Practically Classics Forum

I was hoping that as it hadn't appeared on the forum yesterday that we had avoided the issue.

Anyway i couldn't give a hoot what he says or who he offends.

Mitsuru wrote:it's actually well over 21,000 complaints not 5,000.

You've missed the point there, which is that only 5000 viewers complained as a result of having watched the interview, the remaining complaints came from people who based their opinions on hearsay, thereby missing the fact that the comment was the counterpoint to JC's observations about the many advantages of the day's activities.

it depresses me that when we have the economy in the cesspit, syria, afghanistan, iran, peadophiles, stephen lawrence, the new mini,etc etc the radio / tv seems to waste time on nonsense like this.. we give the right of free speech to racists etc to spout their evil bile, but god forbid anyone makes a joke
rant over

Yep. lets concentrate on important things...

Whatever happened to Anna Friel? I've still not recovered from that airline advert where she invites the viewer to bed....

Mike Whiskey wrote:Yep. lets concentrate on important things...

Whatever happened to Anna Friel? I've still not recovered from that airline advert where she invites the viewer to bed....

I'm still pausing my VCR on "that" scene from "The Tribe" every time I watch it. For me, that is Anna Friel.

The man's a bell end that needs a good slap.

Anna Friel on the other hand...

JPB wrote:

Mike Whiskey wrote:Yep. lets concentrate on important things...

Whatever happened to Anna Friel? I've still not recovered from that airline advert where she invites the viewer to bed....

I'm still pausing my VCR on "that" scene from "The Tribe" every time I watch it. For me, that is Anna Friel.

can you post a pic? i dont think i know that film...

It's a Stephen Poliakoff play, Rich and if I were to post that still here, or anywhere else on t'interweb with the exception of a certain Rover 800 forum, then I'd be in trouble!

However, describing the action may be ok so here goes:

Anna Friel plays one of a group of squatters who live in a big old warehouse - that warehouse, before I get that pulled too - and a property developer played by Eddie Shoestring, a.k.a. Middle English luvvie Trevor Eve has purchased the building with a view to turning it into luxurious apartments. Maybe it was office space? Frankly I don't care.
Friel spends much of the play cavorting about in the nip and in that one scene in particular, focussing on the group's "free love" ethos, she - dressed only in a T-shirt that's about six inches too short - rests her left knee on the side of a bed then sloooowly lifts the right leg up and over some bloke who's already lying there in a state of, erm, "readiness". Yep, you guessed it; he's just boiled the kettle.
As she swings the leg across the guy's nekkit torso, the audience is shown evidence that Ms Friel's.... how to put it without causing offence now.... Got it! Evidence that Friel's hair has a body-wide coordinated thing happening.

Only trouble is that, in the Director's cut as seen on the laser disc version (remember those? I'll sell you my player for a mere £12,000 along with the disc ), the scene has that leg lingering just a while too long in mid air which should suit trainee nurses.

Now I ask you; what's more likely to cause genuine offence to people other than those who moan about stuff as a hobby: A throwaway, possibly ill-judged remark from a professional journalist or the sight of the lovely Ms Friel's private areas being dangled about in close-up?

I was amused when watching breakfast TV this morning - more complained about the Beeb's anti-strikers' bias than did about the pro-striker's bias. It makes wonder how many "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells"'s are civil servant/whatever types.

BTW - my meagre pension is one that may have been affected as I worked in schools for about twelve years and have no pension from elsewhere! However, I have a friend (self employed) who has paid into a private scheme for about forty years now and was told about three years ago that he needs to at least double his contribution to get anything worth having out of it! So much so that he's beginning to think he'll have to work past 65, where he had hoped to retire at 60! He didn't increase his contribution though: for a similar monthly cost, he took out a morgage and bought some property for rental. I suspect he couldn't do that now!

thanks john!
i get the picture
as for pensions what was the link that gordon brown did away with on becoming chancellor? as i recall private pension funds were quite wealthy until then & now everyones broke..