Talk:Private Eye/Archive1

How do I
How do I mark as a 'STUB'? Someone who has greater ability & knowledge than me please feel free ... RojerB-KtF! 13:19, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks Thunderkatz

RojerB-KtF! 13:43, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
 * It's pretty simple. You just type in  .  ThunderkatzHo! 13:45, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

There's a cartoon (god touching adam's finger /Sistine ceiling) with speech bubbles.

Adam: "Do you think what you've made is any good?"

god: "Look, I've only been in the job for five days"

Issue 1189 20 July 2007

RojerB-KtF! 18:04, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

BIBLE NOT OBSCENE
See '[Private Eye]' 1189 20 July 2007 - Funny old World [http://www.tela.gov.hk/english/press20070517.htm Hong Kong COPY STARTS: Press Releases The Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority] (TELA) today (May 17) issued the following statement regarding complaints against the contents of the Bible by some members of the public: "The Bible is a religious text which is part of civilisation. It has been passed on from generation to generation. TELA considers that such longstanding religious texts or literature have not violated standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable members of the community. Therefore, TELA will not submit the Bible to the Obscene Articles Tribunal for classification." Ends/Thursday, May 17, 2007 COPY ENDS Someone ought to tell cp about the 'Good News' RojerB-KtF! 17:13, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Made a bo***cks of copying that from my talk page!

RojerB-KtF! 18:25, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Dawkins
There's a nice piss-take of Dawkins in today's (30th Aug 07) issue Susan Jayne Garlick  talk  19:55, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Whereas Richard Dawkins can grate a bit and say some things that are pretty bloody stupid (who hasn't?), I suspect the Dawkins-bashing in Private Eye stems from Ian Hislop being a member of the Church of England, annoyed that Dawkins won't acknowledge his imaginary friend.Ibiwisi666 (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

removed quote

 * In February 2010, Hislop commissioned a report into the Eye's coverage from their medical writer, "M.D.". It concluded that although the magazine was right to cover the scare when it first broke, it was far too blinkered when it came to accepting that there was no truth in the story.((fact))

This is the only place I've ever heard of this. Removing pending citation - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely someone here has a backissue they can look it up in? Or perhaps a library stocks them?  I'd help but most of their website is subscriber-only.  12:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * http://drphilhammond.com/blog/2010/02/18/private-eye/dr-phil’s-private-eye-column-issue-1256-february-17-2010/ 12:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)