― the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― chris, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
Funnily enough, I quite like the Guide, partly because Joe
Queenan and Byron Coley sometimes write for it, partly because
it means I no longer have to buy that useless piece of toss Time
― Andrew L, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― james e l, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
1. The simplification of the accusation may just echo what it asserts
about the target (just as 'Dumbing Down' is a dumb, dull phrase);
2. If I don't like Triviality, why don't I read nothing but 10-page
reports from the former Yugoslavia? It would be hypocritical of me to
say that I simply wanted them to be SERIOUS and SOLEMN and
RESPONSIBLE all the time. No, that's not it.
What I mean, I suppose, is that too many features, esp. in G2, now
look dashed-off - half-hearted, half-baked, unconvincing, just cliché
pies really. Today's Lara Croft piece was just the latest of a
million examples. It feels (the terms are problematic here, I know)
JOURNALISTIC in a bad way - trite, unconsidered, full of crowd-
pleasing Received Ideas - rather than JOURNALISTIC in a good way
(that is: dogged, resourceful, brave, mentally agile, snappy and what
It's the world of second-hand Lifestyle phrases that bugs me. The way
that adults can still write a phrase like "*that* dress" and not hang
their heads in shame.
A rider to all my bile, though, is that my previous, more impressed
impressions of the Guardian may just reflect youthful
impressionability. (Sentence!) Maybe the same kind of crap used to
impress me that now feels rubbishy, faux-zeitgeisty and embarrassing?
Maybe, but I suspect it's a bit of both.
I agree about Queenan too. But most of all, I agree about Thomson.
There's almost no point having a thread about Thomson, because people
who know what they think about him already know it all and would just
send in superlatives.
― mark s, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
What the paper still has going for it: George Monbiot's column, the
Diary, Steve Bell, giving review space to Ians Sansom and Penman, and
the tv columns of Nancy Banks-Smith. (When N B-S finally pops her
clogs I will have to think very hard about buying the paper.)
What is leading the paper ever closer to the abyss: consistently
terrible pop coverage (honorable exceptions: Maddy Costa, Betty
Clarke); the fatuous new Saturday mag (Zoe Ball on dressing? match
the celebrity with the pet? that awful woman talking about words that
should be banned??); Charlotte bloody Raven.
― stevie t, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
I agree with you there. They sucker you in with the G2 front cover
(and the masthead of the main paper), but when you get to read the
cover story it often appears cobbled together and lightweight. I
imagine it must be difficult to fill that space with high quality
stories day in day out though.
― David, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
I actually like Peter Preston's awkward, staccato opinion pieces,
come to think of it. But not the pompous ones of Hugo Young.
Freedland is sometimes good at summing political issues up, but
usually he 'sums up' too much - there's too much glibness in the way
he marshals it all. (I admit again, though, that it's easy - even
glib - to call someone glib.)
Penman strikes me as a red herring. I can see that he doesn't do that
to you, cos you have some kind of investment in his career. I agree
about Sansom (great left-back, mean penalty, blah blah) - in fact I
think that the whole Saturday book reviews section is quite possibly
the best feature of the paper. EXCEPT of course the footy. Heroes?
How could I forget David Lacey?
BUT I think that you are wrong about N B-S. It doesn't surprise me
that older folk make that judgement about her; it does rather
surprise me coming from you. She has skills, I guess, but she's
terribly repetitive; uses the same lines on the same topics year in
year out. It's all too - yes - glib and easy, while dressed up to
look aged and thus wise.
― jamesmichaelward, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
I only read it for the Guide and the job listings. Not that either has
been particularly helpful lately... ;-)
― masonic boom, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Richard Tunnicliffe, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― tarden, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Mark Morris, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
There's a lot of irritating stuff, yes. My favourite columnist is
George Monbiot, by a mile. Something I like about the Independent
when I do get it is that its liberalism is less metropolitan and more
about the common good. Needless to say, though, the Guardian's
series of articles on public service under that very title were
― The Hemulen Who Loved Silence, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
Today's G2 seems designed to add fuel to my (f)ire: one page
of 'Style' after another, including a column on Why We're So
Disappointed That Madonna Employs A Stylist.
― the pinefox, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― blue veils and golden sands, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
Also good in Guardian: John Patterson re. cinema.
oh god, ask hadley today is just... tooth-grinding.
― Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (ten years ago) Permalink
― Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (ten years ago) Permalink
"At what age is a man too old to wear band T-shirts?"
