[R94N]

Most common causes are dehydration or eye strain....

Drank loads of water to no avail. Also I was at school all day so I wasn't looking at any screens...I probably have a cold or something. Feel better now though, although I still have the cough.

[Zoot]

Lazy news stories are annoying me today -

http://uk.omg.yahoo.com/news/chris-moyl ... 40381.html

[chrysostom]

I can't bring myself to read any of Brooker's articles anymore.

The formula of a lot of his articles seems to be:

- find popular sociological issue
- identify individuals representative of the issue in mainstream media
- add liberal amounts of cynicism, while sprinkling a handful of pithy dry comments
- serve with a garnish with criticism of a tenuously related issue, with surrealist humour (to taste)

[Yudster]

I have always thought his writing was formulaic. Glad someone else agrees.

[The Deadly]

Finding out at half 2 that Chris Moyles is filling in for Bore James.

[chrysostom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... CMP=twt_gu

Not Dennis Waterman's comments though.

More the warped views that many campaigners against domestic violence seem to have against men who use violence against women, as opposed to women using violence against men.

It doesn't matter whether he hit her once, twice or a dozen times – no man is entitled to hit his wife and domestic violence is never acceptable. It is against the law."

This sentence isn't really true. An isolated incident IS different from a repeated pattern of behaviour in any form of criminal activity. But because it's a sensitive issue - no other viewpoint is allowed to be portrayed without danger of backlash. It also doesn't say that PEOPLE aren't allowed to hit each other - has just irked me.

[MK Chris]

It could have been worded better but only in that 'no person is allowed to hit their spouse' - I'm sure that's what they meant, since in the next breath they add 'domestic violence is never acceptable. It is against the law'. Waterman's comments were indeed very wrong though.

Edit: just seen the bit below the quote. Either way, I think what Waterman said is far worse than the campaigner. Yes an isolated incident is different from a number of them, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable.

[chrysostom]

I think there is a difference between someone who has been a victim of continued abuse over a period of years, and someone who has undergone an incident of abuse. The same that a case of someone being beaten by their parents on a regular basis for no reason is different from someone who's parent has hit them once while they were provoking them. Or even incidents of racial abuse - one offs and hate campaigns are VERY different.

Waterman used this as a defence that he wasn't the worst of two evils, which is stupid. But in persecuting him the way that they have, there's no distinction between the two.

It seems that in saying that, they're trivialising serious cases of domestic violence. I just wish the people who were the figureheads for organisations like this were open to the same scrutiny as those who they criticise.

I once had an incident with John Amaechi on twitter, where he said that John Fashanu put the final nail in his brother's coffin - I messaged him saying that's a bit harsh and you shouldn't make abrasive statements like that in the public sphere when in a position of influence. To which he accused me of ignoring the issue, and being homophobic - leveraging his position to be perceived as 'untouchable' and was messaged by several others who called me a filthy homophobe etc.

/endrage

[MK Chris]

I think there is a difference between someone who has been a victim of continued abuse over a period of years, and someone who has undergone an incident of abuse.

I would agree - but that certainly doesn't mean that singular incidents of abuse are not serious and deserving of attention.

[dimtimjim]

I heard a good line the other day...

I'm as homophobic as I am arachnaophobic. I'm not technically scared of spiders, or gays - but I'd still let out a squeal if I found a big-hairy one in my bath...

Ba-dum-tish.

[chrysostom]

I would agree - but that certainly doesn't mean that singular incidents of abuse are not serious and deserving of attention.

Very true - but homogenising the two isn't correct at all, from the victim's percepective or the aggresor.

Sorry I keep editing my posts after you reply toph!

[Nicola_Red]

the warped views that many campaigners against domestic violence seem to have against men who use violence against women, as opposed to women using violence against men.

It doesn't matter whether he hit her once, twice or a dozen times – no man is entitled to hit his wife and domestic violence is never acceptable. It is against the law."

This sentence isn't really true. An isolated incident IS different from a repeated pattern of behaviour in any form of criminal activity. But because it's a sensitive issue - no other viewpoint is allowed to be portrayed without danger of backlash. It also doesn't say that PEOPLE aren't allowed to hit each other - has just irked me.

I don't think it's that they have warped views at all. I think it's that they're commenting on the matter in hand, which is of a man admitting to hitting his wife. There are lots of organisations that deal with domestic violence and take violence perpetrated against men or perpetrated by women (obviously we shouldn't rule out such violence within gay couples) just as seriously - that just isn't the situation they've been asked to comment on here.

I also don't see which bit of the quote from the chief of Refuge you regard as untrue. What should she have said, that a man is slightly more entitled to hit his wife once than a dozen times?

