Two Maulings in One Day - Paxman AND Channel 4

[handsomefortune]

what ever has happened to him - what a hypocrite!? sneering must be contagious lateralthinking1, i have noticed that laurie taylor sometimes reads the oddest correspondence, supposedly 'sent in by listeners'.

he always uses his special rushed, off hand style, just before the programmes' end, for 'mere' correspondence to 'thinking allowed'....which is irritating enough. but it makes us wonder who listens to 'thinking allowed' these days...? content no longer reflects the programme title imo, so i haven't bothered to listen for a while tbh. it used to be quite a good prog, interesting guests, and subjects discussed, to relax and fall asleep to late at night. but the last few episodes i heard weren't that far off a tabloid newspaper mentality. he can go and join a commercial radio station, not air such vile rot on psb.

logically, it's a good idea not to select negative, ignorant views ..as it imv clashes completely with his 'swinging counter cultural grandad' image. surely he can't have it both ways ...which is the real laurie? at least paxo is always obnoxious, so viewers know (roughly) what to expect!

[Lateralthinking1]

what ever has happened to him

Other than Thinking Allowed? Same thing as Jo Whiley. Sky Arts:

http://skyarts.sky.com/in-confidence

[handsomefortune]

!!

[Lateralthinking1]

......Handsomefortune - Looking at those clips from Laurie's programme, I actually started to feel quite nostalgic about Stop The Week at its best.

One of the Sky programmes joined two of my favourite regulars on STW after more than thirty years - the ex Sociology professor himself, who you might recall was earlier a member of the Trotskyist International Socialists, and the brilliant right wing foreign correspondent Ann Leslie who has been named one of the thirteen most influential journalists in the post war years.

I would really recommend the following extract (erm, from the Mail) entitled "A very indecent proposal: Fleet Street legend Ann Leslie recalls a bedroom ambush by film star David Niven". Niven is just the starting point for a journey that involves Marlon Brando, Steve McQueen, James Mason, Jeremy Irons, Enoch Powell, Margaret Thatcher, Robin Cook, Bill Clinton, Leslie's own daughter and the American Secret Service. The unique insights she provides on all of them are funny, alarming and astonishing.

But given that feminism has been discussed at some length on this thread, it is the section on ex Conservative MP Nicholas Fairbairn that is the most incredible. It might help to provide answers to those who wonder why many women are feminists and provide more than a little context to the shower in the current Cabinet. Grab yourself a stiff drink and enjoy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1056320/A-indecent-proposal-Fleet-Street-legend-Ann-Leslie-recalls-bedroom-ambush-film-star-David-Niven.html

[scottycelt]

......But given that feminism has been discussed at some length on this thread, it is the section on ex Conservative MP Nicholas Fairbairn that is the most incredible. It might help to provide answers to those who wonder why many women are feminists and provide more than a little context for the current shower in the current Cabinet. Grab yourself a stiff drink and then enjoy:l

Hmmm .... 'feminists' like Ms Leslie just love to fantasise about how famous and powerful men always appear to find them so utterly irresistible ... conveniently, the famous and powerful men are all mostly now dead, of course, so are quite unable to respond to any of these reports of 'unwelcome advances'.. goodness, with all this attention from so many rich and famous men how on earth did Ms Leslie ever end up at the Daily Mail?

So here we go again ... for 'feminists' it's all about MEN ... and, of course, how awfully dreadful some (or all) of them are (or have been) towards poor little innocent wimmin like the lovely Ms Leslie ... anyway, David Niven was a Scottish gentleman so he could never have possibly made such eccentric advances towards the innocent likes of Ms Leslie, I'm sure.

[Serial_Apologist]

Hmmm .... 'feminists' like Ms Leslie just love to fantasise about how famous and powerful men always appear to find them so utterly irresistible ... conveniently, the famous and powerful men are all mostly now dead, of course, so are quite unable to respond to any of these reports of 'unwelcome advances'.. goodness, with all this attention from so many rich and famous men how on earth did Ms Leslie ever end up at the Daily Mail?

So here we go again ... for 'feminists' it's all about MEN ... and, of course, how awfully dreadful some (or all) of them are (or have been) towards poor little innocent wimmin like the lovely Ms Leslie ... anyway, David Niven was a Scottish gentleman so he could never have possibly made such eccentric advances towards the innocent likes of Ms Leslie, I'm sure.

Ann Leslie - feminist??? You gorra be JOKING man!

