What a load of bollocks.
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
-
- Hopeful
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:13 pm
Re: What a load of bollocks.
TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:56 pmAccording to some media reports (The Guardian being one who commented) there has been talk of the organisers of Strictly Come Dancing discussing the future possibilities of same-sex partner dancing in the show. Without getting too deep into it, that will surely be like dropping a match in a box of fireworks? Why mess with the format of one of the most popular ( family) shows on T.V.? Answers on a postcard to Craig Revel Horwood who apparently supports the idea. I mention it only because the topic arose on a dance forum I belong to. It'll surely never happen?
Not sure how it messes with the format - surely the format stays the same?
- Harry Genshaw
- Legend
- Posts: 9112
- Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
- Location: Half dead in Panama
Re: What a load of bollocks.
You know what he means cheeky! Boy dances with girl, girl dances with boy. There's no real reason for this as far as I can see, just the way it's always been and folk are perhaps challenging this. Will it make any difference? Not to me it won't. I don't watch the shite!taddyontoast wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:00 pmTANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:56 pmAccording to some media reports (The Guardian being one who commented) there has been talk of the organisers of Strictly Come Dancing discussing the future possibilities of same-sex partner dancing in the show. Without getting too deep into it, that will surely be like dropping a match in a box of fireworks? Why mess with the format of one of the most popular ( family) shows on T.V.? Answers on a postcard to Craig Revel Horwood who apparently supports the idea. I mention it only because the topic arose on a dance forum I belong to. It'll surely never happen?
Not sure how it messes with the format - surely the format stays the same?
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43270
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: What a load of bollocks.
Like H.G says, I' sure you know what I mean Taddy. Maybe the producers want to create issues on the "No such thing as bad publicity" angle by making the programme controversial. If so, I'm sure they'll attain their objective, but at what cost?taddyontoast wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:00 pmNot sure how it messes with the format - surely the format stays the same?TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:56 pmWhy mess with the format of one of the most popular ( family) shows on T.V.? Answers on a postcard to Craig Revel Horwood who apparently supports the idea. I mention it only because the topic arose on a dance forum I belong to. It'll surely never happen?
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Re: What a load of bollocks.
Harry Genshaw wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:34 pmOf course it'll happen. Who's brave enough to risk their media career by objecting?TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:56 pmAccording to some media reports (The Guardian being one who commented) there has been talk of the organisers of Strictly Come Dancing discussing the future possibilities of same-sex partner dancing in the show. Without getting too deep into it, that will surely be like dropping a match in a box of fireworks? Why mess with the format of one of the most popular ( family) shows on T.V.? Answers on a postcard to Craig Revel Horwood who apparently supports the idea. I mention it only because the topic arose on a dance forum I belong to. It'll surely never happen?
If only I had a media career, money for old rope.
Is Peter West still the compère?
Re: What a load of bollocks.
I hardly think letting boys dance with boys or girls dance with girls is controversial! Same sex dance couples is becoming more common certainly in modern dance, so why not reflect that on the show?TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:47 pmLike H.G says, I' sure you know what I mean Taddy. Maybe the producers want to create issues on the "No such thing as bad publicity" angle by making the programme controversial. If so, I'm sure they'll attain their objective, but at what cost?taddyontoast wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:00 pmNot sure how it messes with the format - surely the format stays the same?TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:56 pmWhy mess with the format of one of the most popular ( family) shows on T.V.? Answers on a postcard to Craig Revel Horwood who apparently supports the idea. I mention it only because the topic arose on a dance forum I belong to. It'll surely never happen?
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43270
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: What a load of bollocks.
I think ballroom/partner dancing is just a wee bit different than general modern dance or group dance Jimbo, but time will no doubt tell. End of day, as ever, que sera. Like Mr Dylan said, "Times they are a changing!"....
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Re: What a load of bollocks.
Why not just jump to the inevitable minority fad and have boys dressed as girls dancing with girls dressed as boys?jimbo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 7:21 amI hardly think letting boys dance with boys or girls dance with girls is controversial! Same sex dance couples is becoming more common certainly in modern dance, so why not reflect that on the show?TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:47 pmLike H.G says, I' sure you know what I mean Taddy. Maybe the producers want to create issues on the "No such thing as bad publicity" angle by making the programme controversial. If so, I'm sure they'll attain their objective, but at what cost?taddyontoast wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:00 pmNot sure how it messes with the format - surely the format stays the same?TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:56 pmWhy mess with the format of one of the most popular ( family) shows on T.V.? Answers on a postcard to Craig Revel Horwood who apparently supports the idea. I mention it only because the topic arose on a dance forum I belong to. It'll surely never happen?
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43270
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: What a load of bollocks.
Can't do that Hobes, already claimed. It's called "pantomime"..
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
Re: What a load of bollocks.
No Tango, it's gendertimeTANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:29 pmCan't do that Hobes, already claimed. It's called "pantomime"..
-
- Hopeful
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:13 pm
Re: What a load of bollocks.
Aye... i thought the key to the format was celebs being taught how to dance whilst facing weekly votes and judges... i very much doubt that it'll significantly change the show. I also don't really care as I'd rather watch moss grow!
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: What a load of bollocks.
