threegee

Yes, yes, but you have to add a few cherubs for the ladies to feel good about!

Buy hey, you are "objectifying women" Malc. That seems to be something rather bad. How bad never seems to have occurred to classical artists. And, that classical art "objectifies women" never seems to occur to feminists. Or at least there's something creepily "classist" about the whole current furore. Torch the National Gallery, I say; lets be done with it, so the Cultural Marxists can concentrate on their next great issue! Or... maybe, just maybe, there are different forces at work in some of those female minds? No, no, I'm certainly not going there! Cartoons of Muhammad are one thing, but there are certain practical limits.

Ah, an immigration denial! That's what half the Labour Westminster elites do! Or at least what they all do half of the time. It's the overall pressure on services and wages. Immigrants go to where the jobs are, and where other immigrants have already shown the way - so they ghettoise. The other strategy to justify the unjustifiable is to say "yes, we recognise that we made a huge mistake, we must have a serious debate about this." Either way what they mean is that we have b-all intention of carrying on any differently: immigrant votes (together with the gullible and inexperienced young) are the only way we are going to keep our seat in the Labour carriages of the gravy train. That's not taking any account on the pressure on UK wages, or the pressure on services, or the revenue loss. Temporary immigrants repatriate most of their wages, so that cash is lost to the local economy. The ones who don't repatriate their earnings bring their families to put more pressures on the social services like the NHS. Services they could only dream about at home! Immigrants don't feed at the trough of the Westminster elites, they take their metaphorical food from the tables of the least well off! That's generally the people who still buy in to the myth that Labour is for the workers. What was once true is now a cruel deception Tony! If I was a socialist I'd be calling working class Labour voters class traitors! I don't go in for labels though - blue haired doesn't mean that a person is less worthy of respect as you so rightly point out. It's what people say, and crucially what they do, that matters. Right now you're being very selective about NOT applying mindless labels, and NOT seeing past the superficial. The superfice is that anyone in the Labour Party (except a few exceptionally dumb, tribal, local politicos) cares one iota about the traditional Labour constituency. Even dumb old Ian Lavery has worked out that something is very wrong: You know what Ian: your own constituents think you don't know too much! You still can't see that you are being used as a shill by that "elite in Westminster". He can't make the logical leap to supporting a party which is genuinely democratic; the only one that represents working class opinion and interests. It's takes a lot of courage to admit you've been misled, and particularly that you yourself have been leading other people down the wrong path. Some intelligent Labour people have already made that transition, and many more will follow. You should seriously consider it yourself! [i resisted the temptation to add more links, but there are links aplenty. ]

Wrong thread Tony! This is the one where you were supposed to express support for (blue haired) feminazis! Not being called on to defend "the objectification of women" has totally ruined my day!

Yay! A belated New Year's gong goes to Eggy! And.. the photo is of course of Anna Neagle, who hardly gets a mention today even assuming current generations know the name. Such is tinsel-town fame!

Oh, no! Not another my Nokia 1100 is all the phone I'll ever need! The natives in the Amazon basin would scoff at that these days!

Solid rumour says it will be launched ahead of schedule on 2nd March. It will have a minimum of 3GB of RAM like recent models in the Note series, but 4GB is a possibility. This contrasts with 1GB in recent iPhones, the stingyness of which has many Apple fans unhappy. Here's the rest: 64-bit eight-core 14nm CPU which is 50% faster5.1-inch Quad HD Super AMOLED display with a 577ppi density, stunning outdoor visibility, super dim mode for late night.A huge 20 megapixel OIS camera sensor and a 5 megapixel f/1.8 front-facing camera with real-time HDR32 / 64 / 128GB of storage2550mAh batteryBuilt-in wireless chargingFour hours of usage on a 10 minute chargeQuick connect chargingSamsung Pay: works with 90% of existing magnetic stripe payment terminals, and NFC payment terminalsMetal and glass bodyGorilla Glass 4Cat 6 LTEBuilt-in wireless charging is a big plus as it saves having to get hold of a special Qi back or find a mechanically unsatisfactory third party receiver coil. The new body is premium and a deliberate getaway from the plastic construction that on-line reviews often criticise (unjustly I think, because this has saved countless expensive drop disasters). Is it an x86 based product and a step change from ARM? The 14nm CPU might just provide a clue, though none of the rumours mention such a major change of direction.

A red flag has just taken up your come on challenge Tony. Bishop Auckland Labour mayor defects to UKIP and it's from the Beeb, so every word must be true and unbiased! ...and, Labour councillor Ann Golightly sounds undelighted about the last council meeting, but my money's on an eventual defection from her too... This really won't do, so I'm thinking of writing to Nige to demand he instructs Labour Bishop Auckland Council to stop making the odd few remaining Labour hold-outs feel uncomfortable. No point writing to Ed because they've all stopped listening to him!

