[TV] King Danny Dyer

[OzMike]

Wants to be the next Ray Winston.

 

[BadFish]

Wants to be the next Ray Winston.

He already is, Ray is far to manly for the BBC you know.

 

[BadFish]

I honestly think that one day it'll turn full circle and being a "manly man" will become fashionable again. Crying at pictures of kittens will only do for so long.

Indeed. Let the ladies have a go at running shit for a while. Can't **** it up any worst than the blokes have.

I apologise unreservedly to my two sons for this way of thinking and can only hope that my daughter looks after them when they can't find a job without a sex change (The least she can do is pay for the sex change. I would but by then I will be living off my wife's earning and desperately failing at attempting to do household chores dressed as Mr Muscle).



Hey,. they have butched him up now!! I didn't know, my wife won't let me use the stuff as it makes it too easy for me. The fight back is on brothers we can reclaim our manhood. Let's take to the streets!!!! Just let me ask the wife when i am allowed out.

 

[BN9 BHA]

Wants to be the next Ray Winston.

Making ads for an online gambling company?
Danny Dyer is better than that......

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Dire.

 

[Gwylan]

I know it's all an act, the whole cockerney geezer personnae, but, the programme tonight was laugh out loud funny in p!aces. They should have told him about King William Rufus, who met his demise by having a red hot poker inserted in his 'bottle' (authentic cockerney rhyming slang)

[pedant alert] It was Edward II who meet such a grisly fate, in Berkeley castle.

William II (Rufus) was shot by an arrow in the New Forest. The archer was one Walter Tirel (or Tyrell), who claimed it was accidental, historians to this day are not sure whether it was an accident or not. As Rufus was not particularly liked as a king, no-one was really bothered one way or another. And as Tirel scarpered to France, it was never followed up by Norman plod.

 

[Nathan]

He can be a good actor. He was in some quality drama before the cockney thing set in. He’s doing Pinter with Martin Freeman soon, they don’t hand out roles like that to shit actors.

He worked with Pinter many years ago and they became good friends.

 

[lawros left foot]

G

[pedant alert] It was Edward II who meet such a grisly fate, in Berkeley castle.

William II (Rufus) was shot by an arrow in the New Forest. The archer was one Walter Tirel (or Tyrell), who claimed it was accidental, historians to this day are not sure whether it was an accident or not. As Rufus was not particularly liked as a king, no-one was really bothered one way or another. And as Tirel scarpered to France, it was never followed up by Norman plod.

My mistake, history lessons with Mrs Thie at St Andrews school Worthing, was a long time ago now, getting to be ancient history themselves.

 

[The Clamp]

He worked with Pinter many years ago and they became good friends.

I believe so.

 

[Hamilton]

A lot of youngsters, who are taught at school that history is just World War 1 and Britain's wicked involvement in the slave trade.

What?!

I mean, what!!!!??

I hope that somewhere on this thread you've retracted that statement.

 

[brightn'ove]

Oh God, for so many reasons, which build on each other. But since you ask...

1.) Dyer is an individual without particular virtues that I can discern.

2). He is an actor whose stock-in-trade is portrayal of and also reinforcement of stereotypical grisly male types...

3). ..types whose promulgation supports the BBC's social engineering policy of demonising masculinity so as to "femstroy" "gender-normalcy"

4). OK Maybe the programme hits some 'Horrible History' buttons... I don't agree (because HH is quite elegantly wrought by experts) but even if it were, put it on CBBC - but NO! I wouldn't want this crap poisoning my kids.

5). I pay for this crap, and the only alternative for me is to commit a crime by non-payment of my licence fee. Take away the licence fee and I couldn't care less what the BBC produces, let them die the death as their viewers renounce their supra-PC politics and flood to Netflix.

6). I discern a disgracefully toxic thread in BBC policy of putting up men in male roles who are ignorant/weedy/incompetent/desperate/weak/frothy etc etc. I refer you to my points 2 & 3.

It stinks.

So to draw together these points here, the BBC's apparatchiks are attacking masculinity, they are attacking men and if you are a (non LBGTetc) male they are attacking YOU, lessening your ability to stand up as a good, virtuous dude.

