Lord Fellatio Nelson

Hello Deathers!!

Seeing how well he did when he was interviewed about it all, against the advice of Buck Palace, I wouldn't fancy his chances in being cross examined in court. I am mindful of that scene in The Goodfellas when Joe Pesci, having almost fooled Ray Liotta in the 'How am I funny' scene remarks 'He may fold under questioning.

If I read it right, his team want to delve into some of the transcripts ( if such things exist) from when she was getting therapy etc. Her side is arguing confidentiality, in a nutshell, and his team is arguing that it is evidence that needs to be examined. Personally, I do not see why they cannot see these transcripts and ask questions about it, perhaps without Joe Public getting to dribble all over the contents. I find it a tad off when, before anything has been presented in court, he/his team are being accused of victim blaming when there has been no verdict that she has actually been a victim of Andrew. It must be noted that the accuser of the whole victim blaming schtik is a Cambridge academic who specialises in 'violence against women' but knows fuck all about U.S law. Ok, he MAY be as guilty as hell but the tendency to pass judgement before the evidence has been heard has become a bit of a 21st Century pastime.

Well my analogy was relevant, it's not like you to split hairs!! Yes, I do understand where you are coming from but, If I may bring 30 + years of working in the telephone/internet infrastructure to the table, I can negate much of the argument about whether the infrastructure is good enough, able enough and cheap enough to maintain for the BBC and the funding to be, largely, kicked into the long grass. The infrastructure is already in place, superfast broadband infrastructure is being rolled out at a pace that is staggering, certainly since I left the industry 3 years ago, and the technology is well in place to switch off most of the old school tech. Costing? Well, as an engineer, it was clear that mass recruitment into the telecoms industry was primarily to saturate the network and get it up to scratch. There are areas that still need investing in but that is ongoing, the money is already being spent. What we will end up with is a network that will, largely, be less problematic and only require a skeleton staff to keep on top of issues. What we will end up with is TV through the internet in its entirety. I suspect that all of the internet/TV providers will be expected to chip in on the upkeep of the network, maybe via taxes? Those that have no internet, like my in laws, will just have to get it and, again, I suspect, that such services will be offered very cheaply and they will just have to pay a very basic yearly sum for their TV service. That may not sit well with people, it may appear to be a bridge too far and keeping the BBC funded would seem to be the better option but, personally, I don't believe that we should still have a state owned and run broadcaster in 2022. Just my opinion.

That may all be true but that's a bit like saying we should have left the Kray twins alone because, with them in charge of East London, Grannies and women could walk the streets safely of a night. I do not doubt that the issues revolving around an end to the licence fee are more far reaching than having the BBC no longer funded by the public but that does not mean that we should continue funding them. This Government is fucking useless, granted, and they are likely to fuck it all up but it really needs to be done. If there is a requirement for a new funding model to keep the infrastructure going then that will be a separate issue. I do not mind paying to have the BBC, I just want the choice of paying and I want them to stop pissing the current fee up the wall. I don't think that is too much to ask.

How do you even begin to reason with people that are too stupid to reason with? I doubt that there has ever been a vaccine programme that has been so extensive, so global and has vaccinated billions in such a short space in time. Naturally, with BILLIONS vaccinated there will be a small proportion of people who will have side effects, some may even die BUT we could be talking thousands globally compared to billions who have had NO side effects whatsoever. I am certain that if the plethora of other vaccines out there were given in the same quantity the side affects that are already known with these established ones would detrimentally affect, by proportion ( important, that word) many, many more people than they currently do, This small detail is beyond the intelligence of anti vaxers, they cannot get their head around the fact that over 9 BILLION people have been vaccinated globally but the proportion of those who have had serious side effects and/or deaths is tiny. As tiny as the average anti vaxers brain, to be fair. It is just pointless trying to get through to them, they are too thick to understand.

I don't like it either.

No!! I didn't think he was that old!!

Good. Let the BBC live in the real world.

It doesn't. It just makes good headlines and it stirs up the public like nothing else can.

I've got Machine Head And Transformer. Just saying, like.

We shall overlook the joke. 81? I will go with, at the very least, a hospitalisation this year.

Ok, run with me on this. I have been off work for a couple of days and have seen David Dickinson on the TV. Now I know I am as deaf as a post BUT I could deffo hear an ever so slight slur and weakness to his voice. I said the same thing, IIRC, about Des O'Connor not many light years before he died so I would pencil in David for 2023, if not this year. Mark my words, or summat.

Yeah, I dunno why but I have this sneaky suspicion that you are having a private game of 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon Neil Young' there. Go on, admit it!!