Martin McCall, by email
"About 15 - that young enough for you, Martin? And to follow one rhetorical question with several more, what in God's name is the point of band T-shirts anyway? To show your allegiance to a band? Do you think anyone else cares? To impress onlookers with your esoteric musical knowledge? See previous reply. To make people stare at your bony chest? Again, I refer you to the first answer. To show that you once attended a live gig? Wow, like, a pair of golden headsets to the guy in the Nirvana '91 T-shirt. In case you happen to bump into the lead singer on the street, he sees that the two of you are kindred souls and therefore invites you to join his band and you then go on the road and have all the manly bonding sessions followed by groupies that your heart could desire? OK, I'll give you that one, although this does suggest that you still harbour the fantasy that you might bump into Joey Ramone in Waterstone's.
"As for ladies in band T-shirts, give me a fricking break. First, gals, a badly cut, poorly made, oversized T-shirt is good for nothing other than wearing to bed and the gym. Second, too often women who wear band T-shirts appear to be going for what we shall call Groupie Chic. It is a style amply modelled by Kate Moss in recent years, and can pretty much be summed up as skinny faded black jeans, ankle boots, a ripped band T-shirt and a cropped fur jacket. In other words, a girlified version of Marc Bolan's or Keith Richards' wardrobe, as though the woman has been so busy, um, sleeping on the band bus she hasn't had time to clean her clothes, so she's now wearing ones belonging to her musical companion. This column has no time for such nonsense."
― Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:19 (ten years ago) Permalink
Yeah, because women have *no* interest in music whatsoever except for sleeping with musicians. What CENTURY is this cretin from?
― Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:21 (ten years ago) Permalink
I think I stopped wearing band T-shirts by the time I was 23. It wasn't necessarily a conscious move tho. I doubt I will ever wear one again tho - I guess it seems lame unless it's an old obscure or overlooked thus hip act (even this I dunno about). I don't notice many people over 20 wearing them. Does Matt DC still have that Save Ferris T?
I only want to sleep with musicians if they are hot as they are (their musical ability is pretty irrelevant in fact).
― blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:29 (ten years ago) Permalink
dear teh grauniad - a long time ago/we used to be friends...
― CharlieNo4, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:32 (ten years ago) Permalink
It went downhill after I left.
― Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:33 (ten years ago) Permalink
or were you PUSHED?
― blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:35 (ten years ago) Permalink
heh. (sorry alex, no harm intended)
― CharlieNo4, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:36 (ten years ago) Permalink
― Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:36 (ten years ago) Permalink
i was being harsh really. i don't care what's on other people's t-shirts that much. just trying to work out why i stopped wearing/wouldn't wear band t-shirts myself.
― blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:37 (ten years ago) Permalink
Any t-shirt which isn't plain white clearly sucks that's why.
― aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:38 (ten years ago) Permalink
i couldn't agree less
― blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:40 (ten years ago) Permalink
I still wear band t-shirts if I like the band. Why not? I don't *define* myself or my personality by my music tastes any more, I haven't done that since I was about 18. But that's not the same thing as wearing a band t-shirt.
I suppose the fashion journalist in discussion cannot fathom the idea that clothes are just something you put on, rather than a definition of or statement about your personality.
This is definitely something that happens as you age - or rather, has happened to me as I aged. There's a subtle difference between Statement Clothes and just things you put on.
― Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:40 (ten years ago) Permalink
Guardian editorial worldview circa 2007:
― tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:41 (ten years ago) Permalink
why else would you buy a band t-shirt if not as a statement or definition of personality?
― blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:44 (ten years ago) Permalink
I didn't know it was a band t-shirt okay?
― Matt DC, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (ten years ago) Permalink
because you're cold xp
― tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (ten years ago) Permalink
In the past I've usually just bought them as a keepsake of a gig I've enjoyed. The piece tracer quotes is idiotic fluff, obv. I'd be embarrased to admit I'd written that.
― Pashmina, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:46 (ten years ago) Permalink
Because you like the design? Because you like the music? Because it was given to you (this is where most of mine come from)? Because it was a souvenier?
― Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:46 (ten years ago) Permalink
you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?
because you like the music = statement/definition of you/your taste
given to you = not you buying
― blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:48 (ten years ago) Permalink
No, plus I've only ever bought them @ gigs.
Probably yeah, but w/smaller bands there's also the knowledge that in buying it, yr helping to supposrt the tour.
