Some things never change huh? LMFAO and I encourage you all to point at Tories, laugh very loudly at them everywhere you see them, ridicule them, alienate them from the rest of decent and forward thinking society. They are vermin.
Messrs Fry and Laurie have caught their characteristics and pathetic throwback politics superbly in this sketch. Well played lads ;-) ...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Two obscenely rich "progressives"...or,as the Brits would say "proud members of "Militant Tendency".....who simply won't acknowledge who made their weath possible in the first place....Margaret Thatcher.
@adi87tya lol conservatives are a lot alike everywhere, all tradition worshiping culture fanatics, "we dun like change.. change is baad" programmed idiots, whether they are in the U.S UK or in Saudi Arabia it wouldn't surprise me one bit how much they have incommon, we should just ship them all together to the right hemisphere of the earth and get over with.
@adi87tya Nope, over here they're also regarded as moneyhungry toffs who will bang on about traditions and values to whip up an army of affluent middle-class supporters so that they can manipulate the British political system into giving them and their elite friends what they want - an entirely privatised society in which the businessman can abuse anything and anyone he wants with all the freedom he could ever ask for in order to line his own pockets with the people's money.
I think it's not that conservatives are too dumb and inarticulate to be capable of making a political statement, no. It's that what they call for and support is so fundamentally corrupt and unacceptably immoral, that they can't come forth and say it, so they purposely confuse you with all the traditions and cultural utter hokum, if only you were as dull as their followers to believe them.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
they formed the common law, which is the only type of law that has resisted dictatorship continuously since it's conception. the world is not as you believe it to be. britian mattered, and it's values still matter.
And yet the majority of the world maintains the use of civil law instead of common law. I am not disputing that Britain has mattered throughout history (for one would need to be truly ignorant to make any attempt to argue such a thing), but I am disputing that British values would in any way be inherently better than any other values.
you seem to have missed my point: common law, and by defauly british values, is the only type of law which has consitently countered and resisted dictatorship. and i dispute that the majority of the world maintaints civil law. europe maybe, but Canada, the USA, New Zeeland, Australia, South Africa, India and pretty much every other former uk colony, as well as most of the emirates, have common law. large parts of the world have no law, and china has dictatorial law, but common still trumps civil
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And if that is indeed your point, then your point seems to have nothing to do with what I was originally saying. Also, large parts of the world have no law? Point me to ONE country that has no law. Also, China operates under civil law.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
it has everything to do with what you were saying, since you asked why british values were better than other values, the answer to which is that british values allowed the common law to develop, and that common law is the ONLY type of law thas has consitently resisted dictatorship. your reletavism is dangerous and misguided. somalia. you would claim arbitrary warlordism is law? and china, while under chaing certianly had some civil law, is now run almost entirely by socialist (dictatorial) law.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Last I checked, Somalia was not "large parts of the world". And if I'm not mistaken, common law was developed during the reign of Henry II. Was he not a dictator? And I would say that civil law is preferable to common law in a democracy is because with a democratic system of civil law, the ones making the law are the democratically elected representatives of the people, as opposed to judges who set precedents. Also, I disagree that relativism is dangerous. It is the basis of democracy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
of course you agree with relativism, your type always do, and you will cling to it till there is no west left. mhali. there is no law, merely warlordism. i will not waste my time listing the nations that are lawless. henry II was a monarch. this is different from a dictator. please have a constitutional history lesson. civil law was developed from roaman law, and has been bent to the will of dictators since the dawn of time (napoleon, hitler, mussulini, lenin, even as far back a ceaser)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sure, if you want to split hairs, I suppose a monarch is different from a dictator. Not much though, since they both do the same thing in principle. And I'm not saying civil law is perfect, I'm just saying I find it preferable to common law. Also, I fail to see how a common law system would have prevented, for example, Hitler's rise to power.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
under a common law system, hitler would have been tried according to the precednets set down in previous common law cases of treachery against a govenment in 1928 after the putsche, and probably would have been hung. but as the case was civil law, precedents mattered not, only whether or not something went along with the exact letter of the law. which of course, hitler had little trouble circumnavigating with clever wording. it's always the way with civil law. bet you can't geuss what i study.
