Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why the Guardian is going down the pan!


This is one of the biggest loads of bollocks I've ever read. Taking fancy bread and butter to a dinner party doesn't make you clever, it makes you look like ypu don't expect to get fed anything nice by the host so have brought your own :rolleyes: And wearing socks under tights? Sensory nightmare!
And I mean:

“Don’t drink to cope with difficult family members or annoying colleagues,” she adds. “Save your drinking days for when you’re feeling celebratory.”

She's clearly never spent Christmas with family or gone to a work Christmas party. :rolleyes:
 

This is one of the biggest loads of bollocks I've ever read. Taking fancy bread and butter to a dinner party doesn't make you clever, it makes you look like ypu don't expect to get fed anything nice by the host so have brought your own :rolleyes: And wearing socks under tights? Sensory nightmare!


Leave out some fancy crisps and good" hummus for your babysitter It will soften the blow when you stumble in later than agreed.

Or, pay your babysitter with actual money and don't fuck them about by rolling home shitface drunk and two hours late.
 
I've turned down two "work" events already and saved in the region of £120 minimum, avoided crap hangovers and feelings of dread on one line of possibility or evenings of tedium on the other. Money in the kitty to spend on actual enjoyment.
 
Last edited:
And I mean:

“Don’t drink to cope with difficult family members or annoying colleagues,” she adds. “Save your drinking days for when you’re feeling celebratory.”

She's clearly never spent Christmas with family or gone to a work Christmas party. :rolleyes:
I’m sure the office party at Kings Place is a barrel of laughs.
And not the two sides who normally slag each other on twitter getting pissed and starting fights for real.
 
(copied from the Starmer thread)

The Toynbee announcing that Margaret Hodge has found some sources of income that have never ever been noticed before.


Had to get a kick in at Corbyn in the final paragraph, just couldn't resist it although as I recall the "extravagance" was pretty well just an end to the progressive austerity since the 80s and actually costed in 2017 and included tax evasion/avoidance" plus quantitative easing which fuels inflation when the left propose it even though the money is going to invest in infrastructure but which is fine when the tories do it even though it's largely going to pay off their covid-supplying mates or paying for their general balls-ups and doesn't touch the infrastructure

(and breathe :mad:).

The reason Hodge’s analysis packs such a punch is that she is no lefty: she calls herself a dyed-in-the-wool Blairite, and is loathed by the left for her anti-Corbyn combat over his unelectable extravagance as well as antisemitism. Reeves should install her as her tax-collecting guardian.
also hated by people on the non-left for protecting a paedophile as people here keep pointing out but unlike the antisemitism smear sneer seems not to bother Toynbee at all.
 
Even if you're pro-Brexit this is an objectively embarrassing article by the Graun economics editor:


Wanging on about universally flat GDP figures as though Britain's slightly less anemic than expected performance in that singular blunt investment indicator is proof of economic benefit. Making the utterly bizarre assertion that Britain has remained uncaptured by the far right (meaning he is too stupid to have realised that, like in the US, FPTP means far right capture takes place via the Tories rather than founding a new party, which places us further right-drift than eg. Italy). Honestly I'm surprised no-one spiked it.
 
I reckon I could write a better advice column than this shite:
‘Sigh exasperatedly, tut, turn to your father-in-law and bark: WILL YOU PLEASE STOP GIVING ME WINE FOR XMAS. I HAVEN’T HAD A DRINK FOR FIVE YEARS!’
 
Even if you're pro-Brexit this is an objectively embarrassing article by the Graun economics editor:


Wanging on about universally flat GDP figures as though Britain's slightly less anemic than expected performance in that singular blunt investment indicator is proof of economic benefit. Making the utterly bizarre assertion that Britain has remained uncaptured by the far right (meaning he is too stupid to have realised that, like in the US, FPTP means far right capture takes place via the Tories rather than founding a new party, which places us further right-drift than eg. Italy). Honestly I'm surprised no-one spiked it.
I'd have thought that some enterprising academic would have done an econometric analysis on where the British and eu economies would be now if brexit hadn't happened
 