I think there's more than one level of reasoning where an Al Murray vote could make more sense - and be more socially cohesive - than a LibLabCon one.

Oh, you are going to see a lot more of this sort of thing from the completely unbiased BBC in the weeks ahead. UKIP: the only party that the establishment are so s*** scared of that they will search out the brother-in-law of the neighbour of someone who thinks they might have voted UKIP in 2005, and shove a microphone in his face, so there might be something they can edit up to sound irrational, and then attribute it to official party policy. What is being used against UKIP is the free discussion that is tolerated. Anyone can propose just about anything and have it subjected to open scrutiny. The establishment can't (read won't) get it's head around this. You'll notice that nowhere does the BBC link to actual UKIP policy, but prefers to interpret it. If a late and flustered Nigel Farage is accused of being unprofessional says "It took me six hours and 15 minutes to get here - it should have taken three-and-a-half to four. That is nothing to do with professionalism, what it does have to do with is a population." A perfectly reasonable statement given the blatantly obvious road overcrowding we now have, is twisted into a rant against immigrants, instead of the intended heads-up that things can only get worse without seriously considering the present pressures on ALL UK infrastructure. Then, we get: All complete and utter drivel, but crafted to make free discussion impossible. A few of these trolls are actually being paid by public funds, and many by party funds. Lots of people in this country don't want to see change, and when you can't argue against change, the way to fight it is to try to make people who advocate it look stupid by any possible means. When you control the media it's so easy! A constant barrage of left-wing "comedy" ridiculing Kippers on BBC radio being just one example. In previous generations this would have been completely shut down during an election period, but the establishment sees big advantage in ignoring precedent, and a meekly compliant public (who can't remember this protocol anyway) just devours the propaganda like in an Orwellian novel. Try standing up at a Lib or Lab or Con party conference and proposing something new. If procedural rules aren't used against you, then you'll be ushered out of the building. This isn't democracy, or even anything approaching popular democracy! Democracy includes the freedom for anyone to float ideas, and have them debated. Some will be crackpot, most will be entirely impractical (I'm looking at you Green Party), but in amongst them will be some gems which can be given a probationary try, and ultimately our society will be enriched by this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brogan-driscoll/page-3-the-sun_b_6522938.html?utm_hp_ref=uk Oh, they can dole out the mockery, but they can't take it! The Sun may think its had the last laugh, but its childish behaviour has only... - goodness, sounds just like my former head master, on a bad day in his secret fight against "substance abuse"! Yup, 215,000 signatures from twitterers with a ten second attention span. Whether The Sun actually drops p3 will depend exclusively on sales, and not in any way on endless, completely ignorable, cyber-petitions. I've never bought a single copy since the first freebie intros flopped through the Hartford Road letter box in the mid '60s. But hey - for a laugh...!

Can anyone remember A for Andromeda from way back in the early 1960's? It had a very smart early Julie Christie in it, but that's not why I remember it (honest!). The cultural thugs (or maybe it pre-dated those and it was the accountant thugs) at the Beeb destroyed the original recordings, but it was a real classic. One of the reasons for its status was the writers involved scientists to get the physics right, and to ensure that they didn't patronise the audience with the usual "Hollywood science". That was, of course, the days when UK science hadn't become heavily contaminated with politics, and so was worthy of respect (Doomwatch, anyone?). The early me found it quite gripping, and I bet that wasn't because of early BBC SFX!

Countless columns where written about it; numerous "feminist" commentators were interviewed - all expressing satisfaction that all the years of campaigning had now borne fruit; that good sense and political correctness had finally prevailed. All's fine with the World, until - in the next few moments - the Greek chorus settles on the next wrong to right. Then, yesterday, an article appeared which floated the interesting proposition that The Sun would have abandoned "p3" a decade ago if it hadn't been for all the valuable publicity provided by "feminist" protest. Silence from the chattering classes; they who won't accept any proposition that life is just a little more complicated than their myopic and childishly naive view of the world demands. Then, this morning, the final dagger (but, IS it? ): Well... however you feel about "p3" you have to appreciate the joke. Not to at least fake a chuckle would make you one of those myopic, politically correct, simpletons, who are so so easily led!

The camera distance makes the houses at the top seem far far closer, and the ones at the bottom appear almost in a straight row.