"the young and hip-trendy", is a phrase I feel should from now on be used in national newspapers in place of "hoodies"...no reason I just think it's funnier
@VinewoodSniper I couldn't believe it when I saw that the Tina Fey/Amy Poehler version wasn't even a parody. It was just a transcript. Hilarious and perfect.
that look of intense distaste on hugh's face when the sketch starts. smiling through a grimace, perfect
abadger3000 5 days ago
i love how high pitched he say "conference" at 1:39 hahaha
dougpryce92 1 month ago
@listerone No. Their talent made their "weath" possible.
koratvinnie 1 year ago 3
Some things never change huh? LMFAO and I encourage you all to point at Tories, laugh very loudly at them everywhere you see them, ridicule them, alienate them from the rest of decent and forward thinking society. They are vermin.
Messrs Fry and Laurie have caught their characteristics and pathetic throwback politics superbly in this sketch. Well played lads ;-) ...
upstatelugh 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Two obscenely rich "progressives"...or,as the Brits would say "proud members of "Militant Tendency".....who simply won't acknowledge who made their weath possible in the first place....Margaret Thatcher.
listerone 1 year ago
Didn't realize conservatives were the same in Britain as they are down here in the US! And this was a while ago...lol.
adi87tya 1 year ago
@adi87tya lol conservatives are a lot alike everywhere, all tradition worshiping culture fanatics, "we dun like change.. change is baad" programmed idiots, whether they are in the U.S UK or in Saudi Arabia it wouldn't surprise me one bit how much they have incommon, we should just ship them all together to the right hemisphere of the earth and get over with.
b00017898 1 year ago
@adi87tya Nope, over here they're also regarded as moneyhungry toffs who will bang on about traditions and values to whip up an army of affluent middle-class supporters so that they can manipulate the British political system into giving them and their elite friends what they want - an entirely privatised society in which the businessman can abuse anything and anyone he wants with all the freedom he could ever ask for in order to line his own pockets with the people's money.
451harri 11 months ago
I think it's not that conservatives are too dumb and inarticulate to be capable of making a political statement, no. It's that what they call for and support is so fundamentally corrupt and unacceptably immoral, that they can't come forth and say it, so they purposely confuse you with all the traditions and cultural utter hokum, if only you were as dull as their followers to believe them.
Just8eatit 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
adi87tya 1 year ago
A tory John Prescott.
Boratlon 1 year ago
Hugh Laurie and Stephen fry <3 <3
runeesca899 1 year ago
holy shit its david cameron
Emcr 1 year ago 9
This guy won the elections, didn't he ?
sadkiedis 1 year ago 5
At least he has good musical tastes.
CornedBeef2000 1 year ago
The young and hip-trendy :L
Frequency95 1 year ago
And absolutely nothing has changed.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago 4
"we're returning you to the shop where we bought you."
happeningfish77 2 years ago
Confrence!
joethehero2 2 years ago
Lol "The lights are going down behind us, as you can probably HEAR." :D
ytimynona 2 years ago 7
General Ignorance!
eragon841 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't understand how you can mock the tories, they have good, decent hearted true British values!
scaifeoyd 2 years ago
Why are British values so much better than other values?
Guzzen1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
they formed the common law, which is the only type of law that has resisted dictatorship continuously since it's conception. the world is not as you believe it to be. britian mattered, and it's values still matter.
jinkedful 2 years ago
And yet the majority of the world maintains the use of civil law instead of common law. I am not disputing that Britain has mattered throughout history (for one would need to be truly ignorant to make any attempt to argue such a thing), but I am disputing that British values would in any way be inherently better than any other values.
Guzzen1 2 years ago
you seem to have missed my point: common law, and by defauly british values, is the only type of law which has consitently countered and resisted dictatorship. and i dispute that the majority of the world maintaints civil law. europe maybe, but Canada, the USA, New Zeeland, Australia, South Africa, India and pretty much every other former uk colony, as well as most of the emirates, have common law. large parts of the world have no law, and china has dictatorial law, but common still trumps civil
jinkedful 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And if that is indeed your point, then your point seems to have nothing to do with what I was originally saying. Also, large parts of the world have no law? Point me to ONE country that has no law. Also, China operates under civil law.
