Anti Social Old Buggers (C4 Wed)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Anyone see this?

I felt so sorry for the old dears, they were obviously lonely. I wanted to bring them all home to my little flat and feed them biscuits.

― Rumpie, Thursday, 23 June 2005 06:18 (twenty years ago)

I did feel sorry for the two widowers, especially the one who was banned from going into Battersea Park.

You have to wonder, with those sort of people, to what extent it was them being bloody-minded ("you're barred because you're a cantankerous old git," said a barman throwing one out of a pub. "Now fuck off."), and to what extent they have psychological problems. In a way, too, their behaviour reminded me of some internet trolls - it's never *their* behaviour that is the problem, it's always other people being unreasonable to them.

I was also impressed that Town Hall Square, Grimsby, appeared on camera.

― Tech Support Droid, Thursday, 23 June 2005 06:39 (twenty years ago)

Well, it's me in twenty years' time innit.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 06:44 (twenty years ago)

i ended up half-seeing this, as i was too tired/jetlagged to do what i was supposed to do.

the woman was interesting, she'd lived this high powered life, but somehow had lost it through illness. it was never very clear who these 'criminals and drug dealers' were, or how they first arrived at her place. a bin liner of presumably stolen clothes was found, was she aware or not, the program makers were unsure also

the liverpudlian guy with all the files, seemed to have a persecution complex of some kind, it wasnt really very clear what he was actually doing other than shouting at people occasionally. i liked it when he mugged for the bbc news cameras on the way into court though

the battersea park guy i didnt think came under the remit of the program, or, certainly was not a cantankerous old bugger in my view, just someone with an (admiral) agenda, regarding the park. of course, it would probably be 'better' if he just let it go, as he seemed to be in danger of ruining/replacing the memories of the park.

both the 1st and the 3rd seemed to have lived interesting lives, something that is often half-forgotten about pensioners

― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 23 June 2005 08:19 (twenty years ago)

the middle guy seemed remarkably sprightly for 88

― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 23 June 2005 08:20 (twenty years ago)

"Otterspool Prom - this is where the gays gather. Over there, half of them are gays. Round here - a lot of ethnics. I might sell my house to one, annoy the neighbours." 'Funny' thing is, I know one or two people back home on Merseyside with these attitudes and they're 50 years younger than poor Alexander.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Thursday, 23 June 2005 08:29 (twenty years ago)

I thought it was interesting in that all of the people involved fell into a Durkheimian definition of criminality - their lack of integration, through loss of spouse/employment, being the cause of their anti-social behaviour - but on the other hand I found myself becoming increasingly annoyed that this sympathetic view perpetuated the idea that 'real' criminality is the province of the young. Although some have tried to tackle youth crime in a similar way, I imagine that the popular response would not be 'aah, I feel sorry for them, it's just because they've been alienated, brutalised and exposed to the deviancy amplification spiral', but a rather more base 'bloody kids, they should be disciplined' attitude.

― emil.y (emil.y), Thursday, 23 June 2005 10:37 (twenty years ago)

the fear of aging, and the envy of youth, writ large!

― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 23 June 2005 10:40 (twenty years ago)

gas youth

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 10:41 (twenty years ago)

when it started i thought this was going to be hilarious and interesting viewing as it showed OAPS in a way were not used to. but it became pretty obvious how they ended up how they are today and that was pretty fucking sad. that guy who became a bit of a shit-starter when his wife died had all my sympathies. that must be so hard.

― ppp, Thursday, 23 June 2005 10:41 (twenty years ago)

no it's not.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 10:42 (twenty years ago)

how do you know? are you an OAP? i live with my grandma and life is pretty fucking boring when you are 90 and your faculties are on the wane and you cant be bothered with anything anymore and all youre waiting for is your next meal and after that, death.

― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Thursday, 23 June 2005 10:48 (twenty years ago)

Maybe because he's lost a wife.

