FREEDOM!!!! [3]

Mrs Figg wrote:  the problem is its unexpected. one minute its tra la la nice scenery, ooh look at that lovely thistle....next minute bam! in your face bonkage. its discombobulating.

The problem is sex sells... sadly it sometimes comes to the forefront rather than the story. There are some instances where I think it is out of place. My wife loves that show but I have only ever seen 1 episode of it

I watched several episodes of Outlander and I've enjoyed what I've seen. It's pretty slow but the main Scottish guy is hot and it's an interesting premise. There's a lot of fucking but not that THAT much I don't think.

How does the sexisode count compare to Game of Thrones?

Probably in the same ballpark. More comparable to GOT S4 then GOT S1 though. Also a lot less male-gazey.

Ah. I wondered when you would get around to that, Figg. I don't know if you remember, but we talked about that show ages ago on the tv thread.

I think I saw the first three four episodes. I remember some sexing, not sure it was up to a degree though.

I did rather like it. Think I might give the whole series a go sometime.

Bluebottle wrote:I remember some sexing, not sure it was up to a degree though.

It's the Petty Scottish factor that makes it so for Mrs Figg

hmm I suppose it wasn't the sex itself but the fact the sex was just shoehorned in like the usual boring costume drama shagfest and it kind of bored me, it was ok in The Tudors because that's what you expect from a bodice ripper, but in this show it stopped the flow of the story just for a bit of unnecessary titillation, like they didn't think the story could stand up without it, and it would have been ok to watch it but it made me cringe a bit. It looked like an old fashioned 40s film and you don't get sex in stories set in the 40s or made in the 40s, I don't think people had sex in the 40s they had more important things to be doing.

Mrs Figg wrote:I don't think people had sex in the 40s they had more important things to be doing.

Considering the "Baby Boom", I think they may have been too busy having it to make movies about it.

Mrs Figg wrote:hmm I suppose it wasn't the sex itself but the fact the sex was just shoehorned in like the usual boring costume drama shagfest and it kind of bored me, it was ok in The Tudors because that's what you expect from a bodice ripper, but in this show it stopped the flow of the story just for a bit of unnecessary titillation, like they didn't think the story could stand up without it, and it would have been ok to watch it but it made me cringe a bit. It looked like an old fashioned 40s film and you don't get sex in stories set in the 40s or made in the 40s, I don't think people had sex in the 40s they had more important things to be doing.

Which reminds me I had little sex in my fourties - and even less come my fifties...

Eldorion wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:I remember some sexing, not sure it was up to a degree though.

It's the Petty Scottish factor that makes it so for Mrs Figg

Ah, yes. Never underestimate the effect of a kilt.

I think my attention might have been elsewhere though.

Orwell wrote:

Mrs Figg wrote:hmm I suppose it wasn't the sex itself but the fact the sex was just shoehorned in like the usual boring costume drama shagfest and it kind of bored me, it was ok in The Tudors because that's what you expect from a bodice ripper, but in this show it stopped the flow of the story just for a bit of unnecessary titillation, like they didn't think the story could stand up without it, and it would have been ok to watch it but it made me cringe a bit. It looked like an old fashioned 40s film and you don't get sex in stories set in the 40s or made in the 40s, I don't think people had sex in the 40s they had more important things to be doing.

Which reminds me I had little sex in my fourties - and even less come my fifties...

if that ever happens to me, my wife is under strict orders to shoot me in the face so far the 40's are looking damn good

My Missus said she's shoot me in the face if I asked for more! (((As I understand it, just asking for sex nowadays is sexual harassment. }}}

Orwell wrote:My Missus said she's shoot me in the face if I asked for more! (((As I understand it, just asking for sex nowadays is sexual harassment.    }}}

I'm glad I'm not in your shoes then Orwell

Sinister71 wrote:

Orwell wrote:My Missus said she's shoot me in the face if I asked for more! (((As I understand it, just asking for sex nowadays is sexual harassment.    }}}

 I'm glad I'm not in your shoes then Orwell

you guys

Eldorion wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:I remember some sexing, not sure it was up to a degree though.

It's the Petty Scottish factor that makes it so for Mrs Figg

now you got me worried

Sinister71 wrote:

Orwell wrote:My Missus said she's shoot me in the face if I asked for more! (((As I understand it, just asking for sex nowadays is sexual harassment.    }}}

 I'm glad I'm not in your shoes then Orwell

You mean she never asks you, that is terrible. Perhaps you could date more often , be like you used to be a little. You must have some charm she loves still, use it for all it's worth.

Eldorion wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:I remember some sexing, not sure it was up to a degree though.

