wakey

I'd say yes. Really enjoyed 1883.

I think that's the key bit. Think most of our lads would be shocked if they spent a week with the IDF in Gaza.

surely the biggest problem is none of these fuckers get long enough sentences, then they're back in - and potentially a risk to - the community. cost effective measure would be to lop their tackle off before they're released. all in favour? good, sorted.

just stick to the footie side. slightly less mental.

laced with 5G. and COVID

I enjoyed 1883 and 1923 but thought Yellowstone was utter bollocks. Everyone else seems to love it, so maybe it's just me.

we're only signing little ones in ankle socks

Watched that loooong podcast with SS (to be fair, he's well worth a listen) and he talks a lot about team spirit and character. I suspect it's as much about Lolos' character and fit as it is about his underwhelming performance.

I love it, but then I love watching cycling. Must be good - even my mrs is enjoying it. Keeps asking me "who won this stage" like I remember every minute of last years' tour 😁

too soon

ah, thank fuck for that. I'll be bottom left.

ok

it's a stupid fucking question. maybe you've just misunderstood every post so far. why not explain "the point" of your question.

fuck me, don't bring foreigners into it

he'd better fucking not. whereabouts?

"is he dead?" "dunno, but this bit is"

I should know better

you are really tedious.

that airline statement at the end is ace: "One person not onboard and not affiliated with the company was seriously injured" seriously injured himself to death.

is there any point at all to this question. Really, genuinely curious.

ah, thank you. If there's a case that black kids are more engaged / more likely to engage with historical fiction if they see people who look like them, then that's a fair argument. The more kids interested in history the better in my view, and i will happily swallow my history-snobbery for the greater good. You should have told that contrary fella a while back, might have saved some tedious posts.

you're either really dim or deliberately contrary

Nobody's "rubbed me up the wrong way" - though you seem to be trying quite hard. I agreed with Bolty's post about the tendency to over-represent blacks in English historical dramas as if England was far more multicultural than it actually was. I don't see the logic in it. In every other aspect they strive for authenticity. I'm more than happy to accept multi-cultural England today without pretending it's always been the case. I personally would prefer authenticity*. Really not a difficult concept to grasp. * and no, I don't need to see folk shitting in a bucket and pouring it out of the window to regard something as authentic, but I would be horrified by a flushing bog in a Tudor drama.

Of course, but I don't see how having a few black extras dotted around is for purposes of dramatisation. I've no idea why they do it. Presumably, any remake of Ghandi today would have an Indian lead and we'd all be happy with that.

back where we started. If they're playing characters that obviously wouldn't have been black - don't like. If credible, don't mind. For balance, if there's any dramas about 16th century Africa and a white family's moved into the end hut, I'd be fucking livid. ... unless, of course, it was a historical drama about a 16th century white family that moved to Africa based on a true story.