― Aramyr, Thursday, 23 June 2005 11:02 (twenty years ago)

titchy you can be a fucking moron. perhaps you should think occasionally before entering default argumenative-for-the-sake-of-it mode.

― stelf)xxxx, Thursday, 23 June 2005 11:12 (twenty years ago)

i guess its not just the fear of ageing that makes us feel sorry for 'oap delinquency' but also the lack of physical threat.

― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 23 June 2005 11:14 (twenty years ago)

anyway, i thought this was really sad, although some of them really did make me laugh, especially the bit where jan, the battersea park dude, said "I AM NOT AFRAID TO SHOVE IT UP EM!!!". as michael said upthread, the part when alexander said he was going to sell his house to "one of the ethnics" to annoy the neighbours is pretty typical of oldsters on merseyside and actually far from uncommon in people my age. sad but true.

― stelf)xxxx, Thursday, 23 June 2005 11:17 (twenty years ago)

and dave, you can be a really sanctimonious bastard. someone said it was sad, marcello said it wasnt, i replied to say how it actually is. get over yourself like youre the fucking law around here or something.

― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Thursday, 23 June 2005 11:20 (twenty years ago)

Gareth, there was physical threatening behaviour documented all through the programme. Yes, you could probably beat up a single OAP, but most people would a)not do it, and therefore still have the risk of them hurting you, and b)find this behaviour extremely distressing.

― emil.y (emil.y), Thursday, 23 June 2005 11:21 (twenty years ago)

jan was also the one i liked most and felt least pity for - he had his reasons for what he was doing, all bound up in his past, but actually really enjoyed shocking and causing trouble. he seemed totally amused by his own behaviour and it was pretty much a one-man war against one council official. the dealings i've had with my local council lately have made me think about possibly writing to him to ask for tips.

and x-post: some kind of apology might be in order

― stelf)xxxxx, Thursday, 23 June 2005 11:23 (twenty years ago)

It would have been interesting to hear other peoples views, esp on Alexander - neighbours for instance who could maybe have shed a bit more light on his so called anti-social behaviour.

― Rumpie, Thursday, 23 June 2005 11:25 (twenty years ago)

i wouldnt expect an apology from you dave, its clearly well out of character.

― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Thursday, 23 June 2005 11:27 (twenty years ago)

Gareth, there was physical threatening behaviour documented all through the programme.

well, yes, but, what i mean is, most people are not generally afraid of oaps. while there may have been physically threatening behaviour here, i dont think it has a resonance that would scare or shock people. no one is going to be crossing the street on sight of an oap! with that generalized threat removed, its much easier to feel amusement and/or sympathy (which are the 2 tacks the programme seemed to aim for)

― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 23 June 2005 11:29 (twenty years ago)

Yes, I suppose you're right, but I think that's still a part of the perception of the OAP (restraining myself from using the word ideology, here), rather than a considered assessment of what harm they can do. I mean, most of us could easily physically overpower the kids who shout and threaten us, but that doesn't detract from the fact that people do cross the road to avoid them.

I'm certainly not saying that we should teach ourselves to be frightened of old people, my general point is that what could have been an interesting look into why all kinds of people commit crime, and why some people's crime is considered more shocking/unusual, turned into a pity/laugh-fest.

― emil.y (emil.y), Thursday, 23 June 2005 11:40 (twenty years ago)

titchy you're a twat. if you knew the first thing about my circumstances, which you would do if you could be arsed to look at my blogs or ilx for more than a nanosecond, you wouldn't need to ask me how the fuck do i know.

face it, you don't know me, you don't know about my life, so shut up and stick to talking about grime white labels on dissensus ok?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:03 (twenty years ago)

even if you'd bothered to look at the first thing i posted on this thread you'd realise. learn to read before shooting your mouth off.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:05 (twenty years ago)

perception

i agree entirely! threat is perception, rightly or wrongly

― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:07 (twenty years ago)

what is fairness?

crosspost

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:07 (twenty years ago)

ah, gillanders the smartarse. 30,000 one-word posts on ilx and not one syllable of wisdom or interest in any of them.

