FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Meanwhile… over at GBeebies…
Meanwhile… over at GBeebies…
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. " Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky." Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are! | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are!" The only viewers they get are the ones complaining, how ironic. | |||
| |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. " People still watch this nonsense? | |||
"People still watch this nonsense?" According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel." Indeed. Although are there many other channels of this "sort"? I'd argue not, and that all the people who are interested in this kind of alt right, misogynistic, conspiracy theory content don't have much else to choose from in terms of TV stations. | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel." Not sure about those numbers, I’ve seen Farage’s show reported as typically getting between 70-80k - by far the channel’s biggest draw. They have a weekly reach on TV of around 320k. Where they do better compared to talkradio and other small stations, is on social media. | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. Indeed. Although are there many other channels of this "sort"? I'd argue not, and that all the people who are interested in this kind of alt right, misogynistic, conspiracy theory content don't have much else to choose from in terms of TV stations. " Have you watched the show? | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. Indeed. Although are there many other channels of this "sort"? I'd argue not, and that all the people who are interested in this kind of alt right, misogynistic, conspiracy theory content don't have much else to choose from in terms of TV stations. Have you watched the show?" The show where Lawrence Fox said of Ava Evans "Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman ever, ever, who wasn’t an incel, we don’t need those sorts of feminist 4.0. They’re pathetic and embarrassing, Who’d want to shag that?”? And why are you asking me what seems to be a completely unrelated question? | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. Indeed. Although are there many other channels of this "sort"? I'd argue not, and that all the people who are interested in this kind of alt right, misogynistic, conspiracy theory content don't have much else to choose from in terms of TV stations. Have you watched the show? The show where Lawrence Fox said of Ava Evans "Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman ever, ever, who wasn’t an incel, we don’t need those sorts of feminist 4.0. They’re pathetic and embarrassing, Who’d want to shag that?”? And why are you asking me what seems to be a completely unrelated question?" You often find my questions hard to answer or you ask why they are unrelated to what you said, so let me spell my question out, in reference to your post. You gave an opinion on Farage's show in reply to Mr D's statement, and then went onto say you would think that most people who are interested in the alt right blah blah blah show. Wouldn't have much else to watch. I simply asked if you had watched the show, I think that is a perfectly reasonable question to someone with such open views. Have you watched any show on GB news? | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. Indeed. Although are there many other channels of this "sort"? I'd argue not, and that all the people who are interested in this kind of alt right, misogynistic, conspiracy theory content don't have much else to choose from in terms of TV stations. Have you watched the show? The show where Lawrence Fox said of Ava Evans "Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman ever, ever, who wasn’t an incel, we don’t need those sorts of feminist 4.0. They’re pathetic and embarrassing, Who’d want to shag that?”? And why are you asking me what seems to be a completely unrelated question? You often find my questions hard to answer or you ask why they are unrelated to what you said, so let me spell my question out, in reference to your post. You gave an opinion on Farage's show in reply to Mr D's statement, and then went onto say you would think that most people who are interested in the alt right blah blah blah show. Wouldn't have much else to watch. I simply asked if you had watched the show, I think that is a perfectly reasonable question to someone with such open views. Have you watched any show on GB news? " Ah I see. We were discussing the channel as a whole, not that specific show. I haven't watched a full show, as I don't want to give them any and revenue or viewing figures, and I am not interested in their misogynistic, conspiracy theory output. Why does me watching, or not watching that channel impact the content of their output? You are right. I often don't understand why you ask the questions you do. | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. Indeed. Although are there many other channels of this "sort"? I'd argue not, and that all the people who are interested in this kind of alt right, misogynistic, conspiracy theory content don't have much else to choose from in terms of TV stations. Have you watched the show? The show where Lawrence Fox said of Ava Evans "Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman ever, ever, who wasn’t an incel, we don’t need those sorts of feminist 4.0. They’re pathetic and embarrassing, Who’d want to shag that?”? And why are you asking me what seems to be a completely unrelated question? You often find my questions hard to answer or you ask why they are unrelated to what you said, so let me spell my question out, in reference to your post. You gave an opinion on Farage's show in reply to Mr D's statement, and then went onto say you would think that most people who are interested in the alt right blah blah blah show. Wouldn't have much else to watch. I simply asked if you had watched the show, I think that is a perfectly reasonable question to someone with such open views. Have you watched any show on GB news? Ah I see. We were discussing the channel as a whole, not that specific show. I haven't watched a full show, as I don't want to give them any and revenue or viewing figures, and I am not interested in their misogynistic, conspiracy theory output. Why does me watching, or not watching that channel impact the content of their output? You are right. I often don't understand why you ask the questions you do. " ...ask. | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel." He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. Indeed. Although are there many other channels of this "sort"? I'd argue not, and that all the people who are interested in this kind of alt right, misogynistic, conspiracy theory content don't have much else to choose from in terms of TV stations. Have you watched the show? The show where Lawrence Fox said of Ava Evans "Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman ever, ever, who wasn’t an incel, we don’t need those sorts of feminist 4.0. They’re pathetic and embarrassing, Who’d want to shag that?”? And why are you asking me what seems to be a completely unrelated question? You often find my questions hard to answer or you ask why they are unrelated to what you said, so let me spell my question out, in reference to your post. You gave an opinion on Farage's show in reply to Mr D's statement, and then went onto say you would think that most people who are interested in the alt right blah blah blah show. Wouldn't have much else to watch. I simply asked if you had watched the show, I think that is a perfectly reasonable question to someone with such open views. Have you watched any show on GB news? Ah I see. We were discussing the channel as a whole, not that specific show. I haven't watched a full show, as I don't want to give them any and revenue or viewing figures, and I am not interested in their misogynistic, conspiracy theory output. Why does me watching, or not watching that channel impact the content of their output? You are right. I often don't understand why you ask the questions you do. " You have strong opinions and I wanted to understand how you’ve formed those opinions. I haven’t watched any show, I’m not sure what platform it is on, if I’m honest. The outcome of me never watching it, means I have no strong opinions, if I watch it and I form an opinion from that I would be happy to have a strong opinion. I have an opinion on Fox’s language, because that is as been reported verbatim | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion " Does Farage cut off people he doesn’t agree with like he used to on his LBC show? | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. Indeed. Although are there many other channels of this "sort"? I'd argue not, and that all the people who are interested in this kind of alt right, misogynistic, conspiracy theory content don't have much else to choose from in terms of TV stations. Have you watched the show? The show where Lawrence Fox said of Ava Evans "Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman ever, ever, who wasn’t an incel, we don’t need those sorts of feminist 4.0. They’re pathetic and embarrassing, Who’d want to shag that?”? And why are you asking me what seems to be a completely unrelated question? You often find my questions hard to answer or you ask why they are unrelated to what you said, so let me spell my question out, in reference to your post. You gave an opinion on Farage's show in reply to Mr D's statement, and then went onto say you would think that most people who are interested in the alt right blah blah blah show. Wouldn't have much else to watch. I simply asked if you had watched the show, I think that is a perfectly reasonable question to someone with such open views. Have you watched any show on GB news? Ah I see. We were discussing the channel as a whole, not that specific show. I haven't watched a full show, as I don't want to give them any and revenue or viewing figures, and I am not interested in their misogynistic, conspiracy theory output. Why does me watching, or not watching that channel impact the content of their output? You are right. I often don't understand why you ask the questions you do. You have strong opinions and I wanted to understand how you’ve formed those opinions. " Not really, I don't have strong opinions on the facts of the channel. " I haven’t watched any show, I’m not sure what platform it is on, if I’m honest. The outcome of me never watching it, means I have no strong opinions, if I watch it and I form an opinion from that I would be happy to have a strong opinion. I have an opinion on Fox’s language, because that is as been reported verbatim " There you go, you don't need to have watched the channel to know some of the things they broadcast. | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion " I do like a good Mogg debate, he is a very good debater and I think it would be hard to to argue against that, his views yes but not his debating skills | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion " The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit." How do you know that? | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that?" The BBC are traditionally very good at giving equal weight to both sides regardless of evidence. Sometimes balance is the wrong approach. | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. Indeed. Although are there many other channels of this "sort"? I'd argue not, and that all the people who are interested in this kind of alt right, misogynistic, conspiracy theory content don't have much else to choose from in terms of TV stations. Have you watched the show? The show where Lawrence Fox said of Ava Evans "Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman ever, ever, who wasn’t an incel, we don’t need those sorts of feminist 4.0. They’re pathetic and embarrassing, Who’d want to shag that?”