(Untitled)

[sammywol]

Re; 'just because he's the idiot spawn of incestuous German robber barons doesn't mean he's not entitled to his opinion.' It was in reference to HRH Prince Right-Charlie and his latest pronouncements on how he is happy to be 'an enemy of the Enlightenment', beautifully, because principles that are more than 200 years old can't possibly still apply

Comments

[shapinglight]

:blinks:

He said what?

[sammywol]

I don't have it from the horses mouth but for another 36 hours or so you can get my source here http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/fricomedy/ at around 17.10 in.

[alaimacerc]

Apparently it's in reference to this "item". Apologies for the Torygraph link, but sensible outlets like the BBC and the Guardian seem (sensibly!) not to have covered the non-story in question. (It was either that, the Times, or the Yorkshire Post, each in their own way perhaps worse.)

Redux: he didn't just think this one up by himself out of context, he was responding to some nameless critic, and this was his half-arsed attempt to come up with a "clever" reply. (My reactionary half-bakery is actually teh modern, yeah, that's the ticket!) So not especially scary or startling beyond the level of "why was this reported?", and the broader question of "why pay the least bit of attention to Squire Bumpkin?" Which would fit Mr Hardy's Sinister Deep Agenda(TM) rather closely...

[sammywol]

I don't have any deep or abiding dislike of Charlie (and actually rather agreed with him on the 'monstrous carbuncle' front) but I am rather in Mr Hardy's camp of 'just because you are firstborn to one particular individual who owes their position to when and who they were born to as well does not give your opinion any greater validity than the next man's.' I don't think he is an idiot but I do think that he is so widely out of touch that, rather like the comic figure of the Judge, it is practically the same thing.