[Flosshilde]

Hmmm .... 'feminists' like Ms Leslie

I think the ' ' around the word feminist are required when it's applied to Ann Leslie, suggesting a certain irony or inappropriateness in applying the word to her.

So here we go again ... for 'feminists' it's all about MEN ...

& so it might be for 'feminists' but it certainly isn't for feminists.

[ahinton]

Hmmm .... 'feminists' like Ms Leslie just love to fantasise about how famous and powerful men always appear to find them so utterly irresistible ... conveniently, the famous and powerful men are all mostly now dead, of course, so are quite unable to respond to any of these reports of 'unwelcome advances'.. goodness, with all this attention from so many rich and famous men how on earth did Ms Leslie ever end up at the Daily Mail?

So here we go again ... for 'feminists' it's all about MEN ... and, of course, how awfully dreadful some (or all) of them are (or have been) towards poor little innocent wimmin like the lovely Ms Leslie ... anyway, David Niven was a Scottish gentleman so he could never have possibly made such eccentric advances towards the innocent likes of Ms Leslie, I'm sure.

I have to confess that I've already lost count of the sheer number of absurdities in your post here, scotty; "feminists" fantasising as you claim them to do, Ann Leslie being one of their number (that's about the richest of the lot, surely?!), Niven wanting to go anywhere near AL, Niven being a gentleman in real life, AL being as you describe her - oh, forget it; it's just not worth the bother! Just keep off the feminist grass, scotty, where on the strength (or rather cultivated weakness) of what you've tried to write on the subject so far, you have less than no business to try to belong (and you know my views on feminism as expressed here already)...

How (and presumably by implication why) did AL ever end up at the Daily Fail? You really need to ask such a question about a person and a rag that so painfully obviously deserve one another as much as they do?! Mon Dieu!...

[Lateralthinking1]

Well, here is Ann Leslie in a short clip entitled 'Feminism Gone Bonkers'. This is a useful companion piece to the article and relates specifically to the issue of equal pay and also the gender of candidates in elections:

http://www.frequency.com/video/ann-leslie-on-f/304932

[scottycelt]

Thank you for your kind comments, ahinton ... funny, they remind me so much of similar "exclude on the grounds of thumping ignorance" demands from elsewhere.

Of course, I can't prove whether the dapper-looking Mr Niven was a 'gentleman' or, indeed, an absolute bounder, though he did speak with a "plummy" southern English accent which is probably why many misguided souls simply assumed he must have been a very, very nice man ... to his eternal credit, though, he did do a truly hilarious Bonnie Prince Charlie.

As for Ms Leslie, I remember her being asked not so long ago whether she is a 'feminist', and she replied ... 'it really all depends what you mean by "feminist''' ... sorry for all these damn inverted commas but, as you can see, confusion reigns all over the place concerning a common definition for the rather silly word.

However, no less an authority than the BBC () seems to consider that she is indeed one of our more celebrated 'feminists', and as Ms Leslie herself has not exactly distanced herself from the "label", others might be rather more inclined to draw the conclusion that my posts on the subject may not have been quite as 'absurd' and 'ignorant' as some of the more 'knowledgeable' here have gone to some great pains to suggest..

http://jezebel.com/ann-leslie/

Of course. Ms Leslie's strong right-wing political views on most other issues have made her semi-attachment to this leftist dogma somewhat unusual, I readily agree.

However, ahinton, 'there is nowt as queer as folk', as that deliciously raw old Northern English saying goes, and even members of this forum are clearly no exception!

[jean]

Well, here is Ann Leslie in a short clip entitled 'Feminism Gone Bonkers'...

Ann Leslie's a character and a (sometimes) good journalist, but an authority on feminism? I don't think so!

[handsomefortune]

As for Ms Leslie, I remember her being asked not so long ago whether she is a 'feminist', and she replied ... 'it really all depends what you mean by "feminist''' ... sorry for all these damn inverted commas but, as you can see, confusion reigns all over the place concerning a common definition for the rather silly word.

confusion reigns only with you scotty. this is because you begin from a start point that berates women who reject the idea that thatcher was a feminist. maybe re-read the relevant sections in tanya gold's column perhaps if you really want to understand. however, i suspect you are enjoying the extra attention lavished on your posts.