― Pashmina, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:50 (ten years ago) Permalink
i actually bought a comets on fire t-shirt solely because the design was so awesome. (it was at a gig, but they hadn't come on stage yet.) then i heard the music and i liked that too. i suppose if i hadn't liked their music, or thought it was boring, it would have posed a problem.
a friend of mine, who shall remain nameless so that alex in nyc doesn't stalk and kill him, bought a huge iron maiden patch when he was 14 and sewed it across the shoulders of his denim jacket. he had never heard a note of iron maiden, but he wound up becoming the biggest iron maiden fan i know, and even sung in a band later, where his vocal style was almost inseparable from bruce dickinson's.
― Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:53 (ten years ago) Permalink
my take on this: do not read hadley freeman.
this resolution made some time ago, stands as strong today as it ever did.
it's a crass and deliberately invidious piece of writing. such an attitude, if sincerely held, could be turned around on pretty much ANY choice of clothing. so forgeddaboudit
― Alan, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:53 (ten years ago) Permalink
the last band t-shirt i bought - robyn!
alan i can't help myself, i know i'm sick and need help.
― Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:54 (ten years ago) Permalink
is there a thread for best band t-shirts? must see
― blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:56 (ten years ago) Permalink
Taste is something that I have. It does not define me. Clothes are something I wear. The statement I am making is "I don't really care about clothes any more."
If I'm going to make a statement about clothes, I'll wear a bright green paisley jacket to a dronerock festival where everyone else is in leather.
I suppose my Hawkwind t-shirt is a statement, it says "ha ha, I'm wearing a Hawkwind t-shirt, I care nothing for fashion, I am wearing the shirt of a band so deeply uncool you can suck my left one because I love them!" But it's certainly not a statement saying that I want to f*ck any of Hawkwind or that I have a musician boyfriend whose Hawkwind t-shirt I'm borrowing, which is the assumption of that article.
― Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:56 (ten years ago) Permalink
> I don't notice many people over 20 wearing them.
> you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?
EAR t-shirt with the putney on the front = great. EAR live = terrible. (EAR on CD = ok, plus pram and stereolab were supporting)
― koogs, Monday, 3 September 2007 15:03 (ten years ago) Permalink
well that sucks, mason is/was great
i look forward to welcoming their new, more affordable, craven centrist columnists
― pee-wee and the power men (bizarro gazzara), Monday, 15 January 2018 15:58 (five days ago) Permalink
Giles Fraser is also going I think? my impression was that Orr and Fraser's columns were reliably awful, Mason sometimes wrote interesting stuff but also had some terrible positions - I feel like are a lot of better candidates for the role of token pro-Corbyn commentator if you're looking at it from that angle. I guess it depends who they're replaced with?
― soref, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:00 (five days ago) Permalink
Deborah was talking up zero hour contracts as a good thing, then karma intervened....
― calzino, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:01 (five days ago) Permalink
Orr’s comment pieces were abysmal but I don’t think her proper journalism was considered that bad.
Mason turned into a bit of a joke figure on the left but he was, at least, a break from centrism.
― Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), Monday, 15 January 2018 16:04 (five days ago) Permalink
@stoya come to Athens - the revolution is happening— Paul Mason (@paulmasonnews) January 25, 2015
Deba re de dee deba re de deeO DeborahYou dress like an art teacherYour sunken face is like a galleonClothed with bad takes of the Spanish Main, O Deborah
Ni ni ni ni ni
― But doctor, I am Camille Paglia (Bananaman Begins), Monday, 15 January 2018 16:11 (five days ago) Permalink
― mark s, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:11 (five days ago) Permalink
Once you @ a porn star on twitter, that's just who you are from then on. There isn't a way back.
― But doctor, I am Camille Paglia (Bananaman Begins), Monday, 15 January 2018 16:12 (five days ago) Permalink
I'm sure Deborah Orr wasn't always as awful as she became over the last five years or so. Mason is no great loss but the fact that Simon Jenkins is still there is inexplicable.
― Matt DC, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:19 (five days ago) Permalink
the only reason I can think of why Jenkins is still there = there is a contingent of older tory-leaning people who have nevertheless always bought the Guardian because they think it's better written than it's right wing competitors, if they get rid of Jenkins some of these people might start buying the Times instead? (esp because they are now both tabloids and the Times is 60p cheaper, and these readers are some of the last folks actually paying money to read the Guardian?)
― soref, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:27 (five days ago) Permalink
slightly wondering if there's contractual -- or just practical* -- reasons not to have said goodbye to him yesterday, along with the old typeface and some of more the junior faces
*a redesign is often stepped (not least because you basically need two entire staffs to negotiate it): the major layout elements done week 1, say, other changes week 2,3 etc): but because of the change of format here this p much all has to go at once, up on day one
the crisis-management practicalities of firing a high-profile figure in the london media establishment -- with him able to secretly leak demoralising scuttlebutt etc, from the moment of his notice -- *could* be a reason to punt this for a week or a month (ppl might have judged orr is a basically a guardianista loyalist at some level, however grumpy she may feel over the next few weeks; jenkins is an ideological foe)
or they could think he'a good not bad
― mark s, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:34 (five days ago) Permalink
The analytics almost certainly play a big role as well and Jenkins' form of highly shareable trolling is a guaranteed source of traffic. Guessing Monbiot is still there as well.