? And why are you asking me what seems to be a completely unrelated question? You often find my questions hard to answer or you ask why they are unrelated to what you said, so let me spell my question out, in reference to your post. You gave an opinion on Farage's show in reply to Mr D's statement, and then went onto say you would think that most people who are interested in the alt right blah blah blah show. Wouldn't have much else to watch. I simply asked if you had watched the show, I think that is a perfectly reasonable question to someone with such open views. Have you watched any show on GB news? Ah I see. We were discussing the channel as a whole, not that specific show. I haven't watched a full show, as I don't want to give them any and revenue or viewing figures, and I am not interested in their misogynistic, conspiracy theory output. Why does me watching, or not watching that channel impact the content of their output? You are right. I often don't understand why you ask the questions you do. You have strong opinions and I wanted to understand how you’ve formed those opinions. Not really, I don't have strong opinions on the facts of the channel. I haven’t watched any show, I’m not sure what platform it is on, if I’m honest. The outcome of me never watching it, means I have no strong opinions, if I watch it and I form an opinion from that I would be happy to have a strong opinion. I have an opinion on Fox’s language, because that is as been reported verbatim There you go, you don't need to have watched the channel to know some of the things they broadcast. " My opinion is not of the channel or the show, it is of Fox and what he said, the channel have suspended him and apologised. I think that is a fair response | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that?" Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese? | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. Indeed. Although are there many other channels of this "sort"? I'd argue not, and that all the people who are interested in this kind of alt right, misogynistic, conspiracy theory content don't have much else to choose from in terms of TV stations. Have you watched the show? The show where Lawrence Fox said of Ava Evans "Show me a single self-respecting man that would like to climb into bed with that woman ever, ever, who wasn’t an incel, we don’t need those sorts of feminist 4.0. They’re pathetic and embarrassing, Who’d want to shag that?”? And why are you asking me what seems to be a completely unrelated question? You often find my questions hard to answer or you ask why they are unrelated to what you said, so let me spell my question out, in reference to your post. You gave an opinion on Farage's show in reply to Mr D's statement, and then went onto say you would think that most people who are interested in the alt right blah blah blah show. Wouldn't have much else to watch. I simply asked if you had watched the show, I think that is a perfectly reasonable question to someone with such open views. Have you watched any show on GB news? Ah I see. We were discussing the channel as a whole, not that specific show. I haven't watched a full show, as I don't want to give them any and revenue or viewing figures, and I am not interested in their misogynistic, conspiracy theory output. Why does me watching, or not watching that channel impact the content of their output? You are right. I often don't understand why you ask the questions you do. You have strong opinions and I wanted to understand how you’ve formed those opinions. Not really, I don't have strong opinions on the facts of the channel. I haven’t watched any show, I’m not sure what platform it is on, if I’m honest. The outcome of me never watching it, means I have no strong opinions, if I watch it and I form an opinion from that I would be happy to have a strong opinion. I have an opinion on Fox’s language, because that is as been reported verbatim There you go, you don't need to have watched the channel to know some of the things they broadcast. My opinion is not of the channel or the show, it is of Fox and what he said, the channel have suspended him and apologised. I think that is a fair response "  | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion Does Farage cut off people he doesn’t agree with like he used to on his LBC show?" No, not seen that happen at all. They are often in the studio with him but sometimes via a link. He often gives those whose opinion he does not share the last word too as does Mogg | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that? Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese?" Here is the problem, if you don’t give people who have an opposing view the time to air their views, you are by nature of that decision closing down opposition to the narrative you agree with. 50- 60 years ago, if I had challenged the use of plastics and insecticides as damaging the planet, I would never have been given the air time, because science had a breakthrough in plastics and manufacturing, making bold promises of lighter, easier to use and store products. Move forward not so many years and we now have plastic bags floating in the oceans of the world, plastics being digested by animals and oil being used to produce a product that simply doesn’t decay. Ideas need challenging, some challenges are wild, you know that and you have a level of understanding to pick apart those arguments that are nonsense. What we don’t have is the knowledge or education that allows us to say 100% of the time someone is talking nonsense. | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that? Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese? Here is the problem, if you don’t give people who have an opposing view the time to air their views, you are by nature of that decision closing down opposition to the narrative you agree with. 50- 60 years ago, if I had challenged the use of plastics and insecticides as damaging the planet, I would never have been given the air time, because science had a breakthrough in plastics and manufacturing, making bold promises of lighter, easier to use and store products. Move forward not so many years and we now have plastic bags floating in the oceans of the world, plastics being digested by animals and oil being used to produce a product that simply doesn’t decay. Ideas need challenging, some challenges are wild, you know that and you have a level of understanding to pick apart those arguments that are nonsense. What we don’t have is the knowledge or education that allows us to say 100% of the time someone is talking nonsense." It’s absolutely right that ideas are challenged where necessary but that doesn’t mean presenting both sides as equal on all topics. | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that? Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese? Here is the problem, if you don’t give people who have an opposing view the time to air their views, you are by nature of that decision closing down opposition to the narrative you agree with. 50- 60 years ago, if I had challenged the use of plastics and insecticides as damaging the planet, I would never have been given the air time, because science had a breakthrough in plastics and manufacturing, making bold promises of lighter, easier to use and store products. Move forward not so many years and we now have plastic bags floating in the oceans of the world, plastics being digested by animals and oil being used to produce a product that simply doesn’t decay. Ideas need challenging, some challenges are wild, you know that and you have a level of understanding to pick apart those arguments that are nonsense. What we don’t have is the knowledge or education that allows us to say 100% of the time someone is talking nonsense. It’s absolutely right that ideas are challenged where necessary but that doesn’t mean presenting both sides as equal on all topics. " Who decides the percentage? | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that? Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese? Here is the problem, if you don’t give people who have an opposing view the time to air their views, you are by nature of that decision closing down opposition to the narrative you agree with. " It's not about who someone disagrees with. It's when someone presents a view that disagrees with reality. Such as climate science isn't real, Covid isn't real (or whatever the latest conspiracy is). " 50- 60 years ago, if I had challenged the use of plastics and insecticides as damaging the planet, I would never have been given the air time, because science had a breakthrough in plastics and manufacturing, making bold promises of lighter, easier to use and store products. Move forward not so many years and we now have plastic bags floating in the oceans of the world, plastics being digested by animals and oil being used to produce a product that simply doesn’t decay. " In this example, would your ideas be based on science and reality? That's the key, it's not if the idea is counter to something else, it's if the new ideas have merit and evidence behind them. " Ideas need challenging, some challenges are wild, you know that and you have a level of understanding to pick apart those arguments that are nonsense. What we don’t have is the knowledge or education that allows us to say 100% of the time someone is talking nonsense." The new ideas have to be backed up by something, and if they're not, and just wild baseless conspiracies, then in my opinion, they shouldn't be given equal footing or airtime as real actual peer reviewed science. It can be extremely damaging, just look at the number of people not sure what's going on with climate change. A lot of that comes from places that give airtime to science deniers. | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that? Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese? Here is the problem, if you don’t give people who have an opposing view the time to air their views, you are by nature of that decision closing down opposition to the narrative you agree with. 50- 60 years ago, if I had challenged the use of plastics and insecticides as damaging the planet, I would never have been given the air time, because science had a breakthrough in plastics and manufacturing, making bold promises of lighter, easier to use and store products. Move forward not so many years and we now have plastic bags floating in the oceans of the world, plastics being digested by animals and oil being used to produce a product that simply doesn’t decay. Ideas need challenging, some challenges are wild, you know that and you have a level of understanding to pick apart those arguments that are nonsense. What we don’t have is the knowledge or education that allows us to say 100% of the time someone is talking nonsense. It’s absolutely right that ideas are challenged where necessary but that doesn’t mean presenting both sides as equal on all topics. Who decides the percentage?" What about it's based on evidence and science? IE zero % of scientists think the moon is made of cheese. So moon cheesers get 0% Climate change denying scientists are approx 1%. So they get 1% of the airtime. | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that? Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese? Here is the problem, if you don’t give people who have an opposing view the time to air their views, you are by nature of that decision closing down opposition to the narrative you agree with. It's not about who someone disagrees with. It's when someone presents a view that disagrees with reality. Such as climate science isn't real, Covid isn't real (or whatever the latest conspiracy is). 