Jump to content
Fancy running a forum? Sheffield Forum is for sale! Learn more

ECCOnoob

Members
  • Content Count

    4,506
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ECCOnoob

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 30/06/1982

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Perhaps you should and then you will be able to participate in a reasoned debate without trying to prove a point with silly emojis. Go and look at every single one of the "big stars" you have listed as an example. Look at their chronology and the amount of television work, small cameos or other minor roles that they all will do in between the odd major/high profile part. That is how life is for most actors and unlike you, I don't see any distinction between those past big stars and many of the modern sitcom actors that you seem to dismiss. I've said it before and I'll say again someone's personal taste isn't a factor. Success is measured in many different ways and with far more objectivity than simply "...I don't like" or "...I've never heard of". Was it really "better" in the old days or is it just that times now are different as are tastes and trends.
  2. You are doing it again. You are taking your own personal opinion as if it's fact. Just because you have never heard of them does not automatically mean they are not big stars. You declared that ".....don't imagine most modern sitcom actors would become film stars..." I've given you several examples which counter that position and now you are trying to nitpick about who you recognise and the level of their roles in films. Go and do some research. Take a look at some of your own examples of what you deem big stars - you will find that they didn't exactly have blockbuster movie after blockbuster movie. Many of those 'big star' actors in between films will do lower level television work or cameo roles or theatre work just like many of the 'modern' sitcom actors do. Sometimes such roles will be a smash hit, another time they will be a ratings flop. A big name alone doesn't automatically mean a good programme. Yes I'm aware that The Office was 20 years ago but given you were harking back to the 'glory days' of sitcoms from from over 40+ years ago - you are not exactly clear in your interpretation "modern" or "todays" sitcoms. Doesn't this all really boil down to to a load of simplistic......dont like change...... all this youth stuff is rubbish......and everything was better in the old days....
  3. Oh really. Well here is a just a quick selection..... Martin Freeman from the Office Ricky Gervais from the Office James Corden from Gavin and Stacey Olivia Coleman from 2012/Mitchell & Webb/Fleabag Julia Davis from Nighty Night Chris O'Dowd/Matt Berry/Richard Ayoade from The IT Crowd Tasmin Greg from Black Books/Green Wing/Friday Night Dinner Peter Capaldi from The Thick of It Joanna Scanlan from Getting On/No Offence Phoebe Waller-Bridge from Fleabag Sally Bretton from Not Going Out I think you need to do a little more research. They are actors. Whether you personally think that "todays" comedy is not as good as the old days is irrelevant. If a show is popular enough and the actors well thought of they will get work and advance their careers. They dont just get cast in these roles by picking a name out of a hat. Over the pond many of the modern day US superstar movie actors will have got their breaks in TV sitcoms. Chris Pratt is one perfect example as is Mila Kunis and Shia LaBeouf who started his work on the back end of the cable networks in Disney Channel shows. Even going back to the alleged "glory days" it was sitcoms (good and bad) which gave a platform for people like Tom Hanks, Steve Carrell, George Clooney, Jennifer Anniston and of course the great Robin Williams. I can imagine back then people who weren't fans of Mork and Mindy or Roseanne or Facts of Life or thought Friends was a pile of dung would have also been just as dismissive and critical of such stars. Didn't mean they weren't talented people who could go and hit the big time. Whilst I admit there are some absolutely timeless classics mostly penned by Ronnie Baker - I never go in for this "its was all better back then" nostalgic nonsense. On the Buses is awful. It was back then and is now on repeats. 2 gags repeatedley infinitum across god knows how many seasons. Even when Reg Varney left they could not get it die and dragged it out for a few more episodes. Same concept with Mind your Language, Curry and Chips, Are you Being Served, Love Thy Neighbour..... Its entire premise was hahaha look at the funny foreigner or a bit of pantomime style lusting over some bird with big knockers. Even the 'greats' such as Two Ronnies, Dave Allen, Morcome and Wise have some elements of their work which really really have not aged well. In fact for many re-runs entire segments/dialogue has had to be silenced out or cut completely due to its nature. I'm sure it is a generational thing but one has to concede that times move on. Just because 'modern' stuff is different does not automatically mean its less quality. Just because 'modern' stuff has more swearing does not mean its automatically more offensive than the old days. In fact, compared to some of the subject material from the 70s and 80s the use of the F word or stronger is significantly more acceptable.
  4. A perfect example of what I was referencing earlier. https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/whats-on/shopping/not-everyone-happy-meadow-halls-18730247 If companies don't challenge people not wearing them.........they complain. When they do start challenging people for not wearing them...... they complain.
  5. If they had a reasonable suspicion a customer was obtaining and using the supply without paying as required by the law - they would yes. They would also be perfectly entitled to send non-payers as many threats and demands for money as they like until the debt is cleared. They can, have and would be entitled to litigate against such person and obtain relevant court orders. Does the DVLA use check who is driving untaxed vehicles and use enforcement officers ?h What is your point? Stop trying to make excuses and justify law breakers. It's disgraceful.
  6. Where does it say anything about them directly challenging shoppers? They say they will provide information and limit numbers by managing queues, will be giving audio reminders and setting up cleaning stations and staff offering extra assistance. They even go as far to directly state that government 'mandatory' rules have some exemptions. I say again, the onus is on us customers - where exactly does it say in they will be responsible for challenging customers. I certainly wouldn't allow my staff to do it either. It would be opening them to a multitude of risks.
  7. Why would they get involved? People have hidden disabilities, not everyone can wear a mask for various reasons. What right does a store manager have prying into the personal business of one of their customers. Do you really think that some checkout operator or stock stacker on minimum wage is going to put themselves at risk by confronting customers entering the store. There is only so much that any business can do. Signage, provision of supplies for sanitation and possibly some gentle reminders but that's it. The rest is down to us taking our personal responsibility for ourselves not the police the others
