Jeremy Paxman. Well, to be fair, he’s an arsehole every day. However, his nasty authorisation streak is on display today.
The 67-year-old presenter accused his peers of betraying young people and holding politicians to ransom – and called for a ban on votes for the over-65s.
Quite apart from being a vile cunt for even suggesting such an evil idea, he would have us all at the mercy of the young who, having been indoctrinated into the evils of socialism, would give us the vile Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell at the helm. We, the older generation, have learned from the folly of youth. When I was young, I thought that Labour had all the answers. As I grew older, experience gave me a sharp lesson in reality. These days, I will actively vote against them. Not because I want anything in particular from the Tories – because I am not a Tory and never will be – but because I do not want the socialists in power. That this moron – this utter, utter, vile, evil, scumbag moron – would deprive the older generation of the vote is beneath contempt. The man is scum, pure and simple. We, the older generation, have betrayed no one; but Paxman, would betray a whole generation because he doesn’t agree with the way they vote. What a cunt.
He added: ‘I think that my generation have behaved like spoilt children. And, like spoilt children, our response is “it’s not my fault”. It’s never our bloody fault.
Speak for yourself. You do not speak for anyone else. You are a spoiled child, which is typical of the over privileged, self-important twats who become celebrities and think that their facile brain farts are relevant. The rest of us have slogged our guts out scraping a living doing real work, you parasitic scumbag. We don’t need your “wisdom” because you have none to offer. You are a vacuous vessel bleating leftist bullshit. Fuck off already.
Actually, it is, because we have failed to recognise the consequences of our behaviour.
No, that is you not we. You speak for yourself and no one else.
Universal suffrage means just that universal. Now fuck off with your evil authoritarianism.
I get the feeling your not to keen on our old Jeremy.
Keep up the good work, I enjoy your blog and have done for some months now. DB
Whatever gave you that idea?
Paxman forgets that many of the oldest generation men did compulsory military service. Also most of them, male and female left school early to go into low paid jobs. When young the mortality rates for certain diseases was a lot higher and a number of them contracted lifelong conditions. Quite different I think from the coddled life of Paxman.
And they paid the compulsory telly tax that kept Paxman in the lap of luxury from where he presumes to judge others.
My mum is 87 and still going strong. According to Prattman, she would have had no say in the election of those who govern her for 22 years.
Those over 65 account for about 25% of the electorate. Having a generally well off 25% of the population disenfranchised would be great news for the remaining 75%, especially the entitled generation. “What have the over 65s done for us, they’ve bled us white, the bastards. They’ve taken everything we had”. Would be easy to persuade the young, for whom 65 seems an eternity away, to vote for laws that confiscated wealth from the over 65s and gave it to the under 40s.
Like the people who say the roads, trains, planet are overcrowded. I retort, “well you’re part of the problem”.
Paxton may be having his own moral dilemma, he is after all the father of 3 children and I believe is also a grandfather. His marriage has failed, he’s besotted with a woman less than half his age and he no longer has his access to millions via the BBC.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4242744/Mother-Paxman-s-children-tells-friends-s-sh-t.html
So yes he’s surrounded by young people trying to get jobs and on to the property market. But Paxman’s standards are likely to be very exacting, 800k a year for many years will do that to a person, as will enjoying the perks and limelight.
Nope, Jeremy is very much a glaring example of the “not my fault” denier’s. And while I can’t say this with complete confidence, I suspect he’ll have a fine property portfolio, so a high end landlord, so hoarding housing stock and making it more difficult for others – and he’ll be the first to object to plans to build houses or reduce the green belt in his area.
Essentially, your standard issue hypocrite, happy to tell us to do as I say, not as I do.
“..When I was young, I thought that Labour had all the answers. As I grew older, experience gave me a sharp lesson in reality…”
Most rational people over the age of 40 or 45 could say the same: unfortunately the ones who are younger than that have been so indoctrinated by the agitprop which passes for education these days, I wonder if they’ll ever come to terms with reality.
A society should honour and respect its older citizens because experience teaches (as the Romans said). That’s how you get a wise and mature society. If you pander to the young excessively – I don’t mean disregard all their ideas – you get an infantilised society. Blair and “cool Britannia” is a good example.
The kind of people who think that others should be disenfranchised because they disagree with them really haven’t thought about the subject very much have they? Actually Jeremy, I am right and you are wrong so I think that it is you and other people who share your wrong political opinions who shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Once you make being allowed to vote contingent on having the correct political opinions you basically have a dictatorship because those in charge can simply appoint an electorate that will be guaranteed to vote them back in. Apart from all that, why does he think that age 65 is the cut off point after which people, as a block, vote in a non Paxman approved way?
Also what David B said, this is my favorite private blog. Always interesting discussions on a wide range of subjects, I’ve learned a lot by coming here.
Paxman hasn’t done a day’s useful work in his life. His whole career has been based upon sponging off the very people he now wishes to disenfranchise.
Even as a BBC interviewer, he was dreadful. A good interviewer allows the subject to expand on their views and draws them out without drawing attention to himself. Paxman’s “abrasive” approach was more about “look at me! Look at Me!” than anything else. His style was despicable.
To say that I dislike him would be a massive understatement. The man is thoroughly obnoxious and a nasty, evil totalitarian. I utterly despise him with every fibre of my being.