On yet another review I have to agree! BUT: A large upstairs side-window has been added to the house behind Foxy's 'O'.The picture has severe perspective distortion making the houses at the rear look far far nearer than they actually are. This could only be done by it being taken with (what would then be) a telephoto lens from the edge of the central grass parallel with the front door or even south side wall of No. 17.A lot of tree/bush growth on the corner now obscures other vital details.The metal window replacement mentioned earlier was already assumed.Anyone aiming to reproduce the shot for us will need to have a reasonable zoom (probs not a phone), and manoeuvre carefully at the said spot using a copy of the photo. Because of the distance the precise height from the ground won't be terribly critical, but the horizontal angle will be very critical. In fact it should be possible to pinpoint the exact place the camera was E/W within inches. Should be interesting! Minor details in the brickwork also give "DNA standard confirmation" to these conclusions.

Here's what happens when you ask a Labour shadow minister a question which he hasn't cleared with elitist though-control central first. Note that he IS talking about Muslim matters before he insists he's NOT going to talk about Muslim matters because that's not what he came for! Umunna uses the awkward-question avoidance tactic he's been taught, but the Sky reporter recognises this immediately and nullifies it. "You and I can have this debate if you want, but the wider and more bigger issue is..", reporter does want, but no way is he going to go there! LibLabCon is all about spinning a narrative that keeps the ruling elites in power; taking the voters as suckers. But, it's no longer working - the public and independent media isn't as stupid as they've been taught on their Oxford PPE courses!

You many, of course, have bought into the storyline that Tone is simply making unwanted comments from the sidelines, and is no longer any part of the Labour Party machine. After all the LP mouthpiece tells us just so: But, can this be believed? Ed Balls met Tony Blair during US trip 20th Jan 2015 and... But, most of all, money talks: the huge fees Tony can still command from overseas clients aren't simply because he's "very much the past", they're because he has that influence thing politicos are so keen to bamboozle us with. Rather a lot of influence in the present! The Westminster-elitist smoke and mirrors machine that is today's Labour Party wills you to believe quite differently.

So Cast-Iron-Promise Dave tells minions to "cut the green crap" in Tory Party policy, but is he sincere about cutting the green payola? And just who benefits from those "green" surcharges on all our fuel bills? http://order-order.com/2015/01/13/so-much-for-green-crap-cams-cash-from-sam-dads-wind-farm/

A true "public informational" gem! Where do I get blue road paint? For the record, do we get to know who was Bedder's answer to Mason Dixon or is this a state secret?

Having looked twice there are actually many "things that just do not look quite right". There are a tiny few houses of the pattern of the houses in the foreground, but none of them remotely line up like that, and generally Westlea houses have decent sized front gardens. Save for highly unlikely demolitions and rebuilds there's simply no way this can be Westlea. Are we even sure this is was taken somewhere in Bedlingtonshire?

I don't see many marching bands in that picture Tony. Where do you draw authority for that from? I'd make a small bet that I've seen him on the Front Street several times over the years. He had a very long career in politics before he became Labour leader, and I think there are pictures in the gallery which will disprove it. In fact I'd have said he was one of the fairly regulars, not one of the mob who only turned up prior to GEs. I'm wondering if the guy on Bevan's immediate right (off his left shoulder) isn't Wilf Holliday the then local Labour Party agent. That's just a wild guess, but it would lend strength to the guess of other guy being a Holliday too.

As soon as I saw it I said Bevan! He was very concerned with post war housebuilding, so this would be late 1940's or more likely 1950's (when Labour was in opposition). Whilst it's true that post-war Tory governments built substantially more homes than post-war Labour, there's a strong case that the ones built under Labour were higher quality - I think evidenced by the fact that percentage-wise many more are still around. It's just a pity that Labour councils didn't charge that little bit more in rent, going towards paying down the cost, and not simply aim to service the borrowing. It would have still been affordable to the vast majority of tenants. If they'd done that they'd have had the capital to extend the public housing stock, and ultimately would have been able to stabilise, or even reduce, rents instead of constantly raising them. As it was virtually all rent money went into servicing debt, and they became hostages to the markets. The same short-termism plagues all Labour governments, and causes their demise. It's interesting that Bevan himself addressed this in more general terms: Bloke on Bevan's right shoulder looks a tiny bit like Michael Foot - stickey out ears, and I think glasses. Goodness, is that an early donkey jacket? Just found this picture of them together in 1953: Looks like he's sent Nye to zzzzzzzz, which would be par for the course! Could there be one or more Holliday's in there too? I'm thinking maybe the guy on the right with the hat and glasses.

Not really - they were business partners who in real life deliberately avoided any mutual socialising. Their long and profitable partnership stemmed from erecting Chinese walls and respecting them. Countless others in showbiz didn't do that, resulting in the inevitable acrimonious splits. There's a lesson in there for Europe and Europhiles!

Rereading. Mmmm... clever turn of phrase there; have you ever considered politics? Ok, ok, I will concede that one!