50- 60 years ago, if I had challenged the use of plastics and insecticides as damaging the planet, I would never have been given the air time, because science had a breakthrough in plastics and manufacturing, making bold promises of lighter, easier to use and store products. Move forward not so many years and we now have plastic bags floating in the oceans of the world, plastics being digested by animals and oil being used to produce a product that simply doesn’t decay. In this example, would your ideas be based on science and reality? That's the key, it's not if the idea is counter to something else, it's if the new ideas have merit and evidence behind them. Ideas need challenging, some challenges are wild, you know that and you have a level of understanding to pick apart those arguments that are nonsense. What we don’t have is the knowledge or education that allows us to say 100% of the time someone is talking nonsense. The new ideas have to be backed up by something, and if they're not, and just wild baseless conspiracies, then in my opinion, they shouldn't be given equal footing or airtime as real actual peer reviewed science. It can be extremely damaging, just look at the number of people not sure what's going on with climate change. A lot of that comes from places that give airtime to science deniers. " You know that neither of us have watched a single show on GB news but you have formed an aggressive opinion on the time they allow for alternative views per subject and show. You believe x I believe y, this is not a reason to close down y. We are not talking out there theories, they won’t get air time will they? You or I can’t say for sure if that is the case on the channel, because we haven’t watched it | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that? Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese? Here is the problem, if you don’t give people who have an opposing view the time to air their views, you are by nature of that decision closing down opposition to the narrative you agree with. 50- 60 years ago, if I had challenged the use of plastics and insecticides as damaging the planet, I would never have been given the air time, because science had a breakthrough in plastics and manufacturing, making bold promises of lighter, easier to use and store products. Move forward not so many years and we now have plastic bags floating in the oceans of the world, plastics being digested by animals and oil being used to produce a product that simply doesn’t decay. Ideas need challenging, some challenges are wild, you know that and you have a level of understanding to pick apart those arguments that are nonsense. What we don’t have is the knowledge or education that allows us to say 100% of the time someone is talking nonsense. It’s absolutely right that ideas are challenged where necessary but that doesn’t mean presenting both sides as equal on all topics. Who decides the percentage? What about it's based on evidence and science? IE zero % of scientists think the moon is made of cheese. So moon cheesers get 0% Climate change denying scientists are approx 1%. So they get 1% of the airtime." Outliers don’t get air time | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that? Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese? Here is the problem, if you don’t give people who have an opposing view the time to air their views, you are by nature of that decision closing down opposition to the narrative you agree with. It's not about who someone disagrees with. It's when someone presents a view that disagrees with reality. Such as climate science isn't real, Covid isn't real (or whatever the latest conspiracy is). 50- 60 years ago, if I had challenged the use of plastics and insecticides as damaging the planet, I would never have been given the air time, because science had a breakthrough in plastics and manufacturing, making bold promises of lighter, easier to use and store products. Move forward not so many years and we now have plastic bags floating in the oceans of the world, plastics being digested by animals and oil being used to produce a product that simply doesn’t decay. In this example, would your ideas be based on science and reality? That's the key, it's not if the idea is counter to something else, it's if the new ideas have merit and evidence behind them. Ideas need challenging, some challenges are wild, you know that and you have a level of understanding to pick apart those arguments that are nonsense. What we don’t have is the knowledge or education that allows us to say 100% of the time someone is talking nonsense. The new ideas have to be backed up by something, and if they're not, and just wild baseless conspiracies, then in my opinion, they shouldn't be given equal footing or airtime as real actual peer reviewed science. It can be extremely damaging, just look at the number of people not sure what's going on with climate change. A lot of that comes from places that give airtime to science deniers. You know that neither of us have watched a single show on GB news but you have formed an aggressive opinion on the time they allow for alternative views per subject and show. " I haven't. I responded to the other chap who said he likes them giving "all sides". " You believe x I believe y, this is not a reason to close down y. We are not talking out there theories, they won’t get air time will they? You or I can’t say for sure if that is the case on the channel, because we haven’t watched it" I'm not talking about people who "believe" X or Y. I'm talking about what's known, IE climate science. And what's bullshit, climate denying rhetoric. We may not have watched the channel but we're both aware they give airtime to misogynists, conspiracy theories, and other such crap. | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that? Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese? Here is the problem, if you don’t give people who have an opposing view the time to air their views, you are by nature of that decision closing down opposition to the narrative you agree with. It's not about who someone disagrees with. It's when someone presents a view that disagrees with reality. Such as climate science isn't real, Covid isn't real (or whatever the latest conspiracy is). 50- 60 years ago, if I had challenged the use of plastics and insecticides as damaging the planet, I would never have been given the air time, because science had a breakthrough in plastics and manufacturing, making bold promises of lighter, easier to use and store products. Move forward not so many years and we now have plastic bags floating in the oceans of the world, plastics being digested by animals and oil being used to produce a product that simply doesn’t decay. In this example, would your ideas be based on science and reality? That's the key, it's not if the idea is counter to something else, it's if the new ideas have merit and evidence behind them. Ideas need challenging, some challenges are wild, you know that and you have a level of understanding to pick apart those arguments that are nonsense. What we don’t have is the knowledge or education that allows us to say 100% of the time someone is talking nonsense. The new ideas have to be backed up by something, and if they're not, and just wild baseless conspiracies, then in my opinion, they shouldn't be given equal footing or airtime as real actual peer reviewed science. It can be extremely damaging, just look at the number of people not sure what's going on with climate change. A lot of that comes from places that give airtime to science deniers. You know that neither of us have watched a single show on GB news but you have formed an aggressive opinion on the time they allow for alternative views per subject and show. I haven't. I responded to the other chap who said he likes them giving "all sides". You believe x I believe y, this is not a reason to close down y. We are not talking out there theories, they won’t get air time will they? You or I can’t say for sure if that is the case on the channel, because we haven’t watched it I'm not talking about people who "believe" X or Y. I'm talking about what's known, IE climate science. And what's bullshit, climate denying rhetoric. We may not have watched the channel but we're both aware they give airtime to misogynists, conspiracy theories, and other such crap. " Do you slow walk in the road, or join rallies / protests | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion Does Farage cut off people he doesn’t agree with like he used to on his LBC show?" ,,,, ,,,, ,,, My favourite Farage / LBC moment was the "kicked in the head by a horse"  | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit." I have seen very little on that channel to do with climate change. It's mostly what is the main news of the day, general politics, things where it's just a conflict of opinions / ways to run the country, tax affairs ect ect. On these all the guests get equal say which to me is good as a viewer as I want to hear others opinions. If it is just one side allowed to speak then it's not a discussion but a political broadcast. If I happen across a piece on climate change I will try to see if it's still equal or biased one way. By the way, the phrase moon cheesers was good | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that? Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese? Here is the problem, if you don’t give people who have an opposing view the time to air their views, you are by nature of that decision closing down opposition to the narrative you agree with. It's not about who someone disagrees with. It's when someone presents a view that disagrees with reality. Such as climate science isn't real, Covid isn't real (or whatever the latest conspiracy is). 50- 60 years ago, if I had challenged the use of plastics and insecticides as damaging the planet, I would never have been given the air time, because science had a breakthrough in plastics and manufacturing, making bold promises of lighter, easier to use and store products. Move forward not so many years and we now have plastic bags floating in the oceans of the world, plastics being digested by animals and oil being used to produce a product that simply doesn’t decay. In this example, would your ideas be based on science and reality? That's the key, it's not if the idea is counter to something else, it's if the new ideas have merit and evidence behind them. Ideas need challenging, some challenges are wild, you know that and you have a level of understanding to pick apart those arguments that are nonsense. What we don’t have is the knowledge or education that allows us to say 100% of the time someone is talking nonsense. The new ideas have to be backed up by something, and if they're not, and just wild baseless conspiracies, then in my opinion, they shouldn't be given equal footing or airtime as real actual peer reviewed science. It can be extremely damaging, just look at the number of people not sure what's going on with climate change. A lot of that comes from places that give airtime to science deniers. You know that neither of us have watched a single show on GB news but you have formed an aggressive opinion on the time they allow for alternative views per subject and show. I haven't. I responded to the other chap who said he likes them giving "all sides". You believe x I believe y, this is not a reason to close down y. We are not talking out there theories, they won’t get air time will they? You or I can’t say for sure if that is the case on the channel, because we haven’t watched it I'm not talking about people who "believe" X or Y. I'm talking about what's known, IE climate science. And what's bullshit, climate denying rhetoric. We may not have watched the channel but we're both aware they give airtime to misogynists, conspiracy theories, and other such crap. Do you slow walk in the road, or join rallies / protests" You're going to have to explain this question to me. I don't follow. | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. I have seen very little on that channel to do with climate change. It's mostly what is the main news of the day, general politics, things where it's just a conflict of opinions / ways to run the country, tax affairs ect ect. On these all the guests get equal say which to me is good as a viewer as I want to hear others opinions. If it is just one side allowed to speak then it's not a discussion but a political broadcast. If I happen across a piece on climate change I will try to see if it's still equal or biased one way. By the way, the phrase moon cheesers was good" | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that? Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese? Here is the problem, if you don’t give people who have an opposing view the time to air their views, you are by nature of that decision closing down opposition to the narrative you agree with. It's not about who someone disagrees with. It's when someone presents a view that disagrees with reality. Such as climate science isn't real, Covid isn't real (or whatever the latest conspiracy is). 50- 60 years ago, if I had challenged the use of plastics and insecticides as damaging the planet, I would never have been given the air time, because science had a breakthrough in plastics and manufacturing, making bold promises of lighter, easier to use and store products. Move forward not so many years and we now have plastic bags floating in the oceans of the world, plastics being digested by animals and oil being used to produce a product that simply doesn’t decay. In this example, would your ideas be based on science and reality? That's the key, it's not if the idea is counter to something else, it's if the new ideas have merit and evidence behind them. Ideas need challenging, some challenges are wild, you know that and you have a level of understanding to pick apart those arguments that are nonsense. What we don’t have is the knowledge or education that allows us to say 100% of the time someone is talking nonsense. The new ideas have to be backed up by something, and if they're not, and just wild baseless conspiracies, then in my opinion, they shouldn't be given equal footing or airtime as real actual peer reviewed science. It can be extremely damaging, just look at the number of people not sure what's going on with climate change. A lot of that comes from places that give airtime to science deniers. You know that neither of us have watched a single show on GB news but you have formed an aggressive opinion on the time they allow for alternative views per subject and show. I haven't. I responded to the other chap who said he likes them giving "all sides". You believe x I believe y, this is not a reason to close down y. We are not talking out there theories, they won’t get air time will they? You or I can’t say for sure if that is the case on the channel, because we haven’t watched it I'm not talking about people who "believe" X or Y. I'm talking about what's known, IE climate science. And what's bullshit, climate denying rhetoric. We may not have watched the channel but we're both aware they give airtime to misogynists, conspiracy theories, and other such crap. Do you slow walk in the road, or join rallies / protests You're going to have to explain this question to me. I don't follow." Reference to JSO: Reference to your views being more than a keyboard opinion, and protesting in real world, do you?: How serious is your opinion | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that? Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese? Here is the problem, if you don’t give people who have an opposing view the time to air their views, you are by nature of that decision closing down opposition to the narrative you agree with. It's not about who someone disagrees with. It's when someone presents a view that disagrees with reality. Such as climate science isn't real, Covid isn't real (or whatever the latest conspiracy is). 50- 60 years ago, if I had challenged the use of plastics and insecticides as damaging the planet, I would never have been given the air time, because science had a breakthrough in plastics and manufacturing, making bold promises of lighter, easier to use and store products. Move forward not so many years and we now have plastic bags floating in the oceans of the world, plastics being digested by animals and oil being used to produce a product that simply doesn’t decay. In this example, would your ideas be based on science and reality? That's the key, it's not if the idea is counter to something else, it's if the new ideas have merit and evidence behind them. Ideas need challenging, some challenges are wild, you know that and you have a level of understanding to pick apart those arguments that are nonsense. What we don’t have is the knowledge or education that allows us to say 100% of the time someone is talking nonsense. The new ideas have to be backed up by something, and if they're not, and just wild baseless conspiracies, then in my opinion, they shouldn't be given equal footing or airtime as real actual peer reviewed science. It can be extremely damaging, just look at the number of people not sure what's going on with climate change. A lot of that comes from places that give airtime to science deniers. You know that neither of us have watched a single show on GB news but you have formed an aggressive opinion on the time they allow for alternative views per subject and show. I haven't. I responded to the other chap who said he likes them giving "all sides". You believe x I believe y, this is not a reason to close down y. We are not talking out there theories, they won’t get air time will they? You or I can’t say for sure if that is the case on the channel, because we haven’t watched it I'm not talking about people who "believe" X or Y. I'm talking about what's known, IE climate science. And what's bullshit, climate denying rhetoric. We may not have watched the channel but we're both aware they give airtime to misogynists, conspiracy theories, and other such crap. Do you slow walk in the road, or join rallies / protests You're going to have to explain this question to me. I don't follow. Reference to JSO: Reference to your views being more than a keyboard opinion, and protesting in real world, do you?: How serious is your opinion " I haven't really expressed many opinions in this thread. Aside from opinion that having views from "all sides" only makes sense when you include sensible fact based views and not pseudo science or conspiracy theories. But to answer your question. I am not a member ot JSO. I have not protested under their banner. Joined in with any of their activities. Or have anything to do with them. I have protested many times, over many different issues over the years. Still not sure how that's relevant to the misogyny or conspiracy theories on GBNews. Even after your explanation. | |||
| |||
"Had never heard of the channel until I saw the news." Now that is a genuinely fab opinion | |||
"Had never heard of the channel until I saw the news. Now that is a genuinely fab opinion "No it's a fact  | |||
"Had never heard of the channel until I saw the news. Now that is a genuinely fab opinion
No it's a fact " | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are!" Didn't they just outndo every news channel for viewership Cross a whole day recently? | |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that? Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese? Here is the problem, if you don’t give people who have an opposing view the time to air their views, you are by nature of that decision closing down opposition to the narrative you agree with. It's not about who someone disagrees with. It's when someone presents a view that disagrees with reality. Such as climate science isn't real, Covid isn't real (or whatever the latest conspiracy is). 50- 60 years ago, if I had challenged the use of plastics and insecticides as damaging the planet, I would never have been given the air time, because science had a breakthrough in plastics and manufacturing, making bold promises of lighter, easier to use and store products. Move forward not so many years and we now have plastic bags floating in the oceans of the world, plastics being digested by animals and oil being used to produce a product that simply doesn’t decay. In this example, would your ideas be based on science and reality? That's the key, it's not if the idea is counter to something else, it's if the new ideas have merit and evidence behind them. Ideas need challenging, some challenges are wild, you know that and you have a level of understanding to pick apart those arguments that are nonsense. What we don’t have is the knowledge or education that allows us to say 100% of the time someone is talking nonsense. The new ideas have to be backed up by something, and if they're not, and just wild baseless conspiracies, then in my opinion, they shouldn't be given equal footing or airtime as real actual peer reviewed science. It can be extremely damaging, just look at the number of people not sure what's going on with climate change. A lot of that comes from places that give airtime to science deniers. You know that neither of us have watched a single show on GB news but you have formed an aggressive opinion on the time they allow for alternative views per subject and show. I haven't. I responded to the other chap who said he likes them giving "all sides". You believe x I believe y, this is not a reason to close down y. We are not talking out there theories, they won’t get air time will they? You or I can’t say for sure if that is the case on the channel, because we haven’t watched it I'm not talking about people who "believe" X or Y. I'm talking about what's known, IE climate science. And what's bullshit, climate denying rhetoric. We may not have watched the channel but we're both aware they give airtime to misogynists, conspiracy theories, and other such crap. Do you slow walk in the road, or join rallies / protests You're going to have to explain this question to me. I don't follow. Reference to JSO: Reference to your views being more than a keyboard opinion, and protesting in real world, do you?: How serious is your opinion I haven't really expressed many opinions in this thread. Aside from opinion that having views from "all sides" only makes sense when you include sensible fact based views and not pseudo science or conspiracy theories. But to answer your question. I am not a member ot JSO. I have not protested under their banner. Joined in with any of their activities. Or have anything to do with them. I have protested many times, over many different issues over the years. Still not sure how that's relevant to the misogyny or conspiracy theories on GBNews. Even after your explanation." My question is based on how many times you manage to mention climate change in your posts. You do throw a fair few brexits in but you are really focused on drawing attention to climate change. Not a bad thing, and it got me thinking if you were as passionate about climate change in the real world, so to speak. I hope you have a good day | |||
| |||
