Mushymanrob

'light entertainment english pop'?.. actually a pretty accurate discription. many of the english 60's female stars did venture onto tv. lulu, cilla in particular. i think that does taint the image of what was a golden age in british female pop . pet clarke, cilla, lulu, sandie, dusty, all had some astounding music entwined with some pretty lame material. however, these girls were all INDIVIDUAL, they had their own sound and could perform . i can understand your position on S/A/W, although id still argue that our 60's songstresses produced far superior material.

agreed, but id go back to 1964 myself for first hand experience of music. there has always been a minority of good music surrounded by more commercial pap. however, until the mid 80's the majority of music was original, each new genre from rock n roll, beat, motown, soul, philly, glam, bubblegum, prog rock, rock, punk, new wave, mod, ska, psychedelia, new romantic etc etc etc.. you only had to wait 3-5 years for a new style to emerge if you didnt like the current trends. pretty much all music (except perhaps electronica and dance) over the last 25 years odd is re-vamping old styles in an almost karaoke/fancy dress style. what passes as 'indie' now is probably the most guilty of this ... play the style, go down the high street and buy the uniform <_< . it wasnt like that for original indie fans.

well .... no ones commented on the seriese finale, and imho that says it all. how tf they can sustain another 22 part seriese next year is anyones guess.

i like it! a nice summery relaxing tune... :)

ok an extreme case of comparison, but the jist of it is still there, i dont like griffin, hes a slug, i dont care for most of what he stands for (no i dont believe that anybody is totally wrong, not even thatcher/tories), but i dislike abu hamza more. tired of bickering....

you cant have total consistency, each point has to be interpreted upon its own merits... it aint all black and white, some things bother me more then others. do you hate brown as much as ian huntley? i dont!

huh... 'agree with me or you are a bnp supporting fascist' eh? sod off, you cannot just go making up your own version of morality. the law says the bnp is legal, get over it.

you have just proven my point! :rofl: they COULD have been invested in and turned around from run down loss making ventures into profitable businesses, proof that thatcher was out to smash the union at any cost and create missery for many miners as unemployment rose to 3 million....

zoe was clearly the most focused and mature last night, but i think her cockiness will rile her fellow contestants. that guy who got fired deserved it, hes the one i wanted to smack! thought he was better then the others and his pout when he saw the sacking coming was hilarious! good show :) there you buggers... i DO praise programmes when i think they deserve it! :P

if money had been INVESTED in some of the coalmines, they would have carried on producing a more competitive product, keeping people in jobs. it had nothing to do with economics, that was an excuse, it was all about smashing the unions. tatcher LIED about not having a pit hit list, scargill was proven to be RIGHT.

'planet earth' is a classic!

its true that we were in a mess in 1979, but tbh anyone with half a brain could have got us out of that mess, and whilst i have some sympathy for how she started out....it soon went to her head and in order to smash the unions and working man, she deliberately ran down industry. she bought mr thicko by selling off the countries assets and just look how much rail tickets cost, water, etc etc etc. yes the unions needed sorting, the country needed sorting, but she went much too far . great cop out too.... now the tories will blame the lib/dems for everything that goes wrong whilst claiming any successes to be theirs <_< . unemployment will rise, it always does under the tories, so will interest/mortgage rates... that was nowt to do with the lib/dems in the 80's 90's so why blame them for that now? thats typical tory policy.... look after the rich bstrds by screwing the ordinary bloke <_<

i must be alone in not rating charity that highly... shes one of my least favourite characters. eve is settling in abit better now, after reportedly telling ds that shes still nervous. once she sees herself as a 'proper' member of the cast and relaxes there should be better chemistry. moiras ok, i predict a date for eve with a pile of manure courtesy of moira! lol.

you really have no clue posting rubbish llike that. nonsense... watch unemployment go up along with interest rates, mortgages will undoubtedly rise to the highest for many years... great news. <_<

indeed the first seriese was very funny... but it lost its way and the second was the biggest let down in tv comedy history.

... and a few hours later thats all gone pear shaped as lab/lib talks have failed, leaving the way open for cameron :(

well thats put the cat amongst the pigeons! brown declaring his intention to step down. and opening discussions with the lib dems. it was pitiful last night to see some ruddy faced toryboy whinging about it, but imho clegg is right by opening talks with labour and the tories. picking which one is best for his party is the obvious way foreward. brown was statesmanlike, which i like, and by removing himself from the equasion has meant the lib dems are more amenable to a coalition with labour. my monies on that happening, leaving cameron blustering in the wings hopefully for another 5 years. (unlikely though). tbh if he had any spunk he would also resign as he FAILED to win over a labour party thats in turmoil and is highly unpopular.

fair point richie :)

its not so much as dont post anti bnp things as think about what you are posting beforehand. 90% of our dispute here has been semantics... ive been pointing out the LEGAL side of things whilst you and other haters are just intent on painting a version of the bnp that is short of the truth. its ok scott saying that they are getting away with it, maybe they are, but the facts are that legally they are a legitimate political party and if they officially condoned violence (excluding self defence) then surely they will be banned? my point stands, authorities higher then yours or scotts will determine whether or not the bnp are within the law. until they are declared illegal then whether you, scott or i like it or not they must legally be treated like any other legitimate party. you cannot go all vigilante, acting outside the law or disgregarding the legal facts doesnt give you the authority to do so.

i dont disagree with you

couldnt be arsed with it tbh.... i bet they only played the cheese and not the 'better' material from the artists i saw listed. ill view my favs on youtube when i want to see/hear them.

vivs contradictions are there for humour... blatantly so, but i agree shes not been the same since she went to prison. id put betty eggleton as emmerdales dot cotton... thats one character i dont like, but is nessecary (sp?) to the show. anyway, i think nicolas worst in the nastiness dept. but a fantastic character nontheless.

im not saying they shouldnt be banned, im saying that that decision is held by the law courts not us. stop whinging about them on here and actively campaigne where itll do some good. for now they ARE a legitimate, legal party.

... and contradicts herself, all that makes her a very entertaining character.

right.... now ive heard it, its no more advocating violence then many of the main parties do... especially some tories, who advocate the right to defend your self and property if someone enters it illegally. he didnt say its party policy to use violence, he said and many agree that its ok to use self defence. he mentioned john prescott thumping in retaliation that person a few years ago.... did that make the labour party supporters of violence? the problem is, many dont listen to what is actually being said when the bnp is concerned, they, you, just are blinkered in your hatred for them (and im not saying its without just cause) and interpret things the way you want to do. the facts are that the laws of this country are in place, if the bnp break those laws they will be banned, until they do they are a legitimate political party, if you or anyone thinks they have broken the law then please go ahead and report them. i have no liking for the bnp, millions dont, but if they were REALLY breaking the law and preaching hate and advocating violence, they would be banned. are you or anyone telling me they know better then everyone else? including the police? yes they have members who are thugs, racists, yobs, but so does just about every football team, does that make the team violent? not ALL bnp members are violent thugs, some might be racist, but lets face it, youll NEVER stop people hating others for no real reason. if the bnp bothers any of you that much, then instead of coming on here arguing the toss about it why not just join/start a campaigne to get them banned? do something constructive with your time instead of moaning on here.