Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
30 Oct 19
10:52
Joined:
Date Joined:
26 Jan 05
Because the 74 year old "doesn't reflect" its values.
Show More
So a few now decide who we can go see and who we cant see
"Values" that have comtempt for freedom of speech and its citizens right to choose. Can you see the way its going?
It only makes normal people turn against the few who think they're the majority. , keep it coming,They'll all be voted out on 12th Dec
He may not be everybody's cup of tea, but surely the right remains to the customer whether they pay to see him or not. Outrageous decision imo. He or his management should never have been told he could attend there in the first place if they didn't want him there. Hope he sues.
This is a good example of what the ruling Labour council are all about.
Censorship is what you vote for when you vote Labour, certainly in Wales.
Censorship is what you vote for when you vote Labour, certainly in Wales.
If it doesn't break the law then it's none of their business what the show is about.
When I asked University of Missouri law professor Frank Bowman about McCarthy's "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument, he immediately began laughing.
He continued laughing for at least 10 seconds, then calmed himself long enough to ask if I wanted a more...scholarly answer.
"It's just comical," said Bowman, who is the author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump. "Their demand was for a resolution, and now the resolution isn't good enough.
"It doesn't matter what the Democrats do or don't do, certain members of the House Republicans are going to complain… they're not talking about substance at all. The evasion is so transparent as to be pretty comical."
When I asked him about McCarthy's suggestion that there was "no quid pro quo" because the military aid which the White House had held hostage was eventually released, his answer was similar to how he'd reacted to my first question.
"Wrong," he exclaimed. "If I hold a gun to your head and say 'give me money or I'll blow your brains out,' and the police happen to arrive before I've either blown your brains out or you've given me the money, that doesn't mean I haven't committed a crime."
I decided I needed to check in with another impeachment scholar, this time one with practical knowledge of how to investigate a rogue president.
That scholar — former deputy Watergate special prosecutor Nick Akerman — was just as blunt as Bowman had been when I asked him about McCarthy's "fruit of the poisonous tree" defense.
"That is the dumbest argument I've ever heard," he said, adding that this latest Trumpworld defense was "nonsense."
"The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine only applies when someone's constitutional rights have been violated," said Akerman, now a partner at Dorsey and Whitney. "That's like saying every indictment issued by a grand jury has to be dismissed because the defendant didn't have a chance to be in the grand jury room to defend himself. I mean, that is just off the wall, it comes from outer space."
When I told Akerman about McCarthy's other argument — that there had been "no quid pro quo" because the White House eventually released Ukraine's military aid — Akerman was equally candid in his assessment of the defense's legal merit.
"Oh my god, it's just dumb and dumber," he said.
Akerman noted that the only reason the money was released was because of the demands made by Congressional leaders: ”The fact is, they caught [Trump] right in the middle of the thing. If they hadn't found out about this, Trump would've been pounding away at Ukraine to this day."
"If you take it in the context of the criminal law, an attempted bribe is bribery, you still can convict somebody for the attempt. One is just as culpable for the attempt as for committing the actual crime itself.
"They're grasping at straws. They have no idea what they're talking about and every defense they've come up with is just dumber than the next — I mean literally, it's so stupid it defies belief that this is all they can come up with."
Akerman said the "insane" arguments Republicans have made in defense of Trump so far underscore the fact that Trump has no defense.
"The Republicans have no defense here and Trump has no defense. If this goes to a trial in the Senate, this kind of stuff is going to go absolutely nowhere, and they're going to be made to look awfully foolish.
"You either vote to convict or you look like a fool.”
He continued laughing for at least 10 seconds, then calmed himself long enough to ask if I wanted a more...scholarly answer.
"It's just comical," said Bowman, who is the author of High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump. "Their demand was for a resolution, and now the resolution isn't good enough.
"It doesn't matter what the Democrats do or don't do, certain members of the House Republicans are going to complain… they're not talking about substance at all. The evasion is so transparent as to be pretty comical."