"People still watch this nonsense? According to radio 4 news, the Nigel Farage shows get audiences of around 150,000, which is an amazing amount for that sort of channel. He does some good debates as does Mogg and you get to hear all sides and points of view. Hopefully that's still the case. Dan Wootton show is not great in my opinion The problem with "you get to hear all sides" is they give equal weight to actual real life science, facts and evidence to made up conspiracies, propaganda and just plain bullshit. How do you know that? Again. I don't follow. How do I know the problem with "all sides" when it comes to conspiracy theorists? Doesn't everyone except conspiracy theorist know that? Is it right to give equal weight/airtime to people who have studied the geological samples back from the moon as we do to some lad who claims the moon is made of cheese? Here is the problem, if you don’t give people who have an opposing view the time to air their views, you are by nature of that decision closing down opposition to the narrative you agree with. It's not about who someone disagrees with. It's when someone presents a view that disagrees with reality. Such as climate science isn't real, Covid isn't real (or whatever the latest conspiracy is). 50- 60 years ago, if I had challenged the use of plastics and insecticides as damaging the planet, I would never have been given the air time, because science had a breakthrough in plastics and manufacturing, making bold promises of lighter, easier to use and store products. Move forward not so many years and we now have plastic bags floating in the oceans of the world, plastics being digested by animals and oil being used to produce a product that simply doesn’t decay. In this example, would your ideas be based on science and reality? That's the key, it's not if the idea is counter to something else, it's if the new ideas have merit and evidence behind them. Ideas need challenging, some challenges are wild, you know that and you have a level of understanding to pick apart those arguments that are nonsense. What we don’t have is the knowledge or education that allows us to say 100% of the time someone is talking nonsense. The new ideas have to be backed up by something, and if they're not, and just wild baseless conspiracies, then in my opinion, they shouldn't be given equal footing or airtime as real actual peer reviewed science. It can be extremely damaging, just look at the number of people not sure what's going on with climate change. A lot of that comes from places that give airtime to science deniers. You know that neither of us have watched a single show on GB news but you have formed an aggressive opinion on the time they allow for alternative views per subject and show. I haven't. I responded to the other chap who said he likes them giving "all sides". You believe x I believe y, this is not a reason to close down y. We are not talking out there theories, they won’t get air time will they? You or I can’t say for sure if that is the case on the channel, because we haven’t watched it I'm not talking about people who "believe" X or Y. I'm talking about what's known, IE climate science. And what's bullshit, climate denying rhetoric. We may not have watched the channel but we're both aware they give airtime to misogynists, conspiracy theories, and other such crap. Do you slow walk in the road, or join rallies / protests You're going to have to explain this question to me. I don't follow. Reference to JSO: Reference to your views being more than a keyboard opinion, and protesting in real world, do you?: How serious is your opinion I haven't really expressed many opinions in this thread. Aside from opinion that having views from "all sides" only makes sense when you include sensible fact based views and not pseudo science or conspiracy theories. But to answer your question. I am not a member ot JSO. I have not protested under their banner. Joined in with any of their activities. Or have anything to do with them. I have protested many times, over many different issues over the years. Still not sure how that's relevant to the misogyny or conspiracy theories on GBNews. Even after your explanation. My question is based on how many times you manage to mention climate change in your posts. You do throw a fair few brexits in but you are really focused on drawing attention to climate change. Not a bad thing, and it got me thinking if you were as passionate about climate change in the real world, so to speak. I hope you have a good day "Thanks. I do. | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are! Didn't they just outndo every news channel for viewership Cross a whole day recently?" Is it classed as a "news channel"? | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are! Didn't they just outndo every news channel for viewership Cross a whole day recently? Is it classed as a "news channel"?" Andrew Neal clearly didn’t think so, that’s why he fucked off taking probably the only bit of credibility they had with him. | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are! Didn't they just outndo every news channel for viewership Cross a whole day recently? Is it classed as a "news channel"?" Yup Did it do the above? | |||
| |||
"Not really fair to tarnish the whole of GBNews based on Lawrence's comment. Taking the main host of the show off as well as Lawrence is enough. When it comes to GBNews there are certainly some interesting opinions on there. Neil Oliver's commentary is a refreshing and direct perspective on current events. A lot of it rings true as we see the same bull shit topics pushed by state media mirrored outside it, even in this very forum." Yeah Neil Oliver is big into his covid conspiracies, anti climate science conspiracies and antisemitic views. There's definitely more to GBNews than just misogyny. | |||
"Not really fair to tarnish the whole of GBNews based on Lawrence's comment. Taking the main host of the show off as well as Lawrence is enough. When it comes to GBNews there are certainly some interesting opinions on there. Neil Oliver's commentary is a refreshing and direct perspective on current events. A lot of it rings true as we see the same bull shit topics pushed by state media mirrored outside it, even in this very forum." Have a look at the great investigative work the Byline Times have done on Dan Wooton- it is truly a shocking story. | |||
" Have a look at the great investigative work the Byline Times have done on Dan Wooton- it is truly a shocking story. " Never heard of Bylone Times but had a Google and think we found the article you mean. Couldn't spot any evidence to their claims being presented. One thing we can agree on though, Daniel Captain Obvious Wootton is definately a smarmy git and certainly overpaid. £600,000 a year to read from an autocue ot suggests. Makes you wonder how much the other unknowns on there are on. | |||
" Have a look at the great investigative work the Byline Times have done on Dan Wooton- it is truly a shocking story. Never heard of Bylone Times but had a Google and think we found the article you mean. Couldn't spot any evidence to their claims being presented. One thing we can agree on though, Daniel Captain Obvious Wootton is definately a smarmy git and certainly overpaid. £600,000 a year to read from an autocue ot suggests. Makes you wonder how much the other unknowns on there are on." So you didn’t pick up on Dan Wootons honey trapping and bl*ckmailing tactics then? | |||
"Not really fair to tarnish the whole of GBNews based on Lawrence's comment. Taking the main host of the show off as well as Lawrence is enough. When it comes to GBNews there are certainly some interesting opinions on there. Neil Oliver's commentary is a refreshing and direct perspective on current events. A lot of it rings true as we see the same bull shit topics pushed by state media mirrored outside it, even in this very forum. Have a look at the great investigative work the Byline Times have done on Dan Wooton- it is truly a shocking story. " Did they ever prove Dan Wooton was the secret tester? Otherwise it'd quite frankly amateur | |||
| |||
"There is a theory (no I do not have evidence hence theory) I have read that suggests GB News is a money laundering scheme that enables folks like Farage to be paid by dodgy right wingers (part of the argument being who funds it and how loss making it is). Not saying I agree but that us out there floating about." .there's the same of the guardian which now requests donations. | |||
"There is a theory (no I do not have evidence hence theory) I have read that suggests GB News is a money laundering scheme that enables folks like Farage to be paid by dodgy right wingers (part of the argument being who funds it and how loss making it is). Not saying I agree but that us out there floating about. .there's the same of the guardian which now requests donations." The Guardian aren't well funded or organised enough. | |||
"There is a theory (no I do not have evidence hence theory) I have read that suggests GB News is a money laundering scheme that enables folks like Farage to be paid by dodgy right wingers (part of the argument being who funds it and how loss making it is). Not saying I agree but that us out there floating about. .there's the same of the guardian which now requests donations. The Guardian aren't well funded or organised enough." Eh? | |||
"There is a theory (no I do not have evidence hence theory) I have read that suggests GB News is a money laundering scheme that enables folks like Farage to be paid by dodgy right wingers (part of the argument being who funds it and how loss making it is). Not saying I agree but that us out there floating about. .there's the same of the guardian which now requests donations." Right wingers fund the Guardian!!!  | |||
| |||
"There is a theory (no I do not have evidence hence theory) I have read that suggests GB News is a money laundering scheme that enables folks like Farage to be paid by dodgy right wingers (part of the argument being who funds it and how loss making it is). Not saying I agree but that us out there floating about." pet peeve. This use of the word theory ! | |||
"There is a theory (no I do not have evidence hence theory) I have read that suggests GB News is a money laundering scheme that enables folks like Farage to be paid by dodgy right wingers (part of the argument being who funds it and how loss making it is). Not saying I agree but that us out there floating about.pet peeve. This use of the word theory ! " Wrong thread! Stick it in the other one
What would you call a theory if not, erm a theory? | |||
| |||
 | |||
"There is a theory (no I do not have evidence hence theory) I have read that suggests GB News is a money laundering scheme that enables folks like Farage to be paid by dodgy right wingers (part of the argument being who funds it and how loss making it is). Not saying I agree but that us out there floating about.pet peeve. This use of the word theory ! Wrong thread! Stick it in the other one
What would you call a theory if not, erm a theory?"it's maths/science gripe. A theory has proof (or evidence). Conjecture ? Speculation? Idea? | |||
"There is a theory (no I do not have evidence hence theory) I have read that suggests GB News is a money laundering scheme that enables folks like Farage to be paid by dodgy right wingers (part of the argument being who funds it and how loss making it is). Not saying I agree but that us out there floating about.pet peeve. This use of the word theory ! Wrong thread! Stick it in the other one
What would you call a theory if not, erm a theory?it's maths/science gripe. A theory has proof (or evidence).
Conjecture ? Speculation? Idea?
"Ah ok. Although I’d argue that while that may indeed be the correct (or more fitting) terminology, it isn’t really layman’s speak or plain English? | |||
"There is a theory (no I do not have evidence hence theory) I have read that suggests GB News is a money laundering scheme that enables folks like Farage to be paid by dodgy right wingers (part of the argument being who funds it and how loss making it is). Not saying I agree but that us out there floating about.pet peeve. This use of the word theory ! Wrong thread! Stick it in the other one
What would you call a theory if not, erm a theory?it's maths/science gripe. A theory has proof (or evidence).