That said, the quote in the article that really bugged me was this: "The problem with strong, intelligent women is that they can argue, well. And if there is a time where you can't get a word in … I lashed out." That seems to me like the oft-repeated message that if women want to be treated well by men, they should just shut up and look pretty. God forbid a woman be strong or intelligent. *sigh*

[Bas]

Moving a bit off topic, was it a bit two faced for Chris to bang on about online bullying on the show this morning before only slightly later playing the latest release from thuggish pinheaded pissant, Dappy, or indeed let the ridiculous scrote have anything to do with the show at all?

Or am i just being a wee bit too pernickity?

[Nicola_Red]

I think you're right, but I think Chris only has so much control over playlist music and he's obviously been told that Radio 1 are supporting Dappy and to ignore what's gone before. Unfortunately.

[Bonanzoid]

Liverpool's first team and manager. Unbelievably bad. I remember someone saying a while back that 'one of these days Liverpool will thrash someone' because we made chances and didn't finish them. Nothing has changed. Cup runs are fantastic, but we cannot be this bad in the league.

[Yudster]

The manager is a problem because he is one of those people that Liverpool will never admit is wrong for the club,simply because of who he is. The fact that he has done more to destroy the legacy of Paisley and Shankley in a few months than anyone else could have done in decades has nothing to do with it. Apparently.

[chrysostom]

That said, the quote in the article that really bugged me was this: "The problem with strong, intelligent women is that they can argue, well. And if there is a time where you can't get a word in … I lashed out." That seems to me like the oft-repeated message that if women want to be treated well by men, they should just shut up and look pretty. God forbid a woman be strong or intelligent. *sigh*

It does also include 'I made a mistake' and that 'he wasn't intelligent enough to fight back with words' - which is pretty key to the interview. I saw subtext of 'I made the mistake that lot of men have in the past and succumbed to my physical rage to dominate a physically weaker woman , which was wrong of me'.

Perhaps he couldn't verbalise this correctly, bit it's just irritating that someone who has been guilty of a crime like domestic abuse is unable to talk about it retrospectively without people jumping to the conclusion that they're that person now. But you're never on the right side when you're defending Dennis Waterman - it's more about people's reactions to sensitive issues. You get this with other socially taboo topics too, it's just annoying that people won't hear the full story.

And my issue with the quote from refuge saying 'It doesn't matter if it's once or a hundred times'. Generalisations like that are really dangerous, as I said - "An isolated incident IS different from a repeated pattern of behaviour in any form of criminal activity."

If we're picking apart lazy statements (which happened to Dennis Waterman) then "no man is entitled to hit his wife and domestic violence is never acceptable" is using language which separates the subjects of 'a man hitting his wife' and 'domestic violence' (through unnecessary repetition)- which are exactly the same thing, but enforces the view that men aren't subjected to domestic violence (through omission). except there's no reason to scrutinise the words of a charity spokesperson, no matter what message they're portraying through a poor choice of words. it's not a sexy headline which will get people outraged, but someone should mention it too.

But annoying me today, is the backlash which Tulisa (whose ex released a sex tape of) is getting for explaining her side here from a load of girls on twitter who are acting as if what she did was 'whorish' and makes her a bad person, for doing something that's far from uncommon in today's society (in allowing herself to be filmed).

[Nicola_Red]

But annoying me today, is the backlash which Tulisa (whose ex released a sex tape of) is getting for explaining her side here from a load of girls on twitter who are acting as if what she did was 'whorish' and makes her a bad person, for doing something that's far from uncommon in today's society (in allowing herself to be filmed).

Well, there's your double standard right there. A famous man in the same situation would never experience that kind of backlash. She may have been naive in believing the tape would never surface, but nothing worse than that.

[chrysostom]

What double standard am I guilty of? (not having a go, just confused!)

One's an issue of unfair perception of males, and the other an unfair perception of females. Neither of which I support?

[dimtimjim]

God forbid a woman be strong or intelligent.

Ah, you've met her too. Lovely lady...

[MK Chris]

I don't give a crap who she's had sex with, who filmed it, who released it or whether they're getting on now. And neither should anyone else whom it doesn't concern.

[Nicola_Red]

What double standard am I guilty of? (not having a go, just confused!)

Not you, the people having a go at her!

[Nicola_Red]

God forbid a woman be strong or intelligent.

Ah, you've met her too. Lovely lady...

what, Rula Lenska?

[MK Chris]

Although actually, I should add - if she hadn't posted a video about it, I probably never would have known about it.

[a-moron]

Your vast collection means you have no need to source out new material.