WHAT?!?! The world of arts and dance is no place for same-sex couples. The very notion's outrageous.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:56 pmAccording to some media reports (The Guardian being one who commented) there has been talk of the organisers of Strictly Come Dancing discussing the future possibilities of same-sex partner dancing in the show.
They come round here replacing the Viennese Waltz with I'm a Little Teapot.
Boils my piss!
May the bridges I burn light your way
Re: What a load of bollocks.
Absolutely none, would be my estimate.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:47 pmLike H.G says, I' sure you know what I mean Taddy. Maybe the producers want to create issues on the "No such thing as bad publicity" angle by making the programme controversial. If so, I'm sure they'll attain their objective, but at what cost?taddyontoast wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:00 pmNot sure how it messes with the format - surely the format stays the same?TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:56 pmWhy mess with the format of one of the most popular ( family) shows on T.V.? Answers on a postcard to Craig Revel Horwood who apparently supports the idea. I mention it only because the topic arose on a dance forum I belong to. It'll surely never happen?
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
Re: What a load of bollocks.
Oh I don't know, reckon they'd lose more viewers than they'd gain.Prufrock wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:15 pmAbsolutely none, would be my estimate.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:47 pmLike H.G says, I' sure you know what I mean Taddy. Maybe the producers want to create issues on the "No such thing as bad publicity" angle by making the programme controversial. If so, I'm sure they'll attain their objective, but at what cost?taddyontoast wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:00 pmNot sure how it messes with the format - surely the format stays the same?TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:56 pmWhy mess with the format of one of the most popular ( family) shows on T.V.? Answers on a postcard to Craig Revel Horwood who apparently supports the idea. I mention it only because the topic arose on a dance forum I belong to. It'll surely never happen?
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14059
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
Re: What a load of bollocks.
I'm sure they won't mind their demographic changing, if it means people who are offended by it bugger off and watch something elseHoboh wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:46 pmOh I don't know, reckon they'd lose more viewers than they'd gain.Prufrock wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:15 pmAbsolutely none, would be my estimate.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:47 pmLike H.G says, I' sure you know what I mean Taddy. Maybe the producers want to create issues on the "No such thing as bad publicity" angle by making the programme controversial. If so, I'm sure they'll attain their objective, but at what cost?taddyontoast wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:00 pmNot sure how it messes with the format - surely the format stays the same?TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:56 pmWhy mess with the format of one of the most popular ( family) shows on T.V.? Answers on a postcard to Craig Revel Horwood who apparently supports the idea. I mention it only because the topic arose on a dance forum I belong to. It'll surely never happen?
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"
Re: What a load of bollocks.
Mmmm with their tax on viewers increasingly under threat, it might concentrate the mind some what.boltonboris wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 12:21 pmI'm sure they won't mind their demographic changing, if it means people who are offended by it bugger off and watch something elseHoboh wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:46 pmOh I don't know, reckon they'd lose more viewers than they'd gain.Prufrock wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:15 pmAbsolutely none, would be my estimate.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:47 pmLike H.G says, I' sure you know what I mean Taddy. Maybe the producers want to create issues on the "No such thing as bad publicity" angle by making the programme controversial. If so, I'm sure they'll attain their objective, but at what cost?taddyontoast wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:00 pmNot sure how it messes with the format - surely the format stays the same?TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:56 pmWhy mess with the format of one of the most popular ( family) shows on T.V.? Answers on a postcard to Craig Revel Horwood who apparently supports the idea. I mention it only because the topic arose on a dance forum I belong to. It'll surely never happen?
Re: What a load of bollocks.
Harry Hewitt doesn't want to be a royal anymore!
One can only wonder why.
Edit:
Meghan Markle doesn't want to be a royal anymore.
One can only wonder why.
Edit:
Meghan Markle doesn't want to be a royal anymore.
Re: What a load of bollocks.
Hats off to Her Maj, handled in no nonsense and timely fashion.
- Harry Genshaw
- Legend
- Posts: 9112
- Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:47 pm
- Location: Half dead in Panama
Re: What a load of bollocks.
Seems a bit harsh asking them to repay the refurb costs back. Do they just go back to being ordinary Joe's now to earn a crust? He in the army and she back on the box? I think they've a lot more about them than Fergie and Edward but they're were pretty hopeless at earning outside the royal sphere.
"Get your feet off the furniture you Oxbridge tw*t. You're not on a feckin punt now you know"
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36192
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: What a load of bollocks.
You don't have to look very hard or examine very closely the history of the "royal family" as in the current mob to realise what a largely unpleasant and vile lot they mainly are.Harry Genshaw wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 12:34 pmSeems a bit harsh asking them to repay the refurb costs back. Do they just go back to being ordinary Joe's now to earn a crust? He in the army and she back on the box? I think they've a lot more about them than Fergie and Edward but they're were pretty hopeless at earning outside the royal sphere.
Not very nice people. And they clearly manage to attract some not very nice "fans" too.
You only need to read social media or comment forums about Meghan to see the sort of comments that really are from the lowest common denominators. Pond life.
So I think it best that they pay their money back go abroad and live a happy life free from the scrutiny and management from their so called family.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 50 guests