*right hander to the jaw*

that fair enough for you?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:09 (twenty years ago)

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:12 (twenty years ago)

tough

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:14 (twenty years ago)

You people. Can't you just learn to love each other a bit more?

― Raston Warrior Robot (alix), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:20 (twenty years ago)

Dunno about "you people" - it's These People who get my goat!

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:21 (twenty years ago)

yes

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:22 (twenty years ago)

poor you, marcello - tied up and forced to look at ilx day in and day out when it bothers you so.

― lauren (laurenp), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:26 (twenty years ago)

you realise it's me tying myself up, no?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:27 (twenty years ago)

yes. although semiliterate, i managed to have that point driven into my thick skull through repetition.

― lauren (laurenp), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:28 (twenty years ago)

well don't make me have to repeat it again. absorb the information and gain consequent wisdom.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:30 (twenty years ago)

I like the arguments. These people amuse me.

― Raston Warrior Robot (alix), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:31 (twenty years ago)

you can scream it until you're blue in the face. i don't need that kind of enlightenment.

xpost

― lauren (laurenp), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:33 (twenty years ago)

What about us Anti Social Young Buggers? we should be allowed onto the television as well.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:33 (twenty years ago)

do you have air con in your office? if so i'm bringing over my laptop.

― lauren (laurenp), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:34 (twenty years ago)

young conservatives already have too much television airtime

(xpost)

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:35 (twenty years ago)

Heck, Stevem, we're still young enough to apply for Big Brother...

(well, you are)

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:36 (twenty years ago)

young conservatives vote. i did not vote.

daerest lauren, amazingly the air con is actually working here this week. i sat outside for lunch though, it's perfect out there. not TOO hot. you might be better off outside in the shade if your laptop is equipped for it.

mark, i would like to see you on that show.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:37 (twenty years ago)

"i did not vote" = voted conservative but frit to admit it

any ilxor going on big brother would be demeaning to the cause

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:39 (twenty years ago)

Um, which cause? Not that I am, just interested like.

I did urge Calum to go for the scottish audition, back whenever...

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:40 (twenty years ago)

ok i know no one is really talking about the programme anymore, but i fell asleep before the end. was it only about those 3 people, or were there more? it seems quite a flimsy premise, if they could only find 3 people? (of which, only 2 fit the title anyway)

― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:41 (twenty years ago)

It was basically "OAPs with ASBO'S"

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:42 (twenty years ago)

I have never voted Conservative. I am confused by Marcello's frequent declaration of me as one. Can anyone shed some light on why this is happening? Without using big fancy words they made up?

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:43 (twenty years ago)

Flimsy premise? Hey it WAS Channel 4...

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:44 (twenty years ago)

he's a twattybumsqueak

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:44 (twenty years ago)

sorry

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:45 (twenty years ago)

you are as well

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:45 (twenty years ago)

don't be like that

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:46 (twenty years ago)

don't try it

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:47 (twenty years ago)

oh i just remembered this one annoying bit. the woman kept asking the liverpool guy how he felt to be the oldest person in britian with an asbo, and he said he felt persecuted or something. but then they faded out to a clock ticking, then back to him again, as he was finishing saying his answer. but then she didnt like his answer so kept asking him, like 3 or 4 times, each time the camera went back to the clock, as if to imply he was banging on relentlessly, but, he wasnt the one going on, it was the interviewer! harrassing him with the same question repeatedly. and even if he had been going on, fading out to the clock was cheap and patronising

― charltonlido (gareth), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:47 (twenty years ago)

yes, that was annoying

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:48 (twenty years ago)

kill all middle class fuckwits

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:49 (twenty years ago)

there was an artiicle a while back in the guardian guide about oaps with asbos. the level of dedication the offenders showed in pursuing their unfortunate neighbours was awe-inspiring.

