Show Posts

You can view here all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas to which you currently have access.


Messages - Lady Penelope

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 142
1
The Movie Phorum / Re: RIP
« on: April 24, 2017, 07:46:50 PM »
No it ain't so Jan.  I still listen to the Archers it seems to have been a part of my life for so long I would feel lost without it, though it was a real test of loyalty to survive the Helen and Rob Tichener saga!   I tend to fall behind and then thanks to "Listen Again" have a real orgy of catching up on the Omnibus editions!  I take it you remain faithful?

2
The Movie Phorum / Re: RIP
« on: April 16, 2017, 02:35:13 PM »
Good to hear from you too Jan..................Sorry I have not written more but the fact is I hardly ever listen to the radio these days.
Just a quick note now to wish you all a Very Happy Easter.
 

3
Unfortunately this is one that has been repeated on R4X so often that for me it has lost its freshness.   However for anyone who has not seen it before,, it is brilliant.  John Mortimer at his best and a brilliant and compassionate performance by David Kossoff

4
Radio Matters / Sara Coward (Caroline Sterling) RIP
« on: March 01, 2017, 06:22:26 PM »
I was sorry to learn from a belated check of the Archers (sorry Tru!) Website of the death of Sara Coward who played Caroline Sterling (nee Bone) in The Archers.  I was wondering why it appeared the Caroline and Oliver were being written out, and very sad to learn the reason.  There is apparently talk of her being replaced, but I rather hope not as  Sara had a very attractive and unique voice, which would be hard to duplicate.

I think the fact that along with many others I remain faithful to the Archers (with difficulty sometimes) supports the theory aired on the other thread that one clings to programmes heard in one's youth.

Caroline, to my mind, was one of the best as well as longer-standing of Ambridge residents and one of the most believable and attractive characters.   She will be sorely missed.


5
The Movie Phorum / Re: RIP
« on: February 28, 2017, 07:56:43 PM »
Bien venue de retour Dear Lady P,

Merci beaucoup, Tru, and hoşbulduk

Thank you also tallforaduck for your greetings, and a belated welcome to you to the Phorum.

It seems to me that there are two theories being put forward here:  one that one's tastes change with age and/or that the public "fashion " in humour changes, the other that people prefer the shows of their youth.   They are not really mutually exclusive.   I find nostalgia certainly influences some of my preferences, not only for a time, but as an expat for a place, which explains for example "To the Manor" though I realise that it is homesickness for an England that no longer exists - if indeed it ever did exist!

However, and here it is probably my own age, but I do feel out of touch with modern humour and can't think of a recent comedy show I really enjoy.

I agree with the need for identifiable characters and situations: personally I get put off by the absurd and must look out my tin hat again as I admit to not liking Fawlty Towers or the Goons.

I am not sure about comedy ageing: some certainly do, but against it is Dad's Army ,  in a generation which often does not even know who Hitler was!   I think DA stands out on its own from all the others, as Tru says a piece of genius.  Can anyone even remember "The Army Game" and the contemporary Allo Allo  is certainly dated.  I think Dad's Army certainly benefits from identifiable characters brilliantly played as well as exceptional script writing.

I think my favourite humour is play on words , viz Yes Prime Minister.   I still laugh out loud every time I see the Ronnies' "Fork Handles" episode and other similar, and I used to love Ronnie Corbet's tales in his armchair.   Also I found Dave Allen ott sometimes, some of his verbal jokes were brilliant.



 






6
The Movie Phorum / Re: RIP
« on: February 27, 2017, 09:36:30 PM »
Thank you so much Ironeyes .  I have missed you all too, though I have kept in touch with Tru and Jan,  and it is good to be back.  I have not been well and have had a few other problems, but hopefully I am stable now.  I am still finding my way round the new format, so be patient with me!

Yes I think I folow you Tallforaduck.   I think one of the words I was looking at with regard to aging was "cynical".

I like risque humour  but hate vulgarity, and I dont usually  like cruel humour or banana skin type.   I agree entirely with you about Dads Army, although with me that was the other way round, I didnt "get" it at first when I was a teenager but I appreciate the gentle humour now.
And yes "YesMinister" is a real classic and still so true today!  Other Golden Oldie gentle commedies star my namesake:  The Good Life and tTo the Manor Born.


7
The Movie Phorum / Re: RIP
« on: February 27, 2017, 06:18:39 PM »
It is a matter of age, I think.  When I was a teenager I thought I Love Lucy was terribly funny and sophisticated.   Watching a repeat on u  tube a few months ago , I found it rather childish and banal.      I am not sure if it is my age or that the World has become less innocent and more critical  :-\

8
The Pub - Open All Hours / Re: Goodbye 2015
« on: December 31, 2015, 08:40:39 PM »
Truthyness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> All best wishes to you and yours and the Beebotron
> community.
>
> Above all good health in 2016
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tru

And to you Tru, and to everyone

Penny

9
The Pub - Open All Hours / Re: Is this news?
« on: July 18, 2015, 03:24:37 PM »
Well I take you point , Mat.    I abd many others are frequently disgusted by intrusive media interviews with recently bereaved people and those who have witnessed or been involved in some form of tragedy.   OK the public may need to know what happened - and perhaps in due course what sort ofpeople it happened to - but sticking a microphone in someone;s face and demanding their reactions before they have even had time to recovere from the immediate shock is, imho, obscene.  Perhaps in this case the lady declined (or was in no state) to be interviewed and the \"specialist police officers\" kept the press at a distance for once, so they had to rely on guesswork or hearsay.

