egg

He makes a valid point though. Mind boggling that so many follow people a bloke that.

His executive orders against law firms are unbelievable. One firm had involvement with the DA in the Stormy Daniels prosecution against him, and a lawsuit against the perpetrators of the capitol riot. Donny's response - revoke the security clearance of the firms lawyers, make them agree to $40m free legal work for the government, hire "on merit" and abandon any DEI initiatives. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2d4kex0w2ro

I oh see, so there's only a need for a discussion if it's your agenda. Thanks for clarifying.

Your post was contradictory, you started with 'What discussion needs to be had' then raised issues as you saw them, and then concluded by saying 'That's why I object to this ( a discussion I presume) because the government has no interest in the actual conversation that they should have'. There is a problem. There needs to be change. There needs to be discussion and consideration to understand what needs to be changed, and how that can be achieved.

I want to stay on topic. On this issue, where is the media 'control' over and above (and it's a stretch for me) contriving a discussion by making a hard hitting TV programme? Where's the government control on this issue?

I'm not getting into a conspiracy theory discussion. On this subject, this programme and Southgate have sparked a discussion. There's zero point discussing that with you as you've questioned what there is to discuss. That much should be obvious.

We've got similar backgrounds, and I'm grateful for the fact that I was kept on the straight and narrow. Whelk's point about kids wanting and sometimes craving discipline is a good one, and I can relate to that. For me it's evident that there's a serious issue to address, and what worries me is that you, Hypo, and doubtless others on here, think that there's some kind of media or government thought control at play. How can we make progress without discussion, and with a perception of us all being controlled, for reasons I cannot fathom?

Thanks. Saved me replying to that nonsense.

I wonder how many kids go to football training now compared to back then, ditto cubs, boys brigade, boxing clubs, or whatever. I'd guess it's a hell of a lot less. The lack of power to discipline point is correct, but it goes deeper than that. The kids don't accept discipline, and in fact don't feel that they should be disciplined. Why? What's influencing them to think that way? That's why debate is needed.

A different perspective on that is they've made something relevant, sparked a necessary debate, and want to use the opportunity for wider discussion, and hopefully make necessary changes. The "condition people" part I keep hearing, and nobody seems able to credibly explain what they actually mean and how they actually feel it's happening. The cruel irony to that statement is that it overlooks that the conditioning in this context is from the influencers in vulnerable kids, and doesn't address how we address that.

I'm not sure who's pretending to be experts. Do you agree that there needs to be discussion leading to action? Assuming you do, why can't something high profile be used to kick start it? Seems a good thing to me.

What I'm not seeing is mention of who these positive role models should be. Lots of who it shouldn't be though. I had my father, football coaches, cub/scout leaders, teachers who gave it straight, neighbours who weren't afraid to pull you up when you were out of line, bosses (I started working when at school), and others. My peers had similar, so there was a degree of peer policing. We were little shits at times, in fact often but we knew where the line was and didn't cross it.

What's your objection to something prompting a discussion that's necessary? Unless you're saying that there's no discussion to be had?

It should start with their father.

Anyone can sound crap in the guildhall with those acoustics. Courteeners are brilliant live, but in there they sounded dreadful. James yoo. Moon safari though, what an album.

Suggestion - stop goading.

Or to bite, every time.

Challenge

Not ideal! Presumably decent dark chocolate is okay though?

Debbie Harry in her prime -

Cheeky prick!!

An "if I was a band or singer" thread is a good shout. I'd have to think about that one.

To be fair, SoG is guaranteed a laughing emoji on every post from Nic, and also from Hypo if it relates to innocent dead Palestinians. None of us can boast that kind of a loyal fanclub.

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse. Hamas are a political organisation with a military wing. They were elected to power in Gaza. They subsequently went nuts. I see that you're continuing your downgrade. Earlier Hamas supporters were terrorists apparently, then they were terrorist supporters, now it's the members who are supporters. You're getting there. I'll help you keep it simple. Terrorists are terrorists. People who support terrorists doing terrorist stuff are terrorist supporters. People who voted for a party who turned out to be terrorists are just people. People who are stuck with terrorists as their government deserve our sympathy.

I'm surprised it's as many as that.