  8. So does the gas company and water board and telephone company and local council and electricity board and vehicle licence authority too. What exactly is your point? If nan wants the service of live broadcast television then she needs to pay the annual licence fee as the law dictates. A law as set, debated and passed by our democratically elected politicians. Everybody else gets on and pays it and just being old does not automatically entitle someone to a free lunch. Given the amount of time you spend obsessing over this subject you really should join the Daily Mail - they hate the BBC nearly as much as you do.
  9. Just want to pick up one point. "Normal" will only return until there is a proven vaccine which could be months, years or decades away. Wearing a mask will make no difference to that timeline. Masks were about reducing speed of the outbreak and avoid swamping health services . For all I very much support their use - I think it's important that people remember that masks don't mean immunity the virus. We all need to accept that is is our "normal" now and will be for some time.
  10. Oh really. Well, isn't he someone who has had the virus, recovered from it, accepted he is overweight and his said he's going to do something about it. In the meantime he has proposed wider government methods to encourage others in similar situations to do the same. Looks an awful lot like taking personal responsibility to me. But hey, let's not let your obvious anti Tory bias get in the way of facts.
  11. You are completely missing the point again. Firstly it is perfectly acceptable to eat a burger every now and then. It is meat in bread. That's it. The healthy initiative scheme is not some translation into everyone must eat rabbit food for eternity. It is about the amount that gets shovelled into ones face. Someone popping into McDonald's occasionally to treat themselves to a burger and milkshake is not exactly a major problem when compared to someone who potentially will eat such food 3-4 times a week every week. It goes back to my previous analogy of people who go into supermarkets and ignore healther products. Secondly, as I'm sure you know, besides the two nicely cherry-picked companies you reference on your post there are over 120 other businesses on the government scheme including coffee shops, hotel resorts, pub companies and service station chains. They include well-known oriental restaurants, sushi bars, sandwich shops and in-store cafes. People are free to go and choose any of these businesses they so want and choose any item of the menu as healthy or not as they wish to make it. It all boils down to that wonderful thing called personal responsibility.
  12. You do realise it is perfectly possible to eat out and eat healthily at the same time. It is exactly the same concept as people in a supermarket who choose to walk past and ignore the fruit and vegetable aisle and instead fill their trolley from the processed meat and and confectionery aisle. Where and how people are consuming food is not the issue. It is what and how much they are consuming that is the important point. The government has brought in a very important measure to try and reduce the severe impact which massive closures across the leisure sector caused. Now, as per usual people are deliberately misinterpreting the message and using it as some stick to do a bit of anti-tory bashing.
  13. But what is the solution? They are popular because millions of people around the globe like their product and use them. They didn't become the market leaders and most profitable companies in the world by accident. Us citizens have had a hand in that. They were first to market with something we wanted then became the standard for all that followed. It's clear there are plenty of social media website options which are all basically just a pretty front-end to a boring database - but you have to ask yourself why we the public choose to only use a handful of them. There are hundreds of options available for a type of mobile telephone but you have to ask yourself why when you walk into a phone shop every single manufacturer and every single brand and all look spitting image of the latest iPhone design. It's just a sea of anonymous black rectangles and if you weren't looking carefully you would bearly notice whether you were holding a Huawei, Galaxy, Motorola or a proper iPhone. Every major supermarket, department store or catalogue shop has an online offering. Millions of products in a range of prices available at the click of the mouse and we could choose to go to any of them for our wares - but where are most people going into when they want to order? I have raised this before on other threads. Whilst there may be controls by the government on monopolies or limitations on global access at some point that is going to cause some real friction with free enterprise and entrepreneurship. Should these companies stop being so successful and deliberately harm themselves to allow some balance and other smaller companies in other areas of the world catch up? Should there be restrictions on us consumers from choosing to use such companies and perhaps be mandatory forced to use an alternative supplier in our home nation? Should there be tighter internet restrictions, following perhaps the China model, and bar any access to these companies if outside of your home nation? Even mentioning controls like that is starting to fall into that oppression that us westernised society is supposed to be against.
  14. So in a nutshell the UK is scored higher than the OECD average on all but one element of the tests. Well done uk. Glad to see a bit of positivity against the endless doom and gloom, whinging and criticism purported by certain people and media outlets. Clearly this nation is not so bad after all. So the one negative subject is income. Where, as do many other countries recorded, the net monies fall below the OECD average amount with the exception of the USA. In turn the USA also has the massively higher gap between richest and poorest. So what does that tell us? Should there be such an obsession of having the best and highest levels of net income? Or does having such a level of income result in some counter effect which people should be cautious of.
  15. That may be so. But that's the problem with most of these covid statistics. They are always accompanied with a load of caveats which are completely meaningless without full context. However that doesn't stop people, including many on this very forum, cherry-picking and using such numbers to further their agenda. The fact remains that if there is a perceived increase its still increase - when that happens, what exactly is a government supposed to do? As I said earlier, if there was a increasing number and they didn't do anything the public would be slagging them off for their inactivity..... The government does something and now there is a concern and criticism that it was a knee jerk reaction to an increase that didn't actually exist.....
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.