10
I too am somewhat relieved to find I am not the only one with an instinct to bury my head in the sand when presented with unpalatable facts.

I also find I am inclined to react differently according to the media in which it is presented.   SEEING what is happening - even at second hand on screen, involves the emotions and the reaction \"this is horribe, I cannot stand it, turn it off\" , whereas being told about it (whether by spoken on written word) the reaction is more likely to be \"this is horrible, what can I do/be done about it?\".   Maybe a matter of generation and education - I was taught to find out facts by researching books in a library .    Either is rather academic since the answer is \"B*****r all\"!.

Anyway  I am obviously reading and watching the wrong things (likeBBC News) since the media\'s preoccupation with the sex lives and offensive excess spending on trivialies of film stars and sports personalities tends to make me sceptical about all reporting.

11
The Pub - Open All Hours / Re: Bias ... and so it goes!
« on: July 08, 2015, 07:37:23 PM »
Truthyness Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> **/ADF Intl calls for transparency, unbiased
> selection process/*


Excuse my igorance, TRu, but what is ADF?

As for the EU you both obviously do not understand what it is for8-)

It is not intended to serve the interests of Justice  or help ordinary people , like the elderly and disabled, who are disadvantaged by the society they live in.

It exists for the preservation of particular species and to enable them to live in the manner in which they want to be accustomed:  viz politicians who have mucked up their own countries to the extent of being unelectable and civil servants who have attended the Sir Humphrey Appleby* school of logic and diplomacy and are incapable of promulgating a policy that does not protected their vested interests or word it in terms that are intelligible to normal people,   For lesser beings of the same species who are actually still clinging on to their national posts, it also provides a much needed break from wall to wall campaigning  and impoverising taxpayers with illl thought out shemes by way of a paid holiday at said taxpayers expense in countries with lots of sun, a long sandy coastline and plenty of golf courses.

* There is actually an episode of YPM about this

12
The Pub - Open All Hours / Re: When will the U.S. ban guns?
« on: June 25, 2015, 09:28:37 PM »
baycruiser Wrote:
------------------
>
> And I don\'t think you  understand guns in America.
> The reason for the second amendment is to protect
> yourself from an over reaching government. We need
>  arming now more than ever when we have to ask
> permission from the government to do anything on
> our own property.

I have read the above three times now, and am still puzzled !  I thought the purpose of the Second Americans was to enable settlers in the days of the Wild  West to protect themselves against: Wild Animals, aboriginal inhabitants of North America (\"Red Indians\") and the English!  The second are surely now a protected species, you won the war against the third and I did not think there were that many grizzly bears running around New York these days!  

Your appear to be saying it gives you the right to shoot your own politicians - in which case I rather think some Brits might wish it had been incoporated in the Magna Carta!:D

Seriously if what you are saying is that your Government does not provide adequate protection for the individual therefore he needs to use firearms to protect himself, that is not the sign of a civilized society and  surely approving \"taking the law into one;s own hands\" and tending to vigilante action, which carries its own dangers of  illogical and prejudiced behaviour, although I know some Brits are also feeling similar insecurity.





>

13
The Pub - Open All Hours / Re: When will the U.S. ban guns?
« on: June 25, 2015, 09:05:11 PM »
baycruiser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not here to change minds, just contributing
> to the conversation. I don\'t understand how your
> culture works there and it might not be possible
> for you to understand American culture either. But
> we can\'t all be the same. It would be a dull world
> if it were.
>
> Disagreement is normal. We can disagree with
> someone in certain matters and still be friends
> (I say certain  because if you want to kill me, I
> cannot agree with you on that ;)). When did
> disagreement with someone mean a personal attack?
> The way people argue, you would think they were

Yes Baycruiser :   I would hate to see this Phorum go the way of some where every differing opinion seems to lead to a virulent personal attack ont he poster.   Having said that:: I think some of us rather enjoy the cut and thrust of a good argument , and get a little carried away.  

In a debate as serious as this, we should remember the words (not of Voltair but his biographer)  \"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it\"

14
The Pub - Open All Hours / Re: When will the U.S. ban guns?
« on: June 24, 2015, 09:38:20 AM »
baycruiser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The question is how do you disarm the bad guys? Itjavascript:editor_tools_handle_center()
> is easy to take guns away from law abiding
> citizens (those who register  their weapons). You
> can take all the guns off the streets of America
> but that won\'t  make any difference because guns
> are brought through the porous southern border or
> smuggled in other ways.the

Good post, Baycruiser:  The American point of view is useful, because I think few others would have thought of  the border and the ease of smuggling guns.   It also bears out my point that before enacting legislation , anywhere and for any reason, it is vital to think out the purpose carefully AND put measures in place to enforce it:  otherwise it risks penalising the innocent and leaving loopholes for the guilty.


