Scumbag British Gutter Press

[Flashermac]

Getting paid is one thing. Not telling you whether they'll use the piece or not and when it will appear is another. Changing the text so that it reads like it was written by a chimpanzee is still another. You want more?

 

 

Been there, done it. I got a letter from the editor of the now defunct "Asia Magazine" telling me what issue a submission would appear in and how much I'd get paid. The issue came and it wasn't there. No money either. I finally wrote asking them to please at least returning my transparencies, which were irreplacable. (I'd sent an SASE and the slides were in a plastic folder. But nothing, not even a reply!) John Everingham told me the same magazine short changed him about 1/3d on a cover story he'd done. When he asked why, he was told they'd already spent the budget for that issue and that was all he was going to get.

 

Then again I was Bangkok correspondent for a Singaporean magazine. After about ten months, the owners decided to shut it down. Never saw one satang from them.

 

 

Come to think of it, The Nation used something of mine a few years ago and never paid me. My fault for not bugging them though.

 

I worked for a Japanese weekly in the '80s, and they were unbelievably good. I had my by-line as their exclusive Bangkok correspondent and even though I was limited in column inches, the yen just kept going up. Sigh ...

 

p.s. I did once have something rewritten so that it sounded like J. Fred Muggs had done it -- run on sentences, sentence fragments, sentences that made no sense etc. And yet my name was on it!

 

 

Wonder why I went back to teaching?

 

 

 

[Mekong]

And I'm public school too.

 

Weak Defence for being an asshole.

 

Should we call you "Andrew Nice but Dim?"

 

Your perception is that you are better than us, yet you choose to pre-judge and comment upon people who you believe are below your station. and report such (sic!) to the masses you despise Most public schoolboys go on and make something of their life, the losers peddle lies to the masses they look down upon.

 

So Glad you clarified mine (and others) realisation of oneself.

[Famous Grouse]

You sound a very sad chap Mekong. I believe I have your handle. I do not perceive myself better than anybody, and certainly not better than people I do not know.

 

I rather think it is YOUR prejudices which are showing up here, and those of your fan club.

 

Of course I could be prejudiced against people who throw insults so casually.

 

Then again they could just be â??aving a larfâ??. So I withhold judgment.

 

As you started this thread with several paragraphs of unadulterated and malicious tripe which you claimed as fact â??as if you were witness to events â?? and then later admitted it was all â??tertiaryâ?? (give me a break!) or second hand, it comes as no surprise to find you as warped now as on day one.

 

I take it the apology which somebody suggested should be forthcoming, will indeed not be forthcoming.

 

Your insults carry no weight. The poster who suggested that your authenticity was backed only by a statement that you might be an alright guy, hit the nail on the head.

 

Come in next time with something more cheerful. Iâ??m rather getting to know you.

 

 

[Famous Grouse]

Written any other books?

[Famous Grouse]

I have had a pretty good life. You too I hope

[pe7e]

Here's Tony Blairs latest opinion of the press:

 

â??In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no one dares miss out.â?Â

 

but then again he would say that, after they've exposed him as a liar more times than I care to remember.

[teddy]

but then again he would say that, after they've exposed him as a liar more times than I care to remember.

 

Doesn't need the press to do that, he manages it all by himself most of the time.

 

[bibblies]

Glad you mentioned politics. It's the sub-text in all this BBC bashing. The BBC is responsible for the screwed up immigration policy and for shoving multiculturalism down the throats of the hard done by British public. The British class system is alive and well.

 

Everything will be fine when the BNP takes over. The wogs will get sent back where they came from and Britons will finally get the balanced tax-free programming they deserve.

I don't think that's a very fair summary at all of Carew's and my points especially seeing as neither of us mentioned anything to do with class or race

(and I doubt either of us give a fuck about what colour a person is).

 

The central point is freedom of choice. I don't care if there's a TV channel that's dominated by people of one political bias or another. I just don't think anyone should be forced to pay for it. It's just a media company, for fuck's sake! There is no need for the state to be involved.

 

I wonder if supporters of the BBC would still support the concept of a compulsory tax to fund a state media company if that state and company happened to be right-wing? I suspect not.

 

If BBC supporters say it's worth it, fine. Let them prove it. Pay their subscriptions. I might still pay mine. I might not.

 

I'm not even political - I try to avoid those with political axes to grind (which is partly why I dislike the BBC).

 

The license fee is needless and unfair. (It's effectively a poll tax.) And the BBC isn't nearly as good as its self-congratulatory "we're the best in the world" staff seem to think. Channel 4 news, for instance, is better. There's plenty better. Let them find out how good they really are.

[chuckwoww]

Poor old Tone. He's having trouble with his legacy. Making trips to places like Sierra Leone helps but he can't do much about those peerages he sold.

[chuckwoww]

Glad you mentioned politics. It's the sub-text in all this BBC bashing. The BBC is responsible for the screwed up immigration policy and for shoving multiculturalism down the throats of the hard done by British public. The British class system is alive and well.

 

Everything will be fine when the BNP takes over. The wogs will get sent back where they came from and Britons will finally get the balanced tax-free programming they deserve.

Er' date=' I don't think that's a very fair summary at all of Carew's and my points especially seeing as neither of us mentioned anything to do with race

(and I doubt either of us give a fuck about what colour a person is).

 

The central point is freedom of choice. I don't care if there's a TV channel that's dominated by people of one political bias or another. I just don't think anyone should be forced to pay for it. It's just a media company, for fuck's sake! There is no need for the state to be involved.

 

I wonder if supporters of the BBC would still support the concept of a compulsory tax to fund a state media company if that state and company happened to be right-wing? I suspect not.

 

If BBC supporters say it's worth it, fine. Let them prove it. Pay their subscriptions. I might still pay mine. I might not.

 

I'm not even political - I try to avoid those with political axes to grind (which is partly why I dislike the BBC.

 

The license fee is needless and unfair. (It's effectively a poll tax.) And the BBC isn't nearly as good as its self-congratulatory staff seem to think. Channel 4 news, for instance, is better. There's plenty better.[/quote']

 

Yes. Sorry about that. I couldn't sleep....as often happens when I get into arguments on the internet. That sub-text comment was going through my head so I got up and posted it. Probably a mistake in hindsight or I should have qualified it better. It wasn't directed at you and Carew specifically but I'm familiar with the er... underlying sentiment in the UK and I've often seen the BBC used as a sort of code word. I know you and Carew are both highly intelligent and sensitive people and above that sort of petty nonsense.

 

I totally agree the central point is freedom of choice. It's really a pity they can't come up with some kind of mechanism for people who don't like the BBC to opt out of paying the tax.