It's the Petty Scottish factor that makes it so for Mrs Figg

Following in the footsteps of Bruce Jenner are we. And tanned too. But you are much more lovely. For real.

follow in the steps of Bruce Jenner?    hmmm  yeah being a lesbian wouldn't be horrible I suppose

 

So Labour today ruled out any coalition withe SNP after the election in a big announcement by Milliband today thats making all the headlines on the BBC- pity noone seems to have told him or the BBC that the SNP ruled out such a coalition more than two weeks ago.

And is Cameron tying to offend Scots actively now by continually referring to Alex Salmond, who currently is just a bloke standing for election, rather than the leader of the SNP Nicola Sturgeon who he is completely ignoring and blanking? Is it because she is a woman?

she is rather forgettable. at least Salmond has a personality. I guess.

Well she is very well known in Scotland (she does after all head our government), and for her personality and fighting spirit more than anything else. For Cameron to continually ignore her, deliberately use her predecessors name instead of hers and not even acknowledge her is insulting in the extreme. It might play well to the english but its not going down well here at all. It just seems churlish, sexist and ignorant.

I suspect Salmond still has better name recognition outside of Scotland since there hasn't been any big news stories about Scotland since the referendum. Isn't the assumption that Salmond will be the leader of the SNP's Westminster delegation, too? That'd make him at least as relevant as Sturgeon to the whole process of coalition building.

If Cameron's refusing to mention her at all though that is weird. How much cooperation is there typically between the devolved executives and the PM?

There is supposed to be quite a bit of cooperation, but in practise there isnt.

And Salmond quit after the referendum and is now standing to be an MP- but here has been  no announcement on him taking over head of the SNP's members at Parliament that job has been very well handled for many years now by Stewart Hosie- its unlikely he will either just step aside or give up the role as he is also Deputy Leader of the Party.

I think Cameron is going on Salmond partly because more english people know who he is, but largely because all the campaigning has been personally negative, and he thinks people will be put ff if he says those same things about a woman. Its not the sort of thing nanny would approve of.

Thanks for the correction about the SNP leadership thing.

Women in US politics get at least as much abusive shit heaped at them as male politicians (regardless of their party affiliation), but I dunno if it's different in the UK.

Its hard to tell as there are so few prominent female MP's at Westminster- there are more in Scotland at the top, two out of the 3 main parties in Scotland are led by women, and until recently that was 3 out of 3.

But the English media in particular seem to be portraying the SNP as just wanting to go to Westminster and wreck it- which is not the aim at all and shows a complete misunderstanding of Scottish politics- the SNP are doing well because people think no matter who gets elected in England the SNP will do a better job of standing up for our interests than Labour or the Libs would (Tories dont come into it really in Scotland). We aren't sending them there to wreck the Union, we are sending them there to make sure the Union keeps the promises of Home Rule it made to us during the referendum.

But the SNP can also bring better practice. The Scottish Parliament had the advantage of being new. Westminster is a place designed for a completely different purpose that has been adapted, tweaked and altered countless times over several centuries- its practices are archaic and often counter intuitive to its aims as a Parliament.

Take the budget, a good example as its this week.
In the UK secrecy shrouds the budget- int he days and weeks leading up to it rumour and speculation in the media is rife and built up. Its entirely stage managed with selective leaks made to favourable media beforehand to give hints at tax breaks and the like. On budget day the Chancellor poses outside no 11 Downing St with a stupid ancient old red box containing the budget- its all tradition mixed with showmanship.
The budget itself is presented to the usual schoolboy howls and jeers of the Commons and the man aim of it is not as you might expect, to present the best budget possible, but rather to present headline grabbing surprises- stuff to wow voters near an election- tax breaks and giveaways- and to point score over the opposition.
Its soundbite politics at its worse. A budget designed firstly for the 6 o clock news headlines, secondly to stick one up the opposition and lastly to be any good as a budget.
And as if thats not bad enough no one gets any scrutiny of it until its announced and after its enacted in law.

In Scotland the Scottish budget is first presented as a preliminary budget 4 weeks before budget day, this allows not only the parliament to scrutinise it, but also the public and business too.
There can even be changes made in those 4 weeks if they seem necessary and there is no opportunity to use it on the day for party political headline reasons, as its not new news on the day.

In short in the UK budget day is just another staged Parliamentary show designed to grab headlines, play to party politics and offer bribes to voters.

In Scotland its a scrutiny of the governments spending plans.

Westminster is in bad need of these sort of modernisations and a move away from the theatre of Parliament- its not meant to be an entertainment show.


Beyond the corruption and vested interest of Westminster I think the reason people are sick of mainstream politician and the main parties is that they can see its all a stage managed show that utterly fails to provide adequate governance, as thats not important to them, at least not as important as point scoring, personal image and self promotion and maintaining the traditions of Parliament even when they actually get in the way of effective government.