And Dyer's loud, ignorant persona as shown in this programme plays perfectly into their egregious narrative.

Oh, and PS 7). BBC is capable of doing bloody amazing things with history for all ages, where is the virtue in this dismal programming?

Back at you Lawro's left foot!

Pseudointellectual nonsense.

 

[MattBackHome]

Oh God, for so many reasons, which build on each other. But since you ask...

1.) Dyer is an individual without particular virtues that I can discern.

2). He is an actor whose stock-in-trade is portrayal of and also reinforcement of stereotypical grisly male types...

3). ..types whose promulgation supports the BBC's social engineering policy of demonising masculinity so as to "femstroy" "gender-normalcy"

4). OK Maybe the programme hits some 'Horrible History' buttons... I don't agree (because HH is quite elegantly wrought by experts) but even if it were, put it on CBBC - but NO! I wouldn't want this crap poisoning my kids.

5). I pay for this crap, and the only alternative for me is to commit a crime by non-payment of my licence fee. Take away the licence fee and I couldn't care less what the BBC produces, let them die the death as their viewers renounce their supra-PC politics and flood to Netflix.

6). I discern a disgracefully toxic thread in BBC policy of putting up men in male roles who are ignorant/weedy/incompetent/desperate/weak/frothy etc etc. I refer you to my points 2 & 3.

It stinks.

So to draw together these points here, the BBC's apparatchiks are attacking masculinity, they are attacking men and if you are a (non LBGTetc) male they are attacking YOU, lessening your ability to stand up as a good, virtuous dude.

And Dyer's loud, ignorant persona as shown in this programme plays perfectly into their egregious narrative.

Oh, and PS 7). BBC is capable of doing bloody amazing things with history for all ages, where is the virtue in this dismal programming?

Back at you Lawro's left foot!

I disagree with all of this* but I absolutely love it. Top work

*or rather, I think it both misses something of Danny Dyer and misrepresents Auntie.

 

[lawros left foot]

Oh God, for so many reasons, which build on each other. But since you ask...

1.) Dyer is an individual without particular virtues that I can discern.

2). He is an actor whose stock-in-trade is portrayal of and also reinforcement of stereotypical grisly male types...

3). ..types whose promulgation supports the BBC's social engineering policy of demonising masculinity so as to "femstroy" "gender-normalcy"

4). OK Maybe the programme hits some 'Horrible History' buttons... I don't agree (because HH is quite elegantly wrought by experts) but even if it were, put it on CBBC - but NO! I wouldn't want this crap poisoning my kids.

5). I pay for this crap, and the only alternative for me is to commit a crime by non-payment of my licence fee. Take away the licence fee and I couldn't care less what the BBC produces, let them die the death as their viewers renounce their supra-PC politics and flood to Netflix.

6). I discern a disgracefully toxic thread in BBC policy of putting up men in male roles who are ignorant/weedy/incompetent/desperate/weak/frothy etc etc. I refer you to my points 2 & 3.

It stinks.

So to draw together these points here, the BBC's apparatchiks are attacking masculinity, they are attacking men and if you are a (non LBGTetc) male they are attacking YOU, lessening your ability to stand up as a good, virtuous dude.

And Dyer's loud, ignorant persona as shown in this programme plays perfectly into their egregious narrative.

Oh, and PS 7). BBC is capable of doing bloody amazing things with history for all ages, where is the virtue in this dismal programming?

Back at you Lawro's left foot!

Well, this thread took an unexpected turn, dumbing down history, I don’t like faux cockney geezer Danny Dyer, I could both understand , even if I don’t particularly agree with them, but, the BBCs secret agenda to emasculate Britain’s males? I didn’t think we’d end up there.
Although all license payers do indeed contribute to the broadcasting monolith it is not, as such, able to provide perfect programming for every single fee payer, therefore, a wide variety of programming has be provided. This was not a serious history program and I doubt it was ever intended to be, it was more a vehicle for the quite extraordinary fact, that a working class, soap actor was commissioned to do an episode of Who Do You Think You Are?, and struck the mother lode, a direct descendant of King Edward the First.
A follow up programme was begging to be made,and, I must admit some curiosity as to how Dyers family had gone from Royalty to Canning Town , myself.
Had the subject been someone, a little less cartoon character, such as, Danny Baker, would you have been happier?
I will continue to watch the rest of the series, while sitting in my fluffy pink dressing gown, doing my needlepoint, and having not the slightest worry that my masculinity is being covertly undermind.