View attachment 404508

Haringey has never been in inner London, it's always been an outer London borough
I assume they mean Greater London?
anyway, I would describe it as inner london - it's an inner zone for transport anyway (the station is, not the whole borough). It's not as if it's Dagenham or Uxbridge
 
I'm quite surprised by that headline tbh - I would have thought schools in London were oversubscribed. They are very much so in Leeds, particularly primary schools
 

This is one of the biggest loads of bollocks I've ever read. Taking fancy bread and butter to a dinner party doesn't make you clever, it makes you look like ypu don't expect to get fed anything nice by the host so have brought your own :rolleyes: And wearing socks under tights? Sensory nightmare!
great find, thats belly laugh material
To make a blazer less work-y, roll the sleeves up.
Opera Snapshot_2023-12-16_132818_www.google.com.png
 
I reckon I could write a better advice column than this shite:
‘Sigh exasperatedly, tut, turn to your father-in-law and bark: WILL YOU PLEASE STOP GIVING ME WINE FOR XMAS. I HAVEN’T HAD A DRINK FOR FIVE YEARS!’
Both the Guardian and the i have this strange puritanical streak against drinking. The i had "I drank like a boomer and hated it" the other week without any balance. It's so frustrating.
 
I'm quite surprised by that headline tbh - I would have thought schools in London were oversubscribed. They are very much so in Leeds, particularly primary schools
yeah its incredible but true, article fails to mention the pricing of people out + the destruction of social housing and replacement with childless yuppie flats, people cant afford to have kids and pay rent/mortgage and so on etc
 
View attachment 404508

Haringey has never been in inner London, it's always been an outer London borough
Also no mention of the impact of free schools. The two free school primaries I'm aware of in Hackney (and which opened in the last 10 years or so) are near some of the primary schools that are being closed/merged. Without those free schools, I suspect things would be looking quite different.
 
Haringey has never been in inner London, it's always been an outer London borough

yes

I assume they mean Greater London?

not necessarily.

for most purposes, 'inner london' is (with minor tinkering at the edges) the area of the 1889 london county council - the area north of the river is much smaller than south of the river, covering the current boroughs of (from the west) hammersmith + fulham, kensington + chelsea, westminster, camden, islington, hackney, tower hamlets.

before 1889, all of these except the 'square mile' city of london were in middlesex (south london was either surrey or kent.)

today's haringey borough was in middlesex until 1965, and places east of the river lea (canning town, stratford and so on) were in essex.

south of the river, the LCC area extended out to include current lambeth, southwark, lewisham and greenwich boroughs, so goes out to places like plumstead, abbey wood and crystal palace.

i'm sure it all made sense in 1889
 
Both the Guardian and the i have this strange puritanical streak against drinking. The i had "I drank like a boomer and hated it" the other week without any balance. It's so frustrating.
Tbf, and this is only personal experience, but tend to find the younger generation doesn't drink as much as us elderly people ;)
 
yes



not necessarily.

for most purposes, 'inner london' is (with minor tinkering at the edges) the area of the 1889 london county council - the area north of the river is much smaller than south of the river, covering the current boroughs of (from the west) hammersmith + fulham, kensington + chelsea, westminster, camden, islington, hackney, tower hamlets.

before 1889, all of these except the 'square mile' city of london were in middlesex (south london was either surrey or kent.)
l
today's haringey borough was in middlesex until 1965, and places east of the river lea (canning town, stratford and so on) were in essex.

south of the river, the LCC area extended out to include current lambeth, southwark, lewisham and greenwich boroughs, so goes out to places like plumstead, abbey wood and crystal palace.

i'm sure it all made sense in 1889
My Dad was born in Canning Town in 1920, and lived in East Ham, which was a county borough of Essex. County boroughs had more powers than ordinary Urban District Councils. So, what my Dad would have called London when he was young would not have included much of that that we today called London.
 
great find, thats belly laugh material
To make a blazer less work-y, roll the sleeves up.
View attachment 404534
Arrive 15 minutes later than the invite says. Any earlier and your hosts will be in the loo, furiously chopping lemon for drink”

Fucking hell. In that case I’ll arrive early to stop them chopping lemon for my drink in the loo!
 
Back
Top Bottom