Skybar - For general, off-topic or 'location unspecific' discussions

[WilfBurnsFan]

Originally Posted by Steve Ellwood

Perhaps we should have a thread entitled "Enter at your own Risk"

That might not be a bad idea!

[newcastlepubs]

Originally Posted by Steve Ellwood

Perhaps we should have a thread entitled "Enter at your own Risk"

That might not be a bad idea [almost an arguments thread].

I must admit I d thought of skybar almost as 'a bar' -where you chat about what you chat about, ie there's not really a topic, it goes where it goes so long as it's legal and not offensive to [or should that be about] another poster. So that within reason [say] Ed Milliband would be fair game, but not [say] Merleb.

I must admit I thought we were being equally rude [but not malicious] about politicians of all sides [albeit as schoolboys] but 'offence' is subjective and I don't think any of us wanted [or would want] to offend DX.

[Newcastle Historian]

Originally Posted by newcastlepubs

I must admit I thought we were being equally rude [but not malicious] about politicians of all sides [albeit as schoolboys] but 'offence' is subjective and I don't think any of us wanted [or would want] to offend DX.

I wrote to him early this morning, by PM.

[newcastlepubs]

Originally Posted by Newcastle Historian

I wrote to him early this morning, by PM.

Thanks NH. I ve also suggested here he might want to PM as I am not sure if we stepped on a specific landmine or whether it was the general tenor.

[DXNewcastle]

Thanks for the comments and messages. I've sent PMs, but for the benefit of the forum's broader community, I'll repeat 2 or 3 of those thoughts here:

I know many politicians (and have known many more in the past) and have a lot of respect for anyone who stands for public office, even when I disagree with their politics or actions.
I guess that's not a popular view!

In this case, I felt the attack on individual politicians had gone on too far for my liking; the personal accusations against figures in politics had descended into a rather immature form of point-scoring where the politicians themselves were no longer being valued or citicised, but it seemed that posters wanted to have a go at each other's 'knowledge' of which politicians have been disgraced by hacks.
After having spent some of the week in the Leveson Enquiry, I'm not best enamoured with hacks right now, and to find members on here following the same furrows, becoming more concerend with who-shagged-who than the true subject of politics, has dissapointed me. Greatly.

But its not for me to stifle converstation, I would just be pleased if it took place in the thread about Politicians where discussion of who shagged whom can sit alongside any discussion of political theory (not that I recall reading much political theory in there!). I hope that is the message that was taken from my post yesterday, and no other message or sub-text.

Perhaps because of the type of debate I have found in the Politics sub-forum/thread, I tend to stay away from it now, and that suits me as I hope it suits everybody else. Actually, I'm rarely offended. But I'm easily dissapointed.

Thanks again for taking an interest.

[merleb]

Politicians are not sacred cows.

Anyone standing for public office must learn to take "the slings and arrows" as well as a magnified public gaze. If that means through the media, then so be it. If you are in the public gaze then your dirty washing can become public knowledge.

Also standing for public office should never automatically garner respect. The general public see politicians as standing in order for self gain or self aggrandisement. Very few politicians are seen by the public as selfless and purely altruistic. Whether that is a matter of perception or not is not really relevant. It is up to politicians to PROVE they are in the game for the right reasons.

Lastly, a predilection for discussion of salacious gossip, ie "bonking" people is simply human nature.

And, of course, this is a forum that is not geared to the tastes of one person or a small tranche of people. The general rule is no-one is being forced to read things they may not like or agree with. I personally find the photos of the Miners Gala repugnant but I defend Ken's right to post them as they were mostly germane to the thread.

[WilfBurnsFan]

Originally Posted by merleb

Politicians are not sacred cows.

Very true.

Originally Posted by merleb

Anyone standing for public office must learn to take "the slings and arrows" as well as a magnified public gaze. If that means through the media, then so be it. If you are in the public gaze then your dirty washing can become public knowledge.

I would say, up to a point. One's probity should be subject to scrutiny, but one's private life? If such a view had prevailed in 1916 we would have retained the ineffectual Asquith as PM rather than the priapic Lloyd George, and quite possibly the Germans would have prevailed. Ditto 1940. If the press had made Churchill's life a misery for being a cuckold... I'm sure there are many other examples of statesmen and women of note whose private lives - nothing to do with fitness for post - would not have passed the judgementalising of the yellow press.

Originally Posted by merleb

Also standing for public office should never automatically garner respect. The general public see politicians as standing in order for self gain or self aggrandisement. Very few politicians are seen by the public as selfless and purely altruistic. Whether that is a matter of perception or not is not really relevant. It is up to politicians to PROVE they are in the game for the right reasons.

Again, generally agree. But again, this should apply to general issues of probity rather than purely private matters.

Originally Posted by merleb

Lastly, a predilection for discussion of salacious gossip, ie "bonking" people is simply human nature.

Very true. But that doesn't mean it is right. I dare say that people may enjoy discussion of the personal predilections of merleb or wilfburnsfan (were it not for the fact that we are beyond reproach), but that doesn't make it creditable. Surely politicians are human beings too (most of them) and have certain rights to privacy and dignity.

Originally Posted by merleb

And, of course, this is a forum that is not geared to the tastes of one person or a small tranche of people. The general rule is no-one is being forced to read things they may not like or agree with. I personally find the photos of the Miners Gala repugnant but I defend Ken's right to post them as they were mostly germane to the thread.

