Who is the smuggest Briton?

I am listening to Any Questions? and sadly one of the panellists is another of those snickering public schoolboys a la Clarkson and Letts (see above), the loathsome, slimy James Delingpole.

What a self-satisfied nob.

Scotty, I can see why some people might nominate Connelly - he has rather lost his edge somewhat...

must admit kev i havent seen much of him lately.

quote:

Originally posted by scottyhammer:
caravanners

How dare you! I resemble that remark!

quote:

Originally posted by Lark:
Micheal Palin, Stephen Fry and Billy Connolly.

Just trolling Lark, to see if anybody actually thinks that lot (who I'm fond of) are considered smug...it's such a judgment call.

Connolly actually is a bit smug, he seems convinced in the 'you can do anything if you want it bad enough' approach to life. Easy for the successful to be so sure of this.

Tottenham fans.

quote:

another of those snickering public schoolboys

How many homeless people live in that chip on your shoulder? Give it a rest.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Kelly:

quote:

another of those snickering public schoolboys

How many homeless people live in that chip on your shoulder? Give it a rest.

Nah.

BTW is it the "snickering" or the "public schoolboy" bit you object to?

quote:

How many homeless people live in that chip on your shoulder? Give it a rest.

If they lived in the chip then they would not be homeless.

quote:

Originally posted by jayd:


First off, don't presume to know that my grip on christian doctrine is clearly selective (something you really have no clue about), then sign off "all the best". It's very poor form.

Not as bad as patronising ad hominem attacks.

George is probably the best-mannered person here; if he says, "all the best", I think he means it.

He has simply asked people to back up their criticisms / assertations; not unreasonable IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by Roy T:

quote:

How many homeless people live in that chip on your shoulder? Give it a rest.

If they lived in the chip then they would not be homeless.

Roy, my chips are open to one and all. Everyone is welcome. Except James Delingpole, Quentin Letts and Jeremy Clarkson.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:

Not as bad as patronising ad hominem attacks.

George is probably the best-mannered person here; if he says, "all the best", I think he means it.

He has simply asked people to back up their criticisms / assertations; not unreasonable IMO.

Surely he's capable of answering for himself. As for you, one would think you'd have figured out what the term "ad hominem" means by now.

quote:

BTW is it the "snickering" or the "public schoolboy" bit you object to?

Your constant inverted snobbery. Presumably "snickering" is some sort of fetish for indulging in a peanut-laden chocolate bar. A public schoolboy might know how to spell sniggering.

Jayd

I thought you Americans valued Freedom of Speech? Just sticking up for Gerorge, is all. From what I've sen of him he is too polite to argue back.

I'm perfectly aware of the meaning of "ad hominem", having a latin o-level. Hurrah for me. I'm not going to get into an argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Kelly:
Your constant inverted snobbery. Presumably "snickering" is some sort of fetish for indulging in a peanut-laden chocolate bar. A public schoolboy might know how to spell sniggering.

Chris, snickering is a real word. It means the same as snigger but is slightly more nuanced - it implies a slight childishness.

Whether you attribute it to my "inverted snobbery" or not, there is definitely a "public schhool attitude", particularly among media types (I should know, I was a journalist for 20 years): you know the type - self-confident, eager to impress by courting "controversy", convinced of their own "interestingness" and "cleverness", and generally very babyish. Step forward Clarkson, Letts, Delingpole, and the rest of their ilk.

I've got nothing against people who went to public school - several of my dearest friends went to so-called "minor" ones - but I do heartily resent the attitudes described above, and the fact that private schools are treated by the Treasury/Revenue as charities, whereas most of them are hard-nosed commercial enterprises (many also own large amounts of land) I don't see why my taxes should go towards subsidising them.

Does that help?

No.

Oh well. I'll try not to lose sleep over it tonight.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Kelly:
No.

A nice example of the attitude Kevin describes so articulately in the previous post. Oh, the irony!

I heard a Simply Red song on the radio this morning...

I am rather surprised it got to page 4 before someone pointed out he who defines smugness...

I thought Charlie Drake was blonde.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
I thought Charlie Drake was blonde.

Nobody has mentioned this chap yet...

quote:

No

Sorry Kevin. Just me being an arse. I'm actually with you on this, even though I attended (involuntarily!) one of the aforementioned minor borstals.

No worries Chris.

None of us are responsible for where our parents send us as kids!

All the best

Cheers

K