> black individualis most likely killed by another black person?
> Is it ever mentioned on the BBC a

Not that I have noticed!   But then I have serious reservations on the accuracy and impartiality of BBC News Reporting (mostly based on their reporting , or lack of it,  about where I live and actually know what is happening


> White on black killings are unusual and that\'s why
> they are noteworthy.  Look at police blotters in
> metropolitan Chicago, Detroit or Oakland and see
> who is gunning whom down.
>
> Last Friday morning, a police officer in
> Cincinnati, OH responded to a 911 call reporting a
> disturbed individual wandering up and down the
> street. When the cop responded,  he was almost
> immediately shot and killed by the disturbed
> person who made the 911 call (unbeknownst to the
> responding officer). The police officer hesitated
> using his weapon because there was a woman trying
> to calm down the guy who eventually shot the
> policeman. From all reports, the assassinated
> policeman  was  a good man (if he wasn\'t his name
> would be known and smeared coast to coast  by
> now), but I will bet this incident was not
> reported or discussed on the Beeb.
>
> There are so many factors  at play especially a
> willing media who want guns off the street. And
> then there are those professional protesters who
> are paid to cause trouble like you all saw in
> Baltimore and Ferguson. The miracle of Charleston
> is nothing violent has errupted. It reflects well
> on the city and her residents  that  the streets
> are not on fire right now.
>
> Matamore! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Matamore! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > For at least one NRA board member it seems
> the
> > real problem is that
> >
> church
> > congregations aren\'t heavily armed
> enough
.
> >
> > Apparently, America doesn\'t have enough guns in
> > its primary schools, either:
> >
> >
> Sandy Hook Elementary
> > School shooting - Wikipedia, the free
> > encyclopedia

> >
> >
Quote
On December 21, 2012, the National Rifle
> > Association\'s Wayne LaPierre said gun-free
> school
> > zones attract killers and that another gun ban
> > would not protect Americans.

>
> This shooter was not a professional (he bought the
> gun with money he received on his 21st birthday)
>  and apparently had to reload numerous times (he
> had planned to kill himself in the church but he
> ran out of bullets), surely someone could have hit
> him with something or at least distract him.
> Witnesses have said he took a long time to reload.
> No one thought, \"I am going to die anyway, might
> as well make my life count for something\"? I find
> that odd that there wasn\'t time to stop this guy.
> Maybe he shot the men first. Killing the women was
> like shooting fish in a barrel after the men were
> shot.
>
> What\'s being lost in all this is this guy is a
> loon. Have you seen the mug shot? Those are crazy
> eyes like Charles Manson. Even if he didn\'t have a
> gun he would have found other ways to get the job
> done.  The reported motive was he wanted to start
> a race war with this act, same as Charles Manson
> with the Tate-LaBianca ki?lings.

15
The Pub - Open All Hours / Re: When will the U.S. ban guns?
« on: June 21, 2015, 08:25:26 PM »
Tru:   I am at a disadvantage here because  I dont know much about USA legislation.   I do know that legislation regarding purchasing guns varies from State to State but I thought there was some legislation regarding who could buy guns, including a minimum age limit?  If so the weapons you refer to must have been illegally obtained?     I  also suspect that there are some areas in the UK where a search of children\'s lockers would reveal quite a lot of illegal offensive weapons, such as knives.

I have however in the past been present at meetings where a number of competent, experiences and (well reasonably) fair minded lawyers have been unable to agree on the correct interpretion of something as simple and (comparatively non contentious ) as a Town Planning or Buidling regulations By-Law

The problems with legislation generally is that is depends on two things:

a.  How accurately and clearly the legislation as drafted and passed into law reflects the intentions of the politicians who voted for the Law.  Sadly quite often in the UK (and I am sure elsewhere)  it is  subject to sea change  either intentionally ( the \"Yes Minister\" syndrome)  or uni ntentionally  through  ineptitude of those responsible for translating the wishes of the Government into words.   Thus liable to deliberate distortion for the  selfish purposes of the end users, and unintentional distortion by less intelligent  end users.   I am thinking particularly here of some of the Financial Regulations intended to protects against terrorism, money laundering and identity theft, which are used by lazy people to transfer the work and the risk to the customers   Also some equal opportunities legislation is counter productive in that clumsy drafting and even clumsier interpretation  
leads to \"political correctness\" and either ridicule or actually increasing the tensions is is intended to reduce.


b.   How the Law is enforced.  . It can be counter productive to rush Laws through in reaction to a particularly crisis if those responsibility for enforcing it lack the will and/or the ability to enforce them.Not meaning anywhere in particular , but criminal laws do require an adequately staffed and trained and motivated Police Force.

Please understand I am not arguing against legislation regarding firearms in America, or anywhere else (though I may be playing \"Devil\'s Advocate a little) but I think in pressing for legislation on any subject one needs to be sure that those responsible for the  enactment are fully committed to ensuring the intention is reflected thought the entire process and not just responsing to \"gut reaction.\"

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 142