Agree entirely with the general sentiment expressed (though disagree about the Gala).

[bigchrisfgb]

Everyone is entitled to a private life.

I'm rather fed up of this media and celebrity obsession we have now. Ou newspapers are full of which MP is dropping his pants for another man, which celebrity/public figure is going through yet another divorce and marriage simply to sell the story to the highest paying magazine. Our children and even grown ups now buy magazines with scripted life news of our celebrities (Jordan or waterer her real name is/isn't), magazines where people think it's right to sell descriptive stories of not only their lives but other people's lives when they and/or others have been the victims of rape, child abuse, murder etc.

We have journalists who follow the victims families around, pestering them, camping out in their back garden, telling damn right lies in order to get a story. My family this year have been the victims of these journalists and it's the attitude of the people who read the likes of these newspapers, buy these "take a break" magazines who give these journalists the feeling that it's ok to behave like this. Celebrities and politicians are some of the worst though, they allow media outlets to run their lives, you have the likes of jordan who will hop from one marriage to another all to keep in the magazines and papers, who have Simon Cowell who surprise surprise has now had the typical "I'm a celebrity breakdown scandal".

It's all bull crap, it all ends up in the victims families and friends of whatever crime (in my families case it was a high profile murder case) who get pestered, the people who just want some time and space to grieve, the same people who are forced out of their homes and to a day trip 20 or so miles away just to escape it all. You have the people who are celebrities or politicians who don't want to be in the public eye who can't have a private life. Sure they might have a few skeletons in their closets, sure they might be having affairs, sure they might secretly be gay, bi-sexual, have fetishes etc but all of this is their private life and the key word there is private.

From the reporters camping outside of my family members homes in the hope of getting an exclusive of a picture to my next-door neighbour knocking on my door for the first time in 4 years just because I'm decorating my house and she wants to see what it look like, I hate the lot of them.

This world is just coming to too much now, we don't need to know what everyone else is up to behind closed doors, I don't like this need to know what everyone else is up to, whether it be celebrities or my neighbours I don't want to know and I don't care but it's forced upon us. Inside a newspaper I don't get news, I get gossip.

[Squipper]

I neither watch TV nor read newspapers anymore. I refuse to be spoon fed crap that somebody elses has decided I need to know.

[bigchrisfgb]

Originally Posted by Squipper

I neither watch TV nor read newspapers anymore. I refuse to be spoon fed crap that somebody elses has decided I need to know.

TV is alright, at least then you can choose what to watch, documentaries, drama's etc can all be good entertaining and informative. Chat shows, gossip shows, relationship advice shows, "reality TV" shows, well they are the worst.

[Talisker]

Much to the disbelief of the TV licencing people, I don't own a TV and haven't watched it for years. It takes a while to get used to but it's worth it.

[bigchrisfgb]

Originally Posted by Talisker

Much to the disbelief of the TV licencing people, I don't own a TV and haven't watched it for years. It takes a while to get used to but it's worth it.

In order to gain access to the forum I'm assuming you have a computer and access to the internet. If so you then have to pay for a TV licence.

[Squipper]

Originally Posted by bigchrisfgb

In order to gain access to the forum I'm assuming you have a computer and access to the internet. If so you then have to pay for a TV licence.

Only if you have a TV card fitted.

[bigchrisfgb]

Originally Posted by Squipper

Only if you have a TV card fitted.

Nah, in theirs eyes you are then free to watch BBC iPlayer.

[anonymous1]

you don't need a TV licence for iPlayer.

[Steve Ellwood]

Originally Posted by anonymous1

you don't need a TV licence for iPlayer.

Why do I need a TV Licence to watch TV programmes on my laptop?

If you use a laptop to watch television programmes as they are being shown on TV then by law you need a TV Licence.

If you use a laptop to view television programmes after they are shown on TV – for example by downloading programmes or via streaming on-demand – then you don’t need a Licence.


Source : http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/f...ramework-AB16/

[cranfan]

Yep, which means that the TV licensing people have to take your word for the fact that you don't do live iPlayer. They used to be very reluctant to accept claims that "I only use my TV to watch DVDs" and I recall being advised to smash the aerial socket to back this up.

[anonymous1]

And if you're a student living away from home, you can watch live TV online without a licence if you unplug your laptop from the mains. How that rule can be enforced is beyond me. But TV Licencing do like trying to scare students into getting one.

[Ken O'Heed]

More on the debate about Chuggers


Charities face major changes to how they raise funds after the author of an official report said some high streets are "becoming suffocated with chuggers".

The review, commissioned by the Government, will recommend major changes to the way charities are run and call for more powers to control face-to-face fundraisers.

More on this story including 2 minute Sky TV video on http://uk.news.yahoo.com/charity-chu...--finance.html

KEN

[Talisker]

Originally Posted by Ken O'Heed

More on this story including 2 minute Sky TV video on http://uk.news.yahoo.com/charity-chu...--finance.html

KEN

Am I OK to watch that clip? My understanding was that it's live TV or TV recorded as live (i.e. on a hard drive) then watched later that you need a licence for. I'm thinking of getting a TV for the sole purpose of playing Xbox games on though. Providing there's no reception I should be OK, but the TV licencing people may be hard to convince.