BBC Blog Network

User Profile

solpugid

Listed below are comments made by solpugid between Friday, 19th June 2009 and Friday, 23rd October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Nick Griffin on Question Time 1:58pm on 23 Oct 2009 I am intrigued by two things: that Nick (Robinson) asks questions that non-telly-watchers like myself might have hoped he would answer, and the surprising degree of anti-BBC sympathy with Griffin that appears on several of these posts. Times columnists' combined opinion seems to be that irrespective of how Griffin may have fared, the other panellists opposing him were largely unimpressive. Which is possibly how the egregious Griffin managed to get there in the first place. Another excellent columnist suggests that trendy, ineffectual liberal angst may have helped him get there too. Incidentally a show where everyone sets out to 'get' one of those appearing is a curiously new format for Question Time and for serious broadcasting.

Perhaps they shouldn't have aired or even recorded this programme after all. I didn't think so beforehand but I do now.
Is all publicity good publicity? 10:51am on 21 Oct 2009 Would a drubbing from Ian Hislop cause BNP voters to think twice about Griffin? Given the generally negative perception of the BNP it is just possible that they have thought twice already and delivered their vote anyway. Pehaps they perceive failure in the mainstream parties. The real question is, Question Time or no, whether they will go on perceiving it; and like the rest of us, what reason is there why they shouldn't?
The baroness and the illegal immigrant 4:13pm on 22 Sep 2009 This event is politically embarrassing enough for Lady Scotland to have offered her resignation, and for this fact to have been made very public knowledge. I am not aware that either of these things has been done and am drawn to the view that the Baroness is not a person I am happy to have deciding the legality of my or anybody else's behaviour in this country. Evidently she should not have been appointed. A very much chivvied, fined, hectored about and put-upon public has a right to expect better, and in all decency to expect more impressive people as state officials.
Religious pitch to US audience 11:06am on 24 Aug 2009 I cannot agree that Mr MacAskill's decision was anything like politically astute. Prisoner transfer and not release, while that would have been a meaningless distinction in practicality, would have avoided doing what the British government wanted done in its longer-term commercial interests (one up for Scotland), and at the same time avoided the blast of disapproval from the USA (you don't annoy people just for the fun of it, that's not clever)

So, two mistakes at a stroke. Not a success. The chance for a bit of posturing after the fact certainly, but not in level headed terms any kind of success. Now Scotland is the scapegoat in the attainment of undeclared but well known British interests, and that was something the Minster should have seen coming.
Religious pitch to US audience 7:45pm on 20 Aug 2009 Poor old Scotland. It suits Britain to keep in with Libya, so we get Mr MacAskill to incur the opprobrium of most of the USA and large chunks of England and Scotland for that matter, in return for the illusion of brave independence.

And you fall for it time after time. Scotland the fall-guy.
Becoming the story 12:39pm on 09 Jul 2009 Cameron said the decent thing, and after a due period for an irresistible groundswell of chuntering to build (the bother the NoW have got into is serious and has mileage in it, summer recess or no), he will do the expedient thing and sling the guy out. A narrative slightly more predictable than a TV soap, and totally predictable in British politics.
The Queen 12:09pm on 02 Jul 2009 6. At 4:33pm on 01 Jul 2009, minceandmealie wrote:

I am struck by the fact whereas some MSPs might only consider the Queen a foreign VIP, they have advertised their lack of sufficent education to know that one is at least courteous enough to turn up to greet a visitor. And that is so stupid it's shameful. What is so wrong with acknowledging a person who comes to congratulate you? The words surly and ignorant will be being applied both north and south of the border.
Consulting other parties 9:48pm on 19 Jun 2009 144. At 9:39pm on 19 Jun 2009, Invader-Zim wrote:
136. At 8:06pm on 19 Jun 2009, solpugid

Zim, it wasn't you I meant actually. But jolly stuff now I look at it
Consulting other parties 9:32pm on 19 Jun 2009 141. At 8:57pm on 19 Jun 2009, StrictlyPickled wrote:

133,136 etc

Look a bit closer and you will find the jests in one or two of the "supposed serious" ones as well. Quite what do you suppose actually?

Yes, not liking yards of verse is a matter of taste. But while we are told there is no disputing about taste, there's no harm in declaring it. Is there?
Consulting other parties 8:49pm on 19 Jun 2009
#120 AndyC555"Just remember - it took over 50 years for the Gestapo files to come out and reveal that Hitler was behind the Riechstag fire"

You mean you don't think that people are able to know things until politicians admit them? That sounds like the sort of dim notion that puts them up to their tricks in the first place. Each to his own I suppose.

But I have to say that was the only bit of your post I understood. Must be me.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

solpugid