Conjecture ? Speculation? Idea?
Ah ok. Although I’d argue that while that may indeed be the correct (or more fitting) terminology, it isn’t really layman’s speak or plain English?"oh agreed. I can't defend my view much. Still doesn't stop this missuse being a peeve of mine! | |||
"There is a theory (no I do not have evidence hence theory) I have read that suggests GB News is a money laundering scheme that enables folks like Farage to be paid by dodgy right wingers (part of the argument being who funds it and how loss making it is). Not saying I agree but that us out there floating about.pet peeve. This use of the word theory ! Wrong thread! Stick it in the other one
What would you call a theory if not, erm a theory?it's maths/science gripe. A theory has proof (or evidence).
Conjecture ? Speculation? Idea?
Ah ok. Although I’d argue that while that may indeed be the correct (or more fitting) terminology, it isn’t really layman’s speak or plain English?oh agreed. I can't defend my view much. Still doesn't stop this missuse being a peeve of mine! "https://bylinetimes.com/2023/03/20/new-gb-news-director-is-a-tory-peer-and-financier/ And this is also very sinister - there is a conflict of interest when you can control news output for financial gain https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/gb-news-owner-makes-millions-after-shorting-natwest-stock-353437/ | |||
"And this is also very sinister - there is a conflict of interest when you can control news output for financial gain https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/gb-news-owner-makes-millions-after-shorting-natwest-stock-353437/" But the hedge fund took that position in March, before Farage had his account closed. And the reason that NatWest stock fell is because its CEO gave personal customer information to a journalist, which is a resigning matter in itself. That information subsequently turned out to be untrue, and just a personal attack on the customer, which made the situation even worse. Given that the journalist isn't related to GB News, and that he released the story deliberately to harm one of GB News' presenters, it seems unlikely that anyone was manipulating the story for financial gain. | |||
"There is a theory (no I do not have evidence hence theory) I have read that suggests GB News is a money laundering scheme that enables folks like Farage to be paid by dodgy right wingers (part of the argument being who funds it and how loss making it is). Not saying I agree but that us out there floating about. .there's the same of the guardian which now requests donations." That is not at all similar. The guardian’s funding is completely transparent and the fact that they are asking people to become subscribers is quite understandable. GB News is not at all transparent about who is financing it and given its relatively small audience and high profile and costly  presenters that whoever is behind it is not worried about making a profit so it’s reason for being is that it is a propaganda tool for right wing libertarians/populists and a method of providing airtime and funding for them | |||
"The guardian’s funding is completely transparent ..." Is it? Do they publish a list of donors so that we can see who's funding them? "GB News is not at all transparent about who is financing it and given its relatively small audience and high profile and costly presenters that whoever is behind it is not worried about making a profit so it’s reason for being is that it is a propaganda tool ..."The same could easily be said about The Guardian. Last year was the first time in many years that it has made a profit. It usually loses around £30m per year. | |||
"The guardian’s funding is completely transparent ... Is it? Do they publish a list of donors so that we can see who's funding them? GB News is not at all transparent about who is financing it and given its relatively small audience and high profile and costly presenters that whoever is behind it is not worried about making a profit so it’s reason for being is that it is a propaganda tool ...
The same could easily be said about The Guardian. Last year was the first time in many years that it has made a profit. It usually loses around £30m per year."Ha ha I bet if you asked the Guardian they would give you a breakdown whereas GBNews are likely to be as opaque as mud don’t you think? | |||
"The guardian’s funding is completely transparent ... Is it? Do they publish a list of donors so that we can see who's funding them? GB News is not at all transparent about who is financing it and given its relatively small audience and high profile and costly presenters that whoever is behind it is not worried about making a profit so it’s reason for being is that it is a propaganda tool ...
The same could easily be said about The Guardian. Last year was the first time in many years that it has made a profit. It usually loses around £30m per year."I wasn't aware we could see the donors. I did try finding it once but there wasn't a list Happy fornthis to be provided. | |||
| |||
"So you didn’t pick up on Dan Wootons honey trapping and bl*ckmailing tactics then? " He said she said. It's all well and good claiming someone has tried black mail (seriously mods get a grip) but if there's zero proof in an article we won't take it more as gossip as opposed to gospel. | |||
| |||
"I do wonder what is actually going on at GBNews. Another presenter suspended for standing in solidarity with Wootton. " Is that the one who pretends to be a religious figure despite not being ordained? | |||
"I do wonder what is actually going on at GBNews. Another presenter suspended for standing in solidarity with Wootton. Is that the one who pretends to be a religious figure despite not being ordained? " I think you mean the one who was ordained. Come on man, it's not hard to find this information out before posting. | |||
"So you didn’t pick up on Dan Wootons honey trapping and bl*ckmailing tactics then? He said she said. It's all well and good claiming someone has tried black mail (seriously mods get a grip) but if there's zero proof in an article we won't take it more as gossip as opposed to gospel. " I think calling a 3 year investigation, with plenty of documentary proof "he said, she said" is a bit of a stretch. Have you read the numerous Byline Times articles, I don't think they would print those without a cast-iron case. I've not seen Wooton calling it libel. Which you would imagine to be his first action if there were doubt to be cast. | |||
"I do wonder what is actually going on at GBNews. Another presenter suspended for standing in solidarity with Wootton. Is that the one who pretends to be a religious figure despite not being ordained? I think you mean the one who was ordained. Come on man, it's not hard to find this information out before posting. " Oh my bad, he was ordained in 2022. Despite calling himself reverend for years beforehand. Apologies, he blocked me on Twitter several years ago for asking him about the subject. | |||
"I do wonder what is actually going on at GBNews. Another presenter suspended for standing in solidarity with Wootton. Is that the one who pretends to be a religious figure despite not being ordained? I think you mean the one who was ordained. Come on man, it's not hard to find this information out before posting. Oh my bad, he was ordained in 2022. Despite calling himself reverend for years beforehand. Apologies, he blocked me on Twitter several years ago for asking him about the subject. " I can't speak for any of that. I never knew the guy existed until yesterday. I do note, that rather than address my post, you attacked the person in question though | |||
| |||
"I do wonder what is actually going on at GBNews. Another presenter suspended for standing in solidarity with Wootton. Is that the one who pretends to be a religious figure despite not being ordained? I think you mean the one who was ordained. Come on man, it's not hard to find this information out before posting. Oh my bad, he was ordained in 2022. Despite calling himself reverend for years beforehand. Apologies, he blocked me on Twitter several years ago for asking him about the subject. I can't speak for any of that. I never knew the guy existed until yesterday. I do note, that rather than address my post, you attacked the person in question though "I attempted debate with him in several occasions in the past. To say he’s not worth a money’s thought would be putting it lightly. His views on sexuality, citizens rights, body autonomy etc are fixed firmly in ancient history. | |||
"I do wonder what is actually going on at GBNews. Another presenter suspended for standing in solidarity with Wootton. Is that the one who pretends to be a religious figure despite not being ordained? I think you mean the one who was ordained. Come on man, it's not hard to find this information out before posting. Oh my bad, he was ordained in 2022. Despite calling himself reverend for years beforehand. Apologies, he blocked me on Twitter several years ago for asking him about the subject. I can't speak for any of that. I never knew the guy existed until yesterday. I do note, that rather than address my post, you attacked the person in question though
I attempted debate with him in several occasions in the past. To say he’s not worth a money’s thought would be putting it lightly. His views on sexuality, citizens rights, body autonomy etc are fixed firmly in ancient history. "Fair enough, you dislike the guy, I get that. Any thoughts on him being suspended for standing with a colleague? I do firmly remember you being on the side of solidarity when the BBC presenters walked out. | |||
"I do wonder what is actually going on at GBNews. Another presenter suspended for standing in solidarity with Wootton. Is that the one who pretends to be a religious figure despite not being ordained? I think you mean the one who was ordained. Come on man, it's not hard to find this information out before posting. Oh my bad, he was ordained in 2022. Despite calling himself reverend for years beforehand. Apologies, he blocked me on Twitter several years ago for asking him about the subject. I can't speak for any of that. I never knew the guy existed until yesterday. I do note, that rather than address my post, you attacked the person in question though
I attempted debate with him in several occasions in the past. To say he’s not worth a money’s thought would be putting it lightly. His views on sexuality, citizens rights, body autonomy etc are fixed firmly in ancient history.
Fair enough, you dislike the guy, I get that. Any thoughts on him being suspended for standing with a colleague?