However, no less an authority than the BBC () seems to consider that she is indeed one of our more celebrated 'feminists',

the bbc is a lesser organisation than in the past, which is why i mentioned gascoign/paxo contrasts. unfortunately, it is no longer 'an authority', and considers 'equality' a conflict of interest with its current objectives. in this specific context instead, it has an increasingly disgraceful track record unfortunately. though a wink emoticon doesn't really explain the full picture.

and as Ms Leslie herself has not exactly distanced herself from the "label", so you can clearly see that there are opportunists adopting the label, and actual feminsts who rarely mention the word, assuming it's no longer necessary.

http://jezebel.com/ann-leslie/ i am not reading that tripe, because i don't see it necessary to thoroughly examine dog poo, to know the specific hazards.

Of course. Ms Leslie's strong right-wing political views on most other issues have made her semi-attachment to this leftist dogma somewhat unusual, I readily agree.

well done! at least you've identified the historical context - obviously, the right has never contributed one stitch to either leftism, or the various theories that developed over the 20th c up till now.....(why ever would it 'help' its direct political opponent, or vice versa)? 'dogma' it may be if that's what questioning nonsense is called (in your opinion).

However, ahinton, 'there is nowt as queer as folk', as that deliciously raw old Northern English saying goes, and even members of this forum are clearly no exception!

? oo you daft sausage! 'there's nowt as odd as cavemen' more like, especially in the 21st c.

[scottycelt]

i am not reading that tripe, because i don't see it necessary to thoroughly examine dog poo, to know the specific hazards..

Is it possibly by not reading such 'tripe' the very reason that you and your friends here are so supremely knowledgeable, as you and they constantly claim? Maybe if I stop reading about all points of view then I'll become as well-informed as you and them? Thanks for the valuable tip!

I'm not aware that my posts seek any 'extra attention' and it seems curious you have chosen on this occasion to give them exactly that. My posts do seek some attention certainly (whether they really deserver to command any or not is another matter!), as there isn't much point in posting otherwise, is there now, handsome? ... and I cannot pretend that I don't enjoy contributing to this excellent forum.

Oh, I do ... immensely so!

Don't you?

[handsomefortune]

here's one i made earlier lateralthinking1! just add some sticky back plastic, and an old washing up bottle, but do ask your mum's permission first! due to the internet it's clear to see that bamba was not 'soft', though he does possess 'mild manners' and modesty! bamba appears imv to be a fully formed, autonomous, adult. one who seemed to symbolise the honour, and good intentions of the TV regularly broadcasting a quiz, in which 'academic young hopefuls' participated. presumably good for the image of the beeb, uk universities, and students themselves. what does paxo hope to achieve on 'university challenged' in comparison? why might his approach be approved of?

tbh lat, i'm still in recovery from your recent sky link, where i caught a very brief glimpse of that veritable ocean of shiny silicon faces, gagging for attention. apparently all are typically anxious to 'reveal their inner thoughts'......but frankly, none of the 'choices' interest me whatsoever. my apologies, but i can't stomach 'the daily mail' links either sadly..... not all in the same day. sorry - but i do have limits, rather than thrashing around in other peoples' 'sensations', or 'fan£asys' about themselves.... they might be 'personality driven' - but i try to resist them driving me round the bend in the process.

therefore, i have no idea who anne leslie is tbh - but wonder if scotty might be confusing 'feminine' and 'feminism' again? at least separate the two scotty - otherwise you'll drive yourself bonkers. if you're going to despise people - get organised, do it properly!

as for leslie .....i have a few clues - 1. that people on the right politically aren't usually 'blighted' by leftist theory, such as feminism. 2. feminists do not write in the daily mail EVER. possibly partly because melanie would see to it that they had a nasty experience, with secret assistance from the editor, if anyone was foolish enough to even attempt to subvert 'the dm' party line. 3. no one sane, male or female, would want to write for such a toxic enterprise, at least not if they wish to maintain any personal credibility.

[/B]Ms Leslie just love to fantasise about how famous and powerful men always appear to find them so utterly irresistible [/B]...

if this is true, it sounds like someone like edwina curry pretending she's joan collins, a sort of portmanteau identity kit....'popular' 1990s onward? that sort of retrospective, vacuuos rambling, which sometimes UNFORTUNATELY lately passes for feminism, because it's (supposedly) confessional, about 'real' females. (some are only remotely believable as feminists, if you'd lived under a stone mostly, just venturing out for basics, i'm not sure collins would even bother laying claim initially...perhaps she would....personally, i try to avoid this leaden arm of post feminism tbh).

