[TV] King Danny Dyer

Bold Seagull said:

It is a standing joke in our house that Danny Dyer's daughter is called Dani Dyer. I don't really understand why it is funny, but each time someone says 'Danny Dyer's daughter is called Dani Dyer' there is much hilarity.

Click to expand...

Bold Seagull said:

It is a standing joke in our house that Danny Dyer's daughter is called Dani Dyer. I don't really understand why it is funny, but each time someone says 'Danny Dyer's daughter is called Dani Dyer' there is much hilarity.

Click to expand...

schmunk said:

A standard Netflix subscription costs 26p a day...

(I'm happy to pay for the Beeb too, though!)

Click to expand...

GT49er said:

I'm glad to know that History teaching has improved since my children went through school then (although there's precious little in your curriculum about Kings and Queens, or great historical events like the War of the Roses or the English Civil War). It will be a long time though - whole generations of people whose only knowledge of history is what I outlined in my post will have to pass on - before things change. The vast majority of the British state school educated public don't have a clue about history.

My observations, incidentally, are based on hard evidence. My children all went to different schools (two of them to grammar schools) and I know what their history lessons included and what they didn't!

Click to expand...

Tricky Dicky said:

Hmm, I guess it's funny to some and I do like a good alliteration, this one does nothing for me - and I'm still none the wiser to who this is - but I get the feeling I really don't want to.

Click to expand...

Hamilton said:

Hard evidence?

There are over 8 million children in schools in the UK.

So, to be in anyway statistically valid, you need a decent sample size of kids. Let's say 1% as a low base.

So, you're telling me that the 80,000 children you have sired and sent off to schools have all come home for their tea in the evening and told you that all they've learned at school is something about WW1 and how rotten Britain was during the slave trade?

No, I thought not.

It's not hard evidence. It's a one-off story.

Click to expand...

Napper said:

surely wont be long before D.Dyer is banned. He's a bit to male for life these days

Click to expand...

BrickTamland said:

I know it’s a cheap shot, but it really can’t be coincidental that all the ‘being a man will be banned soon’ snowflakes have no grasp of basic spelling and grammar. Can it?

Click to expand...

LlcoolJ said:

Yeah, women rule the world don't they. Paranoid rubbish from scared little men.

My son will do just fine thanks. He's 12, he's pretty good at everything and he's already done three years of learning Mandarin, which is a little bit more important than worrying about the output of the BBC when it comes to his future.

You keep pissing your pants though. About nothing.

We all like Danny Dyer btw. The Mrs fancies him, me and the sprog find him funny. I don't see any way that his being on TV can add to your ridiculous end of days scenario for men.

So many things in the world to care about, you're wasting your time on incel nonsense.

Click to expand...

Mellotron said:

Thanks, put it better than I could so won't bother now.

When I saw the word "femstroy" I rolled my eyes so hard they almost came out of my head.

Click to expand...

GT49er said:

I'm glad to know that History teaching has improved since my children went through school then (although there's precious little in your curriculum about Kings and Queens, or great historical events like the War of the Roses or the English Civil War). It will be a long time though - whole generations of people whose only knowledge of history is what I outlined in my post will have to pass on - before things change. The vast majority of the British state school educated public don't have a clue about history.

My observations, incidentally, are based on hard evidence. My children all went to different schools (two of them to grammar schools) and I know what their history lessons included and what they didn't!

Click to expand...

exKT17 said:

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!

Click to expand...

Hamilton said:

Hard evidence?

There are over 8 million children in schools in the UK.

So, to be in anyway statistically valid, you need a decent sample size of kids. Let's say 1% as a low base.

So, you're telling me that the 80,000 children you have sired and sent off to schools have all come home for their tea in the evening and told you that all they've learned at school is something about WW1 and how rotten Britain was during the slave trade?

No, I thought not.

It's not hard evidence. It's a one-off story.

Click to expand...

Dorset Seagull said:

And left to die on the side of the road by the New Forest which is now known as Rufus Stone.

Click to expand...

Mellotron said:

When I saw the word "femstroy" I rolled my eyes so hard they almost came out of my head.

Click to expand...

Stato said:

These made up portmanteau words really grate, especially when, like this one, they don't even work. Google tells me that destroy's deriviation is apparently from the Latin word 'struere' meaning to build or assemble. Adding the 'de' makes it 'un-build' or 'un-assemble'. Adding the 'fem', instead of the 'de' presumably to indicate feminism doesn't make a word that means destroyed by feminism, it makes a word that would indicate the opposite: 'built by feminism'. It's the same mistake as adding 'lexsic' on the end of words to try to indicate an inability to do something. 'lexsic' is the part of 'dyslexic' that refers to reading and writing, not to inability, so 'maths-lexia' means 'maths-writing', not 'can't do maths'.

Click to expand...

brightn'ove said:

You are talking to somebody that has previously tried to claim that an individual anecdote isn't anecdotal evidence.

Click to expand...