I like Harry Redknapp a lot.

John Walters nee Rubicon

“Where is that then? I missed it.”

Right here: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/01/16/joking-about-rape-isnt-funny/#comment-97774

And now I know they are an uber-troll, their opinion holds less gravitas, don’t you agree?

And you must surely know that you are only here to attack me and offer nothing to this thread as I have done, which is a waste of everyone’s time, best if you stop it now.

And I ain’t your son, tit.

Where is that then? I missed it.

Either ways, you agreed with that poster and do did I, so what’s the difference dude?

You must surely see that every time you appear on a thread with your bag of preconfigured tricks i.e ‘you are a troll’ ‘you are a coward’ and so on that these threads are always derailed and turned into a farce?

That’s all I am saying, son.

I’ve just returned from watching Hull City frustrate Spurs.
Modric is returning to fitness and playing with abundant creativity (albeit with slightly more than your good self), Keane played like a sock pupet and Defoe was too cowardly to capitalize on his oportunities. Hull, with the exception of their keeper, who was superb, acted like trolls trying to spoil the game at each and any given opportunity.

I expect it will be on the BBC tonight on one of their most poopular programmes, the broadcating of which I am sure David Cameron supports.

So you are siding with a troll and once again not moving this thread on, just attacking me, as I pointed out my first comments were on topic until I was attacked.

So, anything on topic to offer?

Precisely, and that is where it goes ever time Daniel Hoffmann-Gill enters a thread unfortunately.

His first comment is almost always to call someone a troll and / or a coward and the rest are just abuse with varying degrees of maliciousness and profanity.

I asked him politely to consider his behaviour and got the same response!

I hate the term ‘troll’ but I can think of no more apt usage then for the behaviour of Daniel Hoffmann-Gill.

Rupert Murdoch is 80 years old.

Yes, but dynastic monopolies usually last more than one generation.
James Murdoch will make you watch Ross Kemp everyday until you die.

Fuck me, what is it with people playing arbiter around here? Esp. you pagar, that’s real rich. Do I reall yhave to justify myself to you? Clearly I do. Who made you God? Also, this kind of by you perpetuates this shit, unless of course I hold my nose and don’t wade in your shit. Well not yet…

You duck the fact that my first comment on here was related to the post, my second, what you call cheerleading, is what people do when they really agree with someone else, it is not a crime.

Then, as I said, cjcjcjcjcjcj sarcastically attacked me…BOO FUCKING HOO but I have a right of reply, he made it personal and yeah, I’m free to ignore the troll but guess what, I didn’t.

You can justify his dull sarcasm all you want, you weren’t the target of it and when you were you soon got an understanding of how it feels and changed your tune, for a short while at least.

So shall we leave it at that and get this back on track or do you want to keep this going?

I’ve got a spare ten minutes.

Daniel @28

Hear hear to tim f@27.

That is not contributing to the debate. That is cheerleading.

cjcjc @ 32

perhaps you could write a show about how the evil Tories are planning to starve the massed ranks (and they are massed) of BBC marketing directors.>/i>

You know as much about being creative as I do about Formula 1. Now bugger off you awful troll

Paranoid, aggressive, abusive and not really helpful.

Do you see?

At least I’ve got you to use a name now, step in the right direction, although still not accountable, glad I pricked your conscience or tested your male ego.

Pity you then have to just attack me, I was doing fine, contributing at 26 and 28 (unlike you, who has just left comments here attacking me and nothing about the thread at hand) and then, unfortunately, cjcjcjcjcj and the other coward had a pop at me and I don’t take kindly to that.

It’d be best if you didn’t try to play some kind of personal arbiter role with me, I don’t care for it and if you want the thread to remain on topic, best if you don’t drag it down to personal attacks.

So, anything to say about the post itself ‘John Walters’?

By the time any of these changes take effect, he’ll be in a zimmer frame.

Only today’s utterly schizoid Left could claim that asking the BBC to concentrate on making a smaller number of really high-quality programmes rather than making me-too dross for the ratings would in any way weaken or destroy it as a cultural institution.

You appear to be confusing popularity with quality – some of the best TV we had over Christmas included the new adaptations of Henry James’ ‘The Turn of the Screw’ and Wyndham’s ‘Day of the Triffids’ (both BBC) while ITV managed to chip with another couple of immaculately produced Poirot’s, which are always eminently watchable for David Suchet’s meticulous performance, if nothing else.

Sorry?

Get the first series of Cranford and watch Eileen Atkins’ performance. Now tell me we don’t produce quality drama.

If you think about it, one of the more bizarre thing about our attitudes to the BBC, and to television generally, is the extent to which we hopelessly downplay the significance of our own culture.

When the BBC produces a new adaptation of Dickens, Thomas Hardy, etc, it gets labelled as ‘costume drama’. Now, try finding a ‘costume drama’ section in your nearest bookshop – you won’t. At the very least you’ll find those authors under literature. More often than not they’ll be categorised as ‘classics’.

What there hasn’t been, for a while, is a stand out piece of contemporary drama on BBC1, but BBC2 still provides its fair share of excellent material, not least last years TV film ‘Five Minutes of Heaven’, which really should have gone out on BBC1 across the whole of the UK and not just in Northern Ireland.

One of the key reasons why HBO has been so successful, both commercially and critically, is because of state interference. It occupies a distinct niche in the US market which exists largely because FCC regulation prevents the big national networks fromrunning the kind of edgier, adult-orientated, material on which HBO has made its name.

Yes, they make some damn good programmes but that’s not down to them facing significant competition from other broadcasters but because they occupy a niche in the market in which there is little or no real competition and, therefore, no pressure to chase ratings by ensuring that their output will play in Peoria.

“I see no debate from you troll.

That’s right I am reading it and its being wrecked by this do do.

But I see we have another contender. What a lovely couple you make.

I used to be a fan of BBCTV but it’s not a patch on what it used to be – because so much is being paid out nowadays in staff salaries “to stay competitive” that there’s not enough left from licence fee revenues to produce attractive programming.

We’ve got to the bottom of the barrel when Eastenders is the best TV for the festive season. Without drastic reforms, I think the BBC is nearing the end of its road.

The BBC has been a huge success, just like the NHS, and the tories hate it because A, it has worked, B, the public like it, and C, tories like a system where lots of people are priced out. Deep down tories are inadequate little gits and they are not happy unless they are depriving someone from having what they have.

Also, if you put all media in the hands of corporations you end up with a very biased pro right wing media as is demonstrated by the British Newspaper market or the American tv. Which of course is the real reason the Right wants the destruction of the BBC.