imv it's always wise to remember that feminist theory typically has nothing whatsoever to do with consumerism. imv the idea that anyone, male or female, always has something useful, pertinent to write in a daily/weekly column, or provides continually valid discussion during regular tv appearances is simply unattainable, and a bit of a personal liability to that person. consequently, people in the public eye often risk disappointing those who'd genuinely prefer to be loyal to them ideally. contrastingly, the suffragettes thought their theories up, without requiring a pushbike, bell and basket in exchange. or some sort of financial reward for actively thinking stuff per se..... though central was the theory that they collectively desired equality for all women, but not by betraying themselves and each other in the process! that'd be counter productive.

so imv perhaps leslie is 1. a post feminist, 2. just a bit squiffy 3. earns a living writing poisonous gossip, and happens to be female. 4 is attention seeking for all the wrong reasons, and sees 'criticising, and stereotyping men' as a short cut to actually thinking anything useful, or worthwhile. ultimately, this strategy suits 'superior' bullying, infantile men best, and a small minority of women employed to 'not think' for cash. it's hardly comparable to eg 'feminist separatism' as a necessary phase of a political movement ...instead, some contemporary women employed in the media sometimes just flirt with the idea of 'opposition', being separate, for cash, then go home to men for 'dinner and 'romance'.

nevertheless, it's surprising how truely awful some people can be, in terms of regularly scraping the barrel. i particularly remember an article in 'the guardian' in the 2000s, where fay weldon 'advised' younger generations to 'fake orgasms for their boyfriends' ...unfortunately, i shall probably never forget it. or the article directly next to weldon's, about very premature babies, 'living in fear of adult human contact', the baby's experience of adults limited to them only ever 'interfering to attach drips and painful needles'. personally, i identified in particular with the premature babies! rather than the utterly depressing madness of weldon's allegedly time honoured 'advice'. thankfully comparatively, tanya gold seems like a 'fountain of wisdom' in comparison tbh...or at least has common sense, which is a start! but readers have to be choosy - even in 'the guardian' these days. it's nevertheless cheering to see that genuinely being useful to others seems to be making a come back in younger generations, who lately seem to publish a less contorted version of feminism. they seem more aware of the usefulness of ethics, rather than mechanically serving the dominant 'feminist fan£asy' of recent years, which suits consumerism primarily, rather than any humans. i suspect the economic crash plays a part in a collective return to genuine common sense? as did the poverty and depression that ww2 left behind, directly prior to the thrust and intellectual muscle of the post war global womens' movement. evidently, having helped fight in the war, women then risked being forced back into the kitchen, wearing a girdle and pinchy shoes. which coincidentally brings me neatly back to the sticky subject of 'permission to use mummy's spare washing up bottles' actually. but then i' prefer perfect circles, rather than the hazards of 'my bottom shaping my thoughts', as mentioned upthread, courtesy of observations made by margaret atwood in 1993. why are atwood's 'retrospectives' so completely gripping, and indefinitely durable in terms of usefulness to others...... where as often other contemporary women writers, of a similar generation to atwood, fail at 'describing the past' so spectacularly?

[handsomefortune]

[QUOTE=scottycelt;180123]Is it possibly by not reading such 'tripe' the very reason that you and your friends here are so supremely knowledgeable, as you and they constantly claim? Maybe if I stop reading about all points of view then I'll become as well-informed as you and them? Thanks for the valuable tip!

yes, spot on, being selective gives a person more time to consume personal choices of actual value to that person. some things are patently obvious and predictable, (see my point about dog poo for instance)

why slate leslie, and then insist i read her? where's the logic scotty?

(if i have time) later, i might try to write what leslie wrote ....without cheating and reading her first - because it is probably the repetitive gibberish common in tabloid women writers describing things about any celebs - past or present. (though i do take your point to the effect of 'it helps if celebs are dead and can't argue back' btw)

I'm not aware that my posts seek any 'extra attention'

if you're not careful i shall invade your 'round ball game' thread with total nonsense about football - the only thing stopping me is that i don't want to ruin the thread for the other football fans. they would totally justifiably accuse me of seeking unwarranted attention... for nowt.

and it seems curious

as posted, you're enjoying every last bit of it for various reasons! nothing 'curious' about it imv.

I cannot pretend that I don't enjoy contributing to this excellent forum. great! but why might you ever have to 'pretend' about your own levels of enjoyment in posting exactly?

happily, you'll presumably be able to coherently address some of the issues raised, in other posts on this thread? that includes mssge 1, and everything that follows - (except your own contributions this far) let us know when you plan to start scotty! maybe type your new messages in pink, (hopefully, we'll all agree to ignore your posts this far, the ones typed in black)!