― lauren (laurenp), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:49 (twenty years ago)

that clock might come in handy on some threads.

― D'erek (blueski), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:50 (twenty years ago)

xpost

Yeah, I kind of thought the whole programme was cheap and patronising, and interesting despite, rather than because of, the directors. I was amazed it wasn't a Ch5 show. The way it was shot, the background music etc etc made it a particularly sneery vacation in other people's misery.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:50 (twenty years ago)

one father and son duo (father over 80, son middle-aged) rigged up an elaborate electronic system to harrass the man next door who was supposedly too noisy.

― lauren (laurenp), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:51 (twenty years ago)

ch4 and ch5 swapped places some time ago

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:51 (twenty years ago)

i thought it was relatively good. cheap and patronising, perhaps a bit but certainly not without merit when you consider that these people have been written about quite a bit in the tabloids: "old yob", "thug pensioner" and stuff like that without a thought as to *why* they were behaving that way. this got underneath the skin of their lives at least a little, talked out their pasts and basically, without saying so much put forward the idea that if they weren't lonely, isolated, without people who really gave shit about them, then they wouldn't be in such a mess. it's pretty obvious but worth thinking about all the same.

and titchy i wasn't for a minute thinking of apologising to you - i was thinking you might do the untinkable and apologise to marcello. i said *nothing* wrong, although, admittedly, i could perhaps have phrased it slightly less confrontationally *if* i'd have wanted to, which i didn't. you *should* think before you jump down people's throats, especially when it's a matter as touchy and raw as the one you've just managed to make erupt. i'm not arguing with you (or anyone else here, not least because no one else deserves it at all), so take the last word if you want it, but you'll still be in the wrong. and while i'm at it, can we all please calm down?

― stelf)xxxx, Thursday, 23 June 2005 12:56 (twenty years ago)

you know, i was feeling really good earlier this week. and then as usual in this fucking place, some stupid cunt has to open their ignorant gob and say the wrong thing which he wouldn't in a million fucking years have the guts to say to my face, 'cos then he wouldn't have a fucking face.

why do i even bother trying to be happy? why do i even bother putting a foot outside my front door when every time this fucking internet happyslapping shit happens?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 13:02 (twenty years ago)

and dave you can forget about me coming to the dissensus bbq, whenever it is. i don't want even to be in the same postal district as this titty shiter cunt.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 23 June 2005 13:04 (twenty years ago)

so someone drops a bollock and isn't man enough to acknowledge it.

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 23 June 2005 13:07 (twenty years ago)

it was your fault, that he said the wrong thing, marcello

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 23 June 2005 13:10 (twenty years ago)

titchy's post was a mis-reading of marcello's post - you can't really have a go at people for making what may seem like an insensitive comment if they do not know about your personal life/situation. this is one of the risks of public msg board bantering/bickering with people you don't know.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 23 June 2005 13:11 (twenty years ago)

i'm gonna go and post stuff about food/maybe do some work that i'm being paid for. what a bloody disastrous thread. apologies to everyone else for the way this has exploded.

― stelf)xxxx, Thursday, 23 June 2005 13:14 (twenty years ago)

not saying this to have 'the last word' - oh how people have egos on this board, but merely to respond to marcello. i dont read your blogs mr carlin, nor do i follow your every post on this board or anywhere else for that matter, i have no vested interest in your life story. i responded to your one line comment up above. your life doesnt matter to me as much as my life doesnt matter to you. and you know nothing about mine, nor do i care whether you do or not so theres no need to be so sensitive and throw a hissy fit. and if you or your bum chum 'always trying to act as if i occupy the higher ground' dave ever want to discuss this in person i would be more than willing. PS - i do not post on dissensus, only ILM.

― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Thursday, 23 June 2005 13:59 (twenty years ago)

righto, so you made a comment reacting to marcello's fairly flippant "no it doesn't" arguing the toss, on the basis of "how do you know?" where in actuality he should know, or fear the worst in the situation.