When I asked him about McCarthy's suggestion that there was "no quid pro quo" because the military aid which the White House had held hostage was eventually released, his answer was similar to how he'd reacted to my first question.
"Wrong," he exclaimed. "If I hold a gun to your head and say 'give me money or I'll blow your brains out,' and the police happen to arrive before I've either blown your brains out or you've given me the money, that doesn't mean I haven't committed a crime."
I decided I needed to check in with another impeachment scholar, this time one with practical knowledge of how to investigate a rogue president.
That scholar — former deputy Watergate special prosecutor Nick Akerman — was just as blunt as Bowman had been when I asked him about McCarthy's "fruit of the poisonous tree" defense.
"That is the dumbest argument I've ever heard," he said, adding that this latest Trumpworld defense was "nonsense."
"The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine only applies when someone's constitutional rights have been violated," said Akerman, now a partner at Dorsey and Whitney. "That's like saying every indictment issued by a grand jury has to be dismissed because the defendant didn't have a chance to be in the grand jury room to defend himself. I mean, that is just off the wall, it comes from outer space."
When I told Akerman about McCarthy's other argument — that there had been "no quid pro quo" because the White House eventually released Ukraine's military aid — Akerman was equally candid in his assessment of the defense's legal merit.
"Oh my god, it's just dumb and dumber," he said.
Akerman noted that the only reason the money was released was because of the demands made by Congressional leaders: ”The fact is, they caught [Trump] right in the middle of the thing. If they hadn't found out about this, Trump would've been pounding away at Ukraine to this day."
"If you take it in the context of the criminal law, an attempted bribe is bribery, you still can convict somebody for the attempt. One is just as culpable for the attempt as for committing the actual crime itself.
"They're grasping at straws. They have no idea what they're talking about and every defense they've come up with is just dumber than the next — I mean literally, it's so stupid it defies belief that this is all they can come up with."
Akerman said the "insane" arguments Republicans have made in defense of Trump so far underscore the fact that Trump has no defense.
"The Republicans have no defense here and Trump has no defense. If this goes to a trial in the Senate, this kind of stuff is going to go absolutely nowhere, and they're going to be made to look awfully foolish.
"You either vote to convict or you look like a fool.”
Swansea Council don't reflect my values
Of freedom of expression and peoples right to choose
Very poor Swansea Council
I would vote you out if I lived in Swansea
Of freedom of expression and peoples right to choose
Very poor Swansea Council
I would vote you out if I lived in Swansea
I liked bernard maning a fantastic comedian in my mind .
,But I don't like this type of gutter so called comedy he takes it too far .I don't like so-called comedians who can only get a laugh by using guttersnipe talk and filth .He's too much for even a man's audience
,But I don't like this type of gutter so called comedy he takes it too far .I don't like so-called comedians who can only get a laugh by using guttersnipe talk and filth .He's too much for even a man's audience
Swansea just announced the replacement 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxFqv1QDI3Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxFqv1QDI3Q
For the benefit of one or two chit-chatters who obviously know damn all about comedy ... Chubbs is a far better comic than Manning ever was.
Mind you, 74 is knocking on a bit. I thought he'd retired a few years back.
Mind you, 74 is knocking on a bit. I thought he'd retired a few years back.
I thought he'd retired a few years back.
might have, it's been the same act since the 70s, he might just be sending out random fat blokes in a biggles hat to do the material
might have, it's been the same act since the 70s, he might just be sending out random fat blokes in a biggles hat to do the material
back in the 70s we used to laugh at the USSR and say that could never happen here
Absolutely , not at all funny but should still be allowed to work .
Nowt to do with whether we like him or not. Nobody has to attend. They took the booking and should honour it.
Each to their own of course but I just find him to be very crass and uncouth and that's not something that floats my boat personally.
Swansea council have gone up in my estimation 
Chubby Brown about as funny as piles
Chubby Brown about as funny as piles
Manning would have been funny for his time but far too malicious with his humour imo ...he couldn't help himself .