― Matt DC, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:43 (five days ago) Permalink
(To clarify I don't think Monbiot is trolling but some of the more outrageous headlines attached to his pieces serve a similar function)
― Matt DC, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:44 (five days ago) Permalink
the change of the contrib guard is bound to come out in blibs and blobs a bit, isn't it, if only because the pundits aren't all run on the same day?
i slightly decoded viner's five points as a step away from clickbait praxis but not holding my breath: i actually like the new look but i think the attendant announcement has been super-feeble
― mark s, Monday, 15 January 2018 16:53 (five days ago) Permalink
TBH this just results in me putting together a fantasy league team worth of columists I would drop.
― Matt DC, Monday, 15 January 2018 17:21 (five days ago) Permalink
weird that they led with rhik samadder on their first front page, isn't he just one their ex-guide clickbait writers?
― Chuck_Tatum, Monday, 15 January 2018 17:24 (five days ago) Permalink
'praxis' - A.H. Wilson
― the pinefox, Monday, 15 January 2018 17:25 (five days ago) Permalink
I don't see much reason to suppose that any columnists are dropped, until it turns out they're dropped?
Unlike others, I don't dislike Jenkins as a writer. In fact simply as a writer of prose he is far better than most of them. I agree with about 50% of what he says, while usually feeling threatened, angered or alarmed by other 50%. I don't think he is a simple 'right-winger'. More a 'classical liberal' or the like.
I once told Alba (of ilx) I thought SJ was a CAVALIER and was very glad that he agreed.
― the pinefox, Monday, 15 January 2018 17:28 (five days ago) Permalink
I went out to buy the new Guardian.
There was just one tattered copy left in Marks & Spencer.
No copies left at all in WH Smith.
A Guardian frenzy!
Then I found a deep pile remaining in Sainsbury's.
The paper looks substantial to me, ie: it will take me days to get through it.
― the pinefox, Monday, 15 January 2018 17:29 (five days ago) Permalink
Do not like the new masthead, social media logos etc.
If only the Guardian read ilxor.com user LBI's opinion on this, this would be reversed in no time, I know I know (it's not that serious)
― ♫ very clever with maracas.jpg ♫ (Le Bateau Ivre), Monday, 15 January 2018 17:56 (five days ago) Permalink
am i right in thinking they're using an FT-style off white background on the website to denote columnists? could they perhaps change the body text on those pages to the same off-white colour?
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Monday, 15 January 2018 19:05 (five days ago) Permalink
You're not wrong, by the looks of it.
― ♫ very clever with maracas.jpg ♫ (Le Bateau Ivre), Monday, 15 January 2018 19:08 (five days ago) Permalink
the formatting of the new logo on twitter is abysmal but i like the new masthead font
― in twelve parts (lamonti), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 08:21 (four days ago) Permalink
New masthead typeface is horrible, I wasn’t much a gnat of the old one. Eff a serif.
― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 09:06 (four days ago) Permalink
So. I've looked at the website on a number of different devices now, and it definitely looks different on different screens. But isn't it a bit odd that Factual Reporting aka Truth is pristine white, Official Guardian Opinions are a pale pinky colour, and Comment Is Free is kind of... brown?
Did no one think through the visual semiotics of that?
― Einstürzende NEU!bauten (Branwell with an N), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 10:48 (four days ago) Permalink
"Comment Is Free" has always been full of brown
― hell is auteur people (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 10:50 (four days ago) Permalink
Culture is beige.
― nashwan, Tuesday, 16 January 2018 10:57 (four days ago) Permalink
I'm not expecting to grow flowers in a desertBut I can live and breatheAnd see the sun in wintertimeIn a third country dreams stay with youLike a lover's voice fires the mountainsideStay alive
― But doctor, I am Camille Paglia (Bananaman Begins), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 11:11 (four days ago) Permalink
Not entirely sure about the white text on black background thing tbh.
― Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 11:15 (four days ago) Permalink
I don't get why the single-G icon (on the app eg) is so different from the masthead G
― stet, Tuesday, 16 January 2018 11:26 (four days ago) Permalink
so that it fits symmetrically into the circular twitter profile badge
but i'm not sure that's worth messing with the first letter of your new logo tbh
― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 11:31 (four days ago) Permalink
yikes - the black and white in the new app is stark
― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 12:33 (four days ago) Permalink
Stark and also very boring
Blacks should be slightly off-black or grey on the web - true black is kinda hard to read
I don't understand why designers don't understand that high contrasts are hard for people (especially older people) to read
― Chuck_Tatum, Tuesday, 16 January 2018 12:36 (four days ago) Permalink
everyone seems to be forgetting the blue was extremely shit
― ogmor, Tuesday, 16 January 2018 13:35 (four days ago) Permalink
i like the new font!
This could work
― Algerian Goalkeeper (Odysseus), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 23:01 (four days ago) Permalink
from this article btw
― Algerian Goalkeeper (Odysseus), Tuesday, 16 January 2018 23:02 (four days ago) Permalink
I like the tabloid a lot less than the Berliner. I was very fond of the Berliner and admired much of its design, each time I read the sports pages for instance. I mostly don't admire the new design. I also don't think the tabloid is easier to handle: on the contrary.
The website seems considerably worse to me, partly in how it handles but mainly how it looks.
While there were economic reasons to go tabloid, I don't think there were good aesthetic reasons to change the design. It seems an unforced error.
It all makes me think I will read the Guardian less in future, whether online or in print.
Mind you, it is now 17 years since I wondered whether the Guardian was worse than it used to be.
― the pinefox, Thursday, 18 January 2018 08:48 (two days ago) Permalink
― Madchen, Thursday, 18 January 2018 09:04 (two days ago) Permalink
I'm finding it annoying that some text on the homepage is the same purple colour used as the internet's standard colour for hyperlinks you have already clicked on.
― Madchen, Thursday, 18 January 2018 12:47 (two days ago) Permalink
It's the colour that throws me off in general w/ the new site. It's all every unbalanced and (relatively) restless to my eyes, compared with how it was.
― ♫ very clever with maracas.jpg ♫ (Le Bateau Ivre), Thursday, 18 January 2018 12:50 (two days ago) Permalink
I hate all the lines.
Some sites (iirc the 2012 Olmypics for example) have in the past offered 'high contrast' stylesheets (white text on black or near black, very strong colours e.g. cyan for links) to actually cater more for greater readability but it's never been easy to judge what works best for who and why here.
― nashwan, Thursday, 18 January 2018 13:02 (two days ago) Permalink
The garish star rating on images for reviewed media is bad too. Suggests the star rating isn't important enough to retain the space it had before yet more important than showing all of an image. The bigger problem remains pretty much everything getting three or four stars though so could've been a good opportunity to alter that system and save space. Should've gone with emoji imo.
― nashwan, Thursday, 18 January 2018 13:05 (two days ago) Permalink
I also hate the lines - I've had a couple discussions at work about the redesign (part of my job is website UX) and they are all variants on "wtf were they thinking with those lines".
The paper is fine, it's just a little sad and boring, kinda easy to mistake for the Times or Evening Standard. Two quid a day seems... untenable.
― Chuck_Tatum, Thursday, 18 January 2018 13:17 (two days ago) Permalink
This is an excellent move, seriously.
― Matt DC, Thursday, 18 January 2018 14:19 (two days ago) Permalink
"Yet, when Hodgson allows himself a second to contemplate, he can acknowledge some would spy romance in last autumn’s return."
The Guardian's typical omission of the word "that" sometimes makes their sentences temporarily confusing for me.
― the pinefox, Saturday, 20 January 2018 11:21 (seven hours ago) Permalink
Took me a while to find the guardian this morning - it was hiding with all the other tabloids, not on the broadsheet shelf where it normally is.
Thought the review section looked at but feeble when I picked it out but the smaller size is handy and the paper stock is better.
They've ditched the weekly film recommendations in the TV bit (I think, maybe they've just moved it). That used to be handy.
― koogs, Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:41 (six hours ago) Permalink
enjoyed Grace Dent dropping a casual Sylvie Krin-esque mention of her handbag worth the thick end of a grand into her food review today
― thirst trap your hare (DJ Mencap), Saturday, 20 January 2018 12:48 (six hours ago) Permalink
brands as shorthand or juxtaposition is kind of her thing though, innit. like mentioning Findus Crispy Pancakes at the other end of the spectrum.
― kinder, Saturday, 20 January 2018 13:38 (five hours ago) Permalink
Where's Harangue The DJ gone?
― mike t-diva, Saturday, 20 January 2018 18:37 (twenty-four minutes ago) Permalink