The right response might have been "OK sorry mate" ...

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 23 June 2005 14:05 (twenty years ago)

but there is no other comment from marcello other than 'gas youth' before the 'no it doesnt comment'. how am i supposed to know what else is on his mind about this issue/programme!? i would gladly apologise, im not above saying sorry, but he and dave been so rude (granted my first reply might have come across a bit angry, i wasnt insinuating marcello to be ignorant about this stuff, but he hardly said anything to the contrary) i cant be bothered at this stage. its pointless.

― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Thursday, 23 June 2005 14:10 (twenty years ago)

Well, the first comment was "That's me in twenty" which I kinda missed the signif of, but understood most of, anyway.

Anyway, your last message clears it up more so. So, over and out.

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 23 June 2005 14:13 (twenty years ago)

oh please. i am not going to arrange a fucking fight over the internet, you spastic. how old are you, 12 or something?!?!

― stelf)xxxxx, Thursday, 23 June 2005 14:13 (twenty years ago)

where did i say a fight? anyway, fuck this, you are an infantile, holier than thou, old boys club-backslapping piece of cunt tissue dave. you and marcello deserve each other, both always feeling sorry for yourselves, both utterly self righteous, always trying to act like youre on holy ground, full of self-pity, trying to act like youve been wronged even when you start shit without any instigation. i cant be arsed.

― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Thursday, 23 June 2005 14:21 (twenty years ago)

i am not full of self-pity. i'm an arrogant bastard. anyway, iapoligise to everyone else here about this. titchy, you were wrong, you owe someone an apology, so either be man enough to make it or stop whining and insulting people.

― stelf)xxxxx, Thursday, 23 June 2005 14:51 (twenty years ago)

do i 'deserve' an apology for being declared a 'young Conservative'? maybe it's not as important.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 23 June 2005 14:52 (twenty years ago)

The important thing is that Steve is not actually a young Conservative. Or a young farmer. Although the two are basically the same thing.

― Raston Warrior Robot (alix), Thursday, 23 June 2005 14:58 (twenty years ago)

when i said can we *all* calm down upthread, it was directed to all of us steve. i couldn't give a toss whether you were or not to be honest, but know that you aren't anyway. i'm trying to be reasonable here and didn't want a massive row, but i do think people being all aggressive an dshit for no reason and wilfully picking fights is a bit stupid, unnecessasry and bound to lead to stuff like this. shame as this board has been pretty placid and nice to use, lately.

― stelf)xxx, Thursday, 23 June 2005 15:01 (twenty years ago)

ill apologise to marcello as i was entirely unaware of his situation until just now, i honestly had no idea (i didnt know the 'becauses hes lost a wife' comment was in reference to marcello) .

so, sorry marcello, if i had known, i wouldnt ever have written what i did up above. i can see why you thought it offensive. genuinely sorry man. i wasnt to know.

----------------------

on an entirely separate note, i still say dearest dave, you can eat a diseased dick you arrogant tosser.

apologies to everyone else for this as well. im sure youve seen worse but its not the best reading really is it now....

― titchyschneider (titchyschneider), Thursday, 23 June 2005 15:03 (twenty years ago)

ok well thank you for the apology. i'll leave it at that.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Friday, 24 June 2005 05:24 (twenty years ago)

you spastic

*right hander to the jaw*

― c/n (Cozen), Friday, 24 June 2005 05:54 (twenty years ago)

i'm happy to accept titchy's apology.

you, however, howie, are just an apology.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Friday, 24 June 2005 05:56 (twenty years ago)

just a bit of fun let's all be cool.

― c/n (Cozen), Friday, 24 June 2005 05:59 (twenty years ago)

goodbye howie.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Friday, 24 June 2005 06:03 (twenty years ago)

carlin, carlin, carlin

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 24 June 2005 09:26 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.