No malice in his humour at all, he wasn't racist and it was expected in those days..
disagree pecker ,Manning was otherwise funny -could have been massive , certainly very sharp with his humour
some of his stuff pure classic ... 'Jimmy Tarbuck is about as funny as a burning orphanage' 
'he (Tarbuck) used to charge a fiver at the embassy in the old days ...i'd still give him a fiver cos he's still doing the same f:k:ng act '
Chubbs is one of the best if not the best imo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_skF__cao0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_skF__cao0
Nowt that can be considered racist or offensive on the above video (when he was in his pomp) he tells jokes and that's pretty much about it,
Totally crass, utterly lacking in any hint of cleverness, subtlety or irony.
Pure unadulterated and aggressive crudity. And as such totally unfunny.
Same goes for Jim Davidson.
Pure unadulterated and aggressive crudity. And as such totally unfunny.
Same goes for Jim Davidson.
Facts and some others are missing the point.If a very few can decide who we can watch and who we cant watch where does that lead too? Whether you like him or not really doesn't matter.
you can blame William Wilberforce and the abolishers like hannah moore - they wanted to stop all our fun in the uk circa 1800 ho ho
mind you they were well into their booze too in those days
mind you they were well into their booze too in those days
facts probably thinks HIGNFY is still amusing despite using the same gags - sorry, cleverness subtlety and irony - week after week for the last three years.
Why would you watch it week after week for the last three years if you don't find it amusing, saddo?
(Not saying it is, btw. Angus Deayton was still hosting last time I watched it!)
(Not saying it is, btw. Angus Deayton was still hosting last time I watched it!)
ive never seen chubby brown, but know plenty of his gags
his flagging career will doubtless get the boost he requires from this ban.
his flagging career will doubtless get the boost he requires from this ban.
He's supposed to be over the top that's his act. I like him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aby4-Vn4YjY
He maybe on the wane but that happens to most comedians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aby4-Vn4YjY
He maybe on the wane but that happens to most comedians.
The head of Middlesbrough Town Hall resigned in protest at the town's mayor lifting a ban on controversial comedian Roy Chubby Brown, it has emerged.
Mayor Andy Preston made the decision in August, and Lorna Fulton, who had run the council venue since May 2018, stood down in September as a result.
On Tuesday, Mr Preston said the comic, from Middlesbrough, could "come home".
Mayor Andy Preston made the decision in August, and Lorna Fulton, who had run the council venue since May 2018, stood down in September as a result.
On Tuesday, Mr Preston said the comic, from Middlesbrough, could "come home".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50352002
That's a bit dramatic and over the top methinks. Some people obviously like him and that's fine but to resign over this is a bit OTT.
That's a bit dramatic and over the top methinks. Some people obviously like him and that's fine but to resign over this is a bit OTT.
Live and let live, imo. By no means a fan of his but it's not as if he's promoting violence or anything terrible.
Good riddance to the woman, trying to impose your political persuasions onto the public by censorship is bound to backfire now and again.
fair play to the lady for standing up for what she believes is correct.
If the women wanted to stand up for what she believes in then she should not attend the show
It is her right...
But she has gone further she has has stopped anyone else attending by cancelling the gig
The rest of us are given no chance of standing up for what we believe in
Well those in Swansea anyway
It is her right...
But she has gone further she has has stopped anyone else attending by cancelling the gig
The rest of us are given no chance of standing up for what we believe in
Well those in Swansea anyway
It is right of ALL human beings to attend gigs given by Roy Chubby Brown
Reads like a form of liberal fascism to me, often heard worse elsewhere on TV, at least Brown kicks off his show with a disclaimer explaining his language is part of the act.
Nov 10, 2019 -- 5:39PM, MALAY wrote:
fair play to the lady for standing up for what she believes is correct.
Yeah right, first censorship, then book burning, and we all know what comes next.
"standing up for what she believes is correct." that shyt has covered a multitude of disasters in the past that morons approved of until it was too late.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539