My favourite headline is this one about a player getting a transfer to Benfica! http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/09/11/eurosport_com_scores_headline_profanity/
Now that is clever and who ever thought it up is a genius. Yesterday's headline was just nasty schoolboy name calling and mickey taking of the most offensive kind. I hope the editor gets his knuckles rapped.
I would say this to anyone who finds it amusing. Imagine your child has difficulty pronouncing certain words. S/He returns from school, one day in tears after being made fun of, by some of the other children, because of this impediment. Would you carry on teasing your offspring, from where the other kids left off? You know, cos it's funny like.
Well, the one plus side is that at least most people think the actions of the Sun are unacceptable. As Meowth suggests, anyone who has any personal experience with speech impediment would not find this headline 'funny' in the slightest nor would most people who have some kind of speech impediment consider it a laughing matter. And Jake, there's a massive difference between self-depreciation based humour of the Jonathan Ross kind and simply making fun of people in an attempt to get cheap laughs.
Like I said, I expect nothing better from the rag. Leaving aside the senior management of News International, the Sun is the paper which gave its front page to the sinking of the General Belgrano, when it was outside the exclusion zone around the Falkland Islands and steaming away from them, resulting in the loss of 323 conscripted Argentine sailors. Their headline? "Gotcha" The RH headline is down to their usual standards, but it is not even close to the disgusting lows that they can plumb. The only thing which gets to NI is the effect in their pockets. The News of the World was only closed after the advertisers pulled out. The people of Liverpool will still not buy the rag any more than the newsagents will stock it. The trouble is that, those who feel strongly about this headline are not the numbskulls who buy it. Like I said earlier, they know their demographic and endeavour to live down to it.
I think you are a reasonable guy Wooperts - but i fancy you might be slightly inebriated when posting this! Don,t think you would write this nonsense when totally sober!!
And your using Stewart Lee to back up that claim. Lee does the same kind of stuff as Marcus Brigstocke but not half as well.
To be fair, Top Gear can be quite amusing. Plus, I like the whole 'seeing other cultures' aspect of when they're in other countries. I'd say it's more like General Discussions humour. Seriously, wtf is wrong with (98% of) the people on that forum?
If I was compiling a list of people I'd like to see removed from TV/the media, Jeremy Clarkeson would be first pick. Some of his columns from the Times make me want to vomit.
It's a paper owned by a w***ker and aimed at a pretty low common denominator - so sadly it was no surprise to see the headline, as stated in the thread it loves Ol' 'arry and are gutted their boy didn't get it - with any luck Hodgson will stick it right up them by doing very well - he comes across as a decent man and he certainly has a good footballing pedigree. I guess with forensic accounting still to be performed on our books (alledgedly) the FA just thought Redkanpp possibly too much of a risk.
Of course, the fact that the Admiral of the Argentine fleet admitted that he would have done the same if the roles were reversed is irrelevant, I suppose? What relevance is the fact they were conscripts? Napoleon's troops were conscripts-were the British professionals being mean? My take on the Belgrano is akin to Shankly's on the offside trap. "If he's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch?" "Exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Héctor Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate (as did the Argentine government in 1994)." Wiki. Headline was a tad insensitive-granted!
You are making a military argument, which is debatable. Should we celebrate the deaths of the enemy combatants though? Do we celebrate the victory at Trafalgar or the death of the French? A tad insensitive? I am guessing that over 600 Argentinian parents would find a football analogy a bit irrelevant when it concerns the death of their Sons. Look, we may not agree on the military decision, but surely we can agree that the Son's headline was more than insensitive?