Guzzen1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
it has everything to do with what you were saying, since you asked why british values were better than other values, the answer to which is that british values allowed the common law to develop, and that common law is the ONLY type of law thas has consitently resisted dictatorship. your reletavism is dangerous and misguided. somalia. you would claim arbitrary warlordism is law? and china, while under chaing certianly had some civil law, is now run almost entirely by socialist (dictatorial) law.
jinkedful 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Last I checked, Somalia was not "large parts of the world". And if I'm not mistaken, common law was developed during the reign of Henry II. Was he not a dictator? And I would say that civil law is preferable to common law in a democracy is because with a democratic system of civil law, the ones making the law are the democratically elected representatives of the people, as opposed to judges who set precedents. Also, I disagree that relativism is dangerous. It is the basis of democracy.
Guzzen1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
of course you agree with relativism, your type always do, and you will cling to it till there is no west left. mhali. there is no law, merely warlordism. i will not waste my time listing the nations that are lawless. henry II was a monarch. this is different from a dictator. please have a constitutional history lesson. civil law was developed from roaman law, and has been bent to the will of dictators since the dawn of time (napoleon, hitler, mussulini, lenin, even as far back a ceaser)
jinkedful 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sure, if you want to split hairs, I suppose a monarch is different from a dictator. Not much though, since they both do the same thing in principle. And I'm not saying civil law is perfect, I'm just saying I find it preferable to common law. Also, I fail to see how a common law system would have prevented, for example, Hitler's rise to power.
Guzzen1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
under a common law system, hitler would have been tried according to the precednets set down in previous common law cases of treachery against a govenment in 1928 after the putsche, and probably would have been hung. but as the case was civil law, precedents mattered not, only whether or not something went along with the exact letter of the law. which of course, hitler had little trouble circumnavigating with clever wording. it's always the way with civil law. bet you can't geuss what i study.
jinkedful 2 years ago
@Guzzen1 i think you missed the point of the sketch hahaha
lynottlives 11 months ago
"Well, the lights are going down behind us as you can probably hear"
Love it!
mistahimaskwa 2 years ago 7
They weaved it into many sketch, these babble about STANDARDS, DECENCY, VALUES kicking the Tories' bottoms more or less discreetly.
Hugh's face is a bite of bliss. He looks like he's about to vomit.
"I thought at one point he was going to say something which made sense..."
"He just avoided it.... completely suck dry of youth, energy, ideals, imagination, love passion or intelligence."
"While the audience throws quietly up"
Favourite part of this, they're letting out all their loathe, really
ImeldaLumos 2 years ago 12
lol I go to Exeter! This protrayal is frighteningly accurate...
JohnJFentiman 3 years ago 9
"the young and hip-trendy", is a phrase I feel should from now on be used in national newspapers in place of "hoodies"...no reason I just think it's funnier
weirdloopyloo 3 years ago 23
that music is jupiter from holst's the planets
neonom1024 3 years ago 5
Family values...lol, never get tired of hearing that one.
MisterTomorrow 3 years ago 2
That speech reminds me of Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric. XD
VinewoodSniper 3 years ago 52
@VinewoodSniper I couldn't believe it when I saw that the Tina Fey/Amy Poehler version wasn't even a parody. It was just a transcript. Hilarious and perfect.
damechastain 1 year ago
@VinewoodSniper Except Sarah Palin was comedy and this is real. Oh wait...
GuschtlD 9 months ago 4
the correct short for "a bit of Fry and Laurie" is ABOFAL what is with a bit imagination above all. coincidence I don't think so :)
fryfan20 3 years ago
oooo
hughlover15 3 years ago
70s? no. Just eighties and early nineties.
ClassicShowbiz 3 years ago
A bit of Fry and Laurie - it's the name of TV series Hugh Laurie (of recent House MD fame) and Stephen Fry did in UK in, I think, 70s-80s.
It has a lot of masterfuly done sketches - both guys were (and are) true, top-class actors and it shows even when they are essentialy fooling around!
godfric 3 years ago 4
@godfric
Only 10 years out. They did this after doing Blackadder (1985-89) and about the same time as doing Jeeves and Wooster for ITV.
This image of Tories was closer to the Harry Enfield sketch series "Tory Boy", rather than the image of Alan B'Stard in 1987-1991.
anonUK 1 year ago
@godfric It was the 90s mate
Lisle2nd 8 months ago 2
whats abofl
hughlover15 3 years ago