away. I doubt it's Simon Cowell lol! Media blackouts are issued all the time in the United Kingdom, it's why a lot of news articles are posted in the 00.00am to 02.00am period and have clearly been written the day before. I really hope the queen hasn't carked it, we'll have to cancel the New Years football matches. But famous deaths in the UK don't tend to be announced after midnight as a rule. I think you might be confusing media embargoes IE about someone leaving a TV soap or being cast in a show etc with media blackouts which are quite different especially if done by government by d notice I think I may have been. The government tends to embargo a lot of releases of policy decisions then. I tend to read the news in the early hours of the morning which was the only reason I mentioned embargoes. Is a blackout really feasible these days, someones bound to facebook/tweet it? I think their feasible if rarely used. It's not that a leak and speculation isn't a possibility but the MSM won't report or play ball if you like. It's harder than it used to be. Blair apparently issued some d notices in 2003 during or around the time of the Iraq war and the media never reported. I won't mention what their supposed to concern as I don't want to get into bother but the matters concerned have never been put into the public domain only on the fringes of the Internet. Blair is supposed to have cited the risk to national and international security if the UK government collapsed during the Iraq war if these specific pieces of information NOT connected to the Iraq war where published. So in the spirit of staying on topic that's an illustration that d notices or news blackouts can work on a long term basis never mind a short term one but I don't underestimate the difficulties.