 

[Hamilton]

6). I discern a disgracefully toxic thread in BBC policy of putting up men in male roles who are ignorant/weedy/incompetent/desperate/weak/frothy etc etc. I refer you to my points 2 & 3.

Found some of them weedy BBC men for you... (ps, you can find commissioned content from the BBC on Netflix as well). Unlike other providers, the BBC costs 41p a day. I wonder why it is that the BBC can produce content for such a price when others charge more. Could it be so that all that cash is flowing into a few media moguls pockets? The same moguls that then try to control what we think via the, er, media? The BBC is far from perfect. It's also a fantastic long-term check and balance to have in place - to stop us spinning off into some dystopian nightmare where the latest 'Murdoch' rules the world.

 

[vegster]

Deeply dismal programming from the all too often woeful Beeb.

Indeed. For an extra tenner they could have got Keith Lemon to front it.

 

[vegster]

Found some of them weedy BBC men for you... (ps, you can find commissioned content from the BBC on Netflix as well). Unlike other providers, the BBC costs 41p a day. I wonder why it is that the BBC can produce content for such a price when others charge more. Could it be so that all that cash is flowing into a few media moguls pockets? The same moguls that then try to control what we think via the, er, media? The BBC is far from perfect. It's also a fantastic long-term check and balance to have in place - to stop us spinning off into some dystopian nightmare where the latest 'Murdoch' rules the world.


Well said, The BBC is always there to be shot at but consistently turns out groundreaking television on a regular basis, on top of varied radio shows and stations it is a gem that should be treasured when we see it's commercial alternatives.

 

[Live by the sea]

I think Danny Dyer is basically a yob who can't act but can play himself quite well. He hams up his own uncouth personality on screen.

 

[GT49er]

What?!

I mean, what!!!!??

I hope that somewhere on this thread you've retracted that statement.

Not a chance.


............and I also maintain it's a good idea for people whose knowledge of our history is minimal to "watch it and actually get a rough grasp of British history, in easy bites" (as I said in my original post).

 

[BadFish]

Well said, The BBC is always there to be shot at but consistently turns out groundreaking television on a regular basis, on top of varied radio shows and stations it is a gem that should be treasured when we see it's commercial alternatives.

It seems to me that it is those who too fully believe the guff presented by said alternatives that choose to attack the Beeb. Without it the media landscape would be a frightening and desolate place.

 

[Hamilton]

Not a chance.


............and I also maintain it's a good idea for people whose knowledge of our history is minimal to "watch it and actually get a rough grasp of British history, in easy bites" (as I said in my original post).

I thought not.

Well, to help you wit your skewed idea of what children are taught at school, here's a link to the national curriculum and an example of what children are taught at key stage 1.

Pupils should be taught about:
- changes within living memory. Where appropriate, these should be used to reveal aspects of change in national life
- events beyond living memory that are significant nationally or globally [for example, the Great Fire of London, the first aeroplane flight or events commemorated through festivals or anniversaries]
- the lives of significant individuals in the past who have contributed to national and international achievements. Some should be used to compare aspects of life in different periods [for example, Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria, Christopher Columbus and Neil Armstrong, William Caxton and Tim Berners-Lee, Pieter Bruegel the Elder and LS Lowry, Rosa Parks and Emily Davison, Mary Seacole and/or Florence Nightingale and Edith Cavell]
- significant historical events, people and places in their own locality.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...035/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_-_History.pdf

Try not to peddle the mistruth that history is all about WW1 and some veiled agenda around the slave trade. It's not. Even though these two events are significant lessons for our children to learn. Believe or not, the teachers we have in this country are focused on giving children a fantastic rounded education where they can think clearly.