Heh, sorry Cherts. I was being deliberately hyperbole.
It did become repetitive indeed, and a lot of his antics were also cringeworthy, but at the same time it was still entertaining, and he is a decent writer.
For me, the best episodes were those where they had to buy a car for x amount, such as the Ā£10k supercars or the British Leyland car for under Ā£1500. They were by far the funniest.
You were bang on, imo.
The true shame is that Cherts didnāt manage to snare Louise before she became Mrs Mensch. Itās almost exactly the same argument. Made for each other!
The challenge with his writing is the old paradoxā¦ as even racist bigotry can be funny, even if it makes for uncomfortable reading. That is the problem as his comentary pieces; the prose on various issues is not satirical or critical, but often old school - just Chubby-Brown with a middle-class twistā¦ so even if it causes a momentary āuncomfortable sniggerā - there comes a time when you just have enough of his āladdish-fuck-political-correctness-daily-mailismā For me that was about 2002.
I think the idea is that you see the teaser headline and you think, hmm, I wonder if Rachel Riley is wearing a Short Skirt? and this entices you to buy the paper so you can Find Out
She is rocking the ancient Egyptian look, tbf.
Ones a protest against the whole of capitalism, yours is an argument that because Clarkson takes a wage from Amazon, heās a bad person. Does that apply to ALL people who take a wage from a tax dodging corporation, or just Clarkson, because heās, you know, Clarkson?
That single page pretty much sums up all that is wrong with our media.
We have the daily scare story about people who are different, some tits, some hints on tax avoidance, a huge ad that says cheap is the most important aspect when buying something - and the ad is there to distract from the modest mention of tax evasion by the PMās family, and even that tries to give him some positive spin.
Heās hitting back, heās strong, heās a leader.
Sadly for the designer Iām still looking at the other two tits.
2 Likes
Iām not going to sit here and have a go at everyone that works for tax dodging corps. Most do not have the luxury of choice that Clarkson has, and may conclude that a job is a job over ideological objections.
Iāve been lucky enough to be able to say no to work I didnāt like, or sources of money I wasnāt comfortable with. Clarkson is undoubtedly in that position, and I didnāt say he was a bad person. I said it was a fitting end to his career, which it is for numerous reasons. For starters, any money his show generates is unlikely to ever fund the BBC.
Fuck it, Iāll say it. Clarkson is a Grade A tosser.
Not because of working for Amazon, but just generally.
Fite me nerds.
4 Likes
āThe Worldās Greatest Newspaperā (sic)
Originally posted by @pap
Iām not going to sit here and have a go at everyone that works for them. Most do not have the luxury of choice that Clarkson has, and may conclude that a job is a job over ideological objections.
Iāve been lucky enough to be able to say no to work I didnāt like, or sources of money I wasnāt comfortable with. Clarkson is undoubtedly in that position, and I didnāt say he was a bad person. I said it was a fitting end to his career, which it is for numerous reasons. For starters, any money his show generates is unlikely to ever fund the BBC.
Yet you have the luxury of choice as to where to buy your products from, and still purchase from a company you dislike. Thatās what confuses me.
Right. Time to move on. Panama is a finished story.
Todayās OMG RANT is Thomas the Tank Engine.
OMG the RACIST STEREOTYPICAL BASTARDS!
HOW could they get away with desecrating something so Holy?
Or How nice that they have opened it up and given Thomas some new friendsā¦
Coming hard on the allegations of 2014 it is astonishing that there has been such a row about this on Sky News this morningā¦
Discuss
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Yet you have the luxury of choice as to where to buy your products from, and still purchase from a company you dislike. Thatās what confuses me.
This doesnāt even hold up within Amazon, Cherts. The last product I bought through Amazon was a table and chair set. Amazon made a profit thanks to their middle-man status, but the true beneficiaries were a family run furniture firm in the East Midlands. Theyāre a small business and pay their tax here. Amazon are a middle man.
Then you look at the concept in the abstract, and realise that its even more ridiculous. Your basic point is that paying for something gives you no right to criticise the people you bought it from. We may as well close all customer services departments! Their customers have no right to criticise. Fuck those commuters too. They pay for their train tickets every day, so they must love the structure of train company ownership!
Even if we assume youāre right, and that purchasing equals endorsement (youāre not and it doesnāt) youāre still massively out on a limb. Yes, Iāve bought from Starbucks in the past year, but prefer not to. Iāve bought from Amazon, but prefer not to. Even if we accept your broken buy = endorse equation, youāre still ignoring the majority of times Iāve said āno thanks, I prefer not toā.
Leaving this here. Donāt be that girl, Cherts.
There you go Sarb. Pap always investigates the current tax status of 3rd party vendors & manufacturers before buying anything from Amazon. Suck it.
1 Like
Itās not a difficult check. Companies House, innit?
I have to admit, I didnāt even do that. I simply assumed that if you werenāt Vodafone or Another Big Corp, the taxman would come down on you like a ton of bricks demanding interest and shit.
Lol. Too good for a simple ālikeā ā I have to take my hat off to you as well bear. * 
* Yes. Itās a Panama. 