Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why the Guardian is going down the pan!

My Mum doesn’t like bananas. She’s not afraid of them. She just doesn’t like them. Says they’re slimy. She didn’t have them during the war, and they were still not really available for a few years afterwards. Then when she finally tried one they weren't like other fruit and she didn’t like them. She won’t even have banana cake. Says it’s springy.

I have never liked bananas. I'm told that one of the first solid-ish foods i was fed when i was very little was mashed banana, and i made it fairly clear i was not impressed...
 
Yes the texture of bananas is gross. The flavour is ok. Of course banana flavoured sweets taste much nicer as they are based on that species we no longer have access to. not Cavendish.
 
I mash bananas into dry porridge or jumbo oats.
Ironically, bananas also work very well for me eaten with dried figs.
Sometimes I spread them with peanut butter and dunk them into cocoa...
 
Could be wrong but looks like it's snipped from a graun headline. Obviously not the whole headline.
It is the whole headline but it’s just a headline for a story that’s been widely reported elsewhere, so what am I missing that that this is evidence of the paper going down the pan.
also not sure why semi-soft cheeses are to be avoided. I love em!
 
It is the whole headline but it’s just a headline for a story that’s been widely reported elsewhere, so what am I missing that that this is evidence of the paper going down the pan.
also not sure why semi-soft cheeses are to be avoided. I love em!
No argument there. If only could still stomach the dairy cheeses... maybe it's the association (for some) between middle class graun readers and the lush cheese
 
It is the whole headline but it’s just a headline for a story that’s been widely reported elsewhere, so what am I missing that that this is evidence of the paper going down the pan.
also not sure why semi-soft cheeses are to be avoided. I love em!
It's just a joke about how they worded it. Obviously the public are being warned after someone died from bad cheese, but you could also read it as the public being warned not to eat any cheese after they've died
 
[could have been changed by a subeditor but also I believe that different headlines are attached to the same story online and the one each visitor sees can varies and the most popular one sticks]
 

Mitchell argues that London is overpriced and difficult to live in for many - fine but hardly groundbreaking. Slightly weird snobby line where he speculates how people in sandwich shops manage to exist.

He then uses this to jump into a moan about the breaking up of the BBC to other parts of the country - imagine poor Rev Coles having to catch a train to Cardiff!

Finally, his main issue becomes clear: he doesn't like the idea that all media opportunities might not be concentrated in one city, and that people from places such as (!) Wales or (!) the North might have a better chance to work in the BBC without having to move away from their friends and family and suffer poverty in the English capital.

It seems a fairly circular and hypocritical argument, as perhaps London might not be so eye-gougingly expensive if the wealth and opportunity were more evenly spread across the country.

So to summarise, he doesn't give a fuck about the sandwich maker - he just doesn't like that his particular way of climbing the greasy MC media pole might one day not exist.
 
Last edited:
Not what he said, though.

"Today, I can scarcely believe it’s the same man. I’ve watched 50 of his recent videos, with growing incredulity."

He doesn't say how many he actually watched before he found out he's a massive conspiratorial bellend. It may have been just two and the incredulity just grew and grew :)

I've been thinking about the hatred/contempt for Monbiot on here. It seems to be not so much the subject of his articles - the substance of what he says - rather than how he says it. For years he's addressed some of the most important topics, but still he's laughed at for being a middle class wanker. Within limits of course, but I don't tend to see how someone says something as important as what they actually say.
Where to begin…
Brand was never revolutionary but Monbiot wouldnt know meaning of the word.
Blood and Soil ideologist was Darre who the Nazis cast aside
Great Replacement theory was first articulated not by the Nazis but a Frenchman Renaud Camus
Utterly hilarious that Monbiot goes on about Murdoch: yet it was the BBC and his paper the Guardian that did most to undermine Corbyn via the anti-semitism lie.
And knowing nothing of the Dutch farmer issue, I would nonetheless lay serious money on the farms beingswallowed up by multinationals as in the Ukraine.
Yes I am sure Brand is a cynical idiot monetising far right tropes (like Icke), but Monbiot is an empty foghorn who clearly couldnt be fucked doing proper research: and given the sycophantic idiot opposite him, then clearly there is an audience for him too.
I have read Camus and Darre: and am 100% certain Monbiot hasnt…The far right and the likes of Brand need taking on: but by people who know what they are talking about. Not him….
 
Does anyone know how to get past the paywall they’ve recently put up (you get a monthly allowance of free articles then you have to pay)?
 
Back
Top Bottom