I do firmly remember you being on the side of solidarity when the BBC presenters walked out."Oh if he supports his ‘oppo that’s entirely up to him. No beef there - it’s not a hill I’d choose to die on but that’s his business. | |||
"I do wonder what is actually going on at GBNews. Another presenter suspended for standing in solidarity with Wootton. Is that the one who pretends to be a religious figure despite not being ordained? I think you mean the one who was ordained. Come on man, it's not hard to find this information out before posting. Oh my bad, he was ordained in 2022. Despite calling himself reverend for years beforehand. Apologies, he blocked me on Twitter several years ago for asking him about the subject. I can't speak for any of that. I never knew the guy existed until yesterday. I do note, that rather than address my post, you attacked the person in question though
I attempted debate with him in several occasions in the past. To say he’s not worth a money’s thought would be putting it lightly. His views on sexuality, citizens rights, body autonomy etc are fixed firmly in ancient history.
Fair enough, you dislike the guy, I get that. Any thoughts on him being suspended for standing with a colleague?
I do firmly remember you being on the side of solidarity when the BBC presenters walked out.
Oh if he supports his ‘oppo that’s entirely up to him. No beef there - it’s not a hill I’d choose to die on but that’s his business."No thoughts then, just came here to attack him
Any thoughts on Ava now employing her gaslighting techniques for clicks? | |||
"I do wonder what is actually going on at GBNews. Another presenter suspended for standing in solidarity with Wootton. Is that the one who pretends to be a religious figure despite not being ordained? I think you mean the one who was ordained. Come on man, it's not hard to find this information out before posting. Oh my bad, he was ordained in 2022. Despite calling himself reverend for years beforehand. Apologies, he blocked me on Twitter several years ago for asking him about the subject. I can't speak for any of that. I never knew the guy existed until yesterday. I do note, that rather than address my post, you attacked the person in question though
I attempted debate with him in several occasions in the past. To say he’s not worth a money’s thought would be putting it lightly. His views on sexuality, citizens rights, body autonomy etc are fixed firmly in ancient history.
Fair enough, you dislike the guy, I get that. Any thoughts on him being suspended for standing with a colleague?
I do firmly remember you being on the side of solidarity when the BBC presenters walked out.
Oh if he supports his ‘oppo that’s entirely up to him. No beef there - it’s not a hill I’d choose to die on but that’s his business.
No thoughts then, just came here to attack him
Any thoughts on Ava now employing her gaslighting techniques for clicks?"I’m not familiar with anything beyond the original story and odious comments by Fox. What ‘gaslighting’ has she done? | |||
"I do wonder what is actually going on at GBNews. Another presenter suspended for standing in solidarity with Wootton. Is that the one who pretends to be a religious figure despite not being ordained? I think you mean the one who was ordained. Come on man, it's not hard to find this information out before posting. Oh my bad, he was ordained in 2022. Despite calling himself reverend for years beforehand. Apologies, he blocked me on Twitter several years ago for asking him about the subject. I can't speak for any of that. I never knew the guy existed until yesterday. I do note, that rather than address my post, you attacked the person in question though
I attempted debate with him in several occasions in the past. To say he’s not worth a money’s thought would be putting it lightly. His views on sexuality, citizens rights, body autonomy etc are fixed firmly in ancient history.
Fair enough, you dislike the guy, I get that. Any thoughts on him being suspended for standing with a colleague?
I do firmly remember you being on the side of solidarity when the BBC presenters walked out.
Oh if he supports his ‘oppo that’s entirely up to him. No beef there - it’s not a hill I’d choose to die on but that’s his business.
No thoughts then, just came here to attack him
Any thoughts on Ava now employing her gaslighting techniques for clicks?
I’m not familiar with anything beyond the original story and odious comments by Fox. What ‘gaslighting’ has she done? "If you're not familiar then you won't have any thoughts. I'll accept that answer. | |||
"I do wonder what is actually going on at GBNews. Another presenter suspended for standing in solidarity with Wootton. Is that the one who pretends to be a religious figure despite not being ordained? I think you mean the one who was ordained. Come on man, it's not hard to find this information out before posting. Oh my bad, he was ordained in 2022. Despite calling himself reverend for years beforehand. Apologies, he blocked me on Twitter several years ago for asking him about the subject. I can't speak for any of that. I never knew the guy existed until yesterday. I do note, that rather than address my post, you attacked the person in question though
I attempted debate with him in several occasions in the past. To say he’s not worth a money’s thought would be putting it lightly. His views on sexuality, citizens rights, body autonomy etc are fixed firmly in ancient history.
Fair enough, you dislike the guy, I get that. Any thoughts on him being suspended for standing with a colleague?
I do firmly remember you being on the side of solidarity when the BBC presenters walked out.
Oh if he supports his ‘oppo that’s entirely up to him. No beef there - it’s not a hill I’d choose to die on but that’s his business.
No thoughts then, just came here to attack him
Any thoughts on Ava now employing her gaslighting techniques for clicks?
I’m not familiar with anything beyond the original story and odious comments by Fox. What ‘gaslighting’ has she done?
If you're not familiar then you won't have any thoughts. I'll accept that answer. "Well I would like to know what you are talking of so perhaps you could share? | |||
"I do wonder what is actually going on at GBNews. Another presenter suspended for standing in solidarity with Wootton. Is that the one who pretends to be a religious figure despite not being ordained? I think you mean the one who was ordained. Come on man, it's not hard to find this information out before posting. Oh my bad, he was ordained in 2022. Despite calling himself reverend for years beforehand. Apologies, he blocked me on Twitter several years ago for asking him about the subject. I can't speak for any of that. I never knew the guy existed until yesterday. I do note, that rather than address my post, you attacked the person in question though
I attempted debate with him in several occasions in the past. To say he’s not worth a money’s thought would be putting it lightly. His views on sexuality, citizens rights, body autonomy etc are fixed firmly in ancient history.
Fair enough, you dislike the guy, I get that. Any thoughts on him being suspended for standing with a colleague?
I do firmly remember you being on the side of solidarity when the BBC presenters walked out.
Oh if he supports his ‘oppo that’s entirely up to him. No beef there - it’s not a hill I’d choose to die on but that’s his business.
No thoughts then, just came here to attack him
Any thoughts on Ava now employing her gaslighting techniques for clicks?
I’m not familiar with anything beyond the original story and odious comments by Fox. What ‘gaslighting’ has she done?
If you're not familiar then you won't have any thoughts. I'll accept that answer.
Well I would like to know what you are talking of so perhaps you could share?"If you're aware of what the Fox said, you're aware of who Ava is. Go have a look... | |||
"If you're aware of what the Fox said, you're aware of who Ava is. Go have a look..." That's not true. I know what the fox said because it was reported in the news. I don't have a clue who it was he was talking about. | |||
"I do wonder what is actually going on at GBNews. Another presenter suspended for standing in solidarity with Wootton. Is that the one who pretends to be a religious figure despite not being ordained? I think you mean the one who was ordained. Come on man, it's not hard to find this information out before posting. Oh my bad, he was ordained in 2022. Despite calling himself reverend for years beforehand. Apologies, he blocked me on Twitter several years ago for asking him about the subject. I can't speak for any of that. I never knew the guy existed until yesterday. I do note, that rather than address my post, you attacked the person in question though
I attempted debate with him in several occasions in the past. To say he’s not worth a money’s thought would be putting it lightly. His views on sexuality, citizens rights, body autonomy etc are fixed firmly in ancient history.
Fair enough, you dislike the guy, I get that. Any thoughts on him being suspended for standing with a colleague?
I do firmly remember you being on the side of solidarity when the BBC presenters walked out.
Oh if he supports his ‘oppo that’s entirely up to him. No beef there - it’s not a hill I’d choose to die on but that’s his business.
No thoughts then, just came here to attack him
Any thoughts on Ava now employing her gaslighting techniques for clicks?
I’m not familiar with anything beyond the original story and odious comments by Fox. What ‘gaslighting’ has she done?
If you're not familiar then you won't have any thoughts. I'll accept that answer.
Well I would like to know what you are talking of so perhaps you could share?
If you're aware of what the Fox said, you're aware of who Ava is.
Go have a look..."The thing is I know who Fox is and I definitely have an opinion on him but I don’t know who Ava is and as you are saying she’s gaslighting with no context or background that makes it very difficult to know if you are talking out of your hat or not | |||
| |||
"I'm genuinely surprised we have all seen the news of Fox saying what he said yet we don't know who he was talking about. She's been all over the media since. Maybe it's the echo chamber factor. Or maybe people just don't bother looking into things. " No I think it’s far more likely to be that Fox is well known for being a bit of an obnoxious arse and that is how he promotes himself but you seem to have some knowledge of this Ava person but aren’t willing to state what that is….are you worried you might be accused of being defamatory to her? | |||
"I'm genuinely surprised we have all seen the news of Fox saying what he said yet we don't know who he was talking about. She's been all over the media since. Maybe it's the echo chamber factor. Or maybe people just don't bother looking into things. " A Google search reveals nothing but the original story, and that Ava has yet to receive an apology. | |||
"I'm genuinely surprised we have all seen the news of Fox saying what he said yet we don't know who he was talking about. She's been all over the media since. Maybe it's the echo chamber factor. Or maybe people just don't bother looking into things. No I think it’s far more likely to be that Fox is well known for being a bit of an obnoxious arse and that is how he promotes himself but you seem to have some knowledge of this Ava person but aren’t willing to state what that is….are you worried you might be accused of being defamatory to her?" In a conversation in which Geoff Norcott was speaking about Men's Suicide rates Eva said "I think it feeds into the culture war a little bit, this minister for men argument. [Mental illness] is a crisis that’s endemic throughout the country, not specific to men. And I think a lot of ministers bandy this about to – I’m sorry – make an enemy out of women." There was much more to it where she turned the conversation to be about women and their struggles, do bare in mind the conversation was about Geoffs book: The British Bloke Decoded. Laurence then attacked her and now she says "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." It isn't just me that has this knowledge, if anyone was interested, it's out there for all to see. | |||
"I'm genuinely surprised we have all seen the news of Fox saying what he said yet we don't know who he was talking about. She's been all over the media since. Maybe it's the echo chamber factor. Or maybe people just don't bother looking into things. No I think it’s far more likely to be that Fox is well known for being a bit of an obnoxious arse and that is how he promotes himself but you seem to have some knowledge of this Ava person but aren’t willing to state what that is….are you worried you might be accused of being defamatory to her? In a conversation in which Geoff Norcott was speaking about Men's Suicide rates Eva said "I think it feeds into the culture war a little bit, this minister for men argument. [Mental illness] is a crisis that’s endemic throughout the country, not specific to men. And I think a lot of ministers bandy this about to – I’m sorry – make an enemy out of women." There was much more to it where she turned the conversation to be about women and their struggles, do bare in mind the conversation was about Geoffs book: The British Bloke Decoded. Laurence then attacked her and now she says "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." It isn't just me that has this knowledge, if anyone was interested, it's out there for all to see. " I don't have the full picture.... but from what I've read I don't like any views here. Eva's views resonate with when a conversation is about something that seems to largely affect women (eg DV) and others will bring in that it affects men too. That approach lacks subtlety imo. These things do tend to be multivariate. But sex is often a large predictor. I'm sure others will want a sex blind view... which is fine as long as it's consistent. Fox's views were wrong. No need to go into detail. However I dont see the gas lighting. She did want a monster of MH I believe. And she was accusued of belittling male suicide. | |||
"I'm genuinely surprised we have all seen the news of Fox saying what he said yet we don't know who he was talking about. She's been all over the media since. Maybe it's the echo chamber factor. Or maybe people just don't bother looking into things. No I think it’s far more likely to be that Fox is well known for being a bit of an obnoxious arse and that is how he promotes himself but you seem to have some knowledge of this Ava person but aren’t willing to state what that is….are you worried you might be accused of being defamatory to her? In a conversation in which Geoff Norcott was speaking about Men's Suicide rates Eva said "I think it feeds into the culture war a little bit, this minister for men argument. [Mental illness] is a crisis that’s endemic throughout the country, not specific to men. And I think a lot of ministers bandy this about to – I’m sorry – make an enemy out of women." There was much more to it where she turned the conversation to be about women and their struggles, do bare in mind the conversation was about Geoffs book: The British Bloke Decoded. Laurence then attacked her and now she says "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." It isn't just me that has this knowledge, if anyone was interested, it's out there for all to see. I don't have the full picture.... but from what I've read I don't like any views here. Eva's views resonate with when a conversation is about something that seems to largely affect women (eg DV) and others will bring in that it affects men too. That approach lacks subtlety imo. These things do tend to be multivariate. But sex is often a large predictor. I'm sure others will want a sex blind view... which is fine as long as it's consistent. Fox's views were wrong. No need to go into detail. However I dont see the gas lighting. She did want a monster of MH I believe. And she was accusued of belittling male suicide. " I definitely do not agree with what Fox done on air. I'm not trying to defend that. Eva is a nasty piece of work and no one who hates Fox will see it. The gaslighting come in the form of her saying... "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." Why? Because she actually said much more than that and is now complaining about 'reimagining' with providing the complete words she said. | |||
"I'm genuinely surprised we have all seen the news of Fox saying what he said yet we don't know who he was talking about. She's been all over the media since. Maybe it's the echo chamber factor. Or maybe people just don't bother looking into things. No I think it’s far more likely to be that Fox is well known for being a bit of an obnoxious arse and that is how he promotes himself but you seem to have some knowledge of this Ava person but aren’t willing to state what that is….are you worried you might be accused of being defamatory to her? In a conversation in which Geoff Norcott was speaking about Men's Suicide rates Eva said "I think it feeds into the culture war a little bit, this minister for men argument. [Mental illness] is a crisis that’s endemic throughout the country, not specific to men. And I think a lot of ministers bandy this about to – I’m sorry – make an enemy out of women." There was much more to it where she turned the conversation to be about women and their struggles, do bare in mind the conversation was about Geoffs book: The British Bloke Decoded. Laurence then attacked her and now she says "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." It isn't just me that has this knowledge, if anyone was interested, it's out there for all to see. I don't have the full picture.... but from what I've read I don't like any views here. Eva's views resonate with when a conversation is about something that seems to largely affect women (eg DV) and others will bring in that it affects men too. That approach lacks subtlety imo. These things do tend to be multivariate. But sex is often a large predictor. I'm sure others will want a sex blind view... which is fine as long as it's consistent. Fox's views were wrong. No need to go into detail. However I dont see the gas lighting. She did want a monster of MH I believe. And she was accusued of belittling male suicide. I definitely do not agree with what Fox done on air. I'm not trying to defend that. Eva is a nasty piece of work and no one who hates Fox will see it. The gaslighting come in the form of her saying... "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." Why? Because she actually said much more than that and is now complaining about 'reimagining' with providing the complete words she said. " do you know whether there was a question immediately before that quote? I agree she said much more than that. But if she was asked directly about her belittling suicide then it is a fair answer and probs not gas lighting. Again, for the purposes of some fab posters (not you). I'm not defending her veiws. I don't agree with her views. And she may be gaslighting. I'm just checking in on all angles. Because there are plenty of other things she said that warrant pulling on. | |||
"I'm genuinely surprised we have all seen the news of Fox saying what he said yet we don't know who he was talking about. She's been all over the media since. Maybe it's the echo chamber factor. Or maybe people just don't bother looking into things. No I think it’s far more likely to be that Fox is well known for being a bit of an obnoxious arse and that is how he promotes himself but you seem to have some knowledge of this Ava person but aren’t willing to state what that is….are you worried you might be accused of being defamatory to her? In a conversation in which Geoff Norcott was speaking about Men's Suicide rates Eva said "I think it feeds into the culture war a little bit, this minister for men argument. [Mental illness] is a crisis that’s endemic throughout the country, not specific to men. And I think a lot of ministers bandy this about to – I’m sorry – make an enemy out of women." There was much more to it where she turned the conversation to be about women and their struggles, do bare in mind the conversation was about Geoffs book: The British Bloke Decoded. Laurence then attacked her and now she says "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." It isn't just me that has this knowledge, if anyone was interested, it's out there for all to see. I don't have the full picture.... but from what I've read I don't like any views here. Eva's views resonate with when a conversation is about something that seems to largely affect women (eg DV) and others will bring in that it affects men too. That approach lacks subtlety imo. These things do tend to be multivariate. But sex is often a large predictor. I'm sure others will want a sex blind view... which is fine as long as it's consistent. Fox's views were wrong. No need to go into detail. However I dont see the gas lighting. She did want a monster of MH I believe. And she was accusued of belittling male suicide. I definitely do not agree with what Fox done on air. I'm not trying to defend that. Eva is a nasty piece of work and no one who hates Fox will see it. The gaslighting come in the form of her saying... "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." Why? Because she actually said much more than that and is now complaining about 'reimagining' with providing the complete words she said. do you know whether there was a question immediately before that quote? I agree she said much more than that. But if she was asked directly about her belittling suicide then it is a fair answer and probs not gas lighting. Again, for the purposes of some fab posters (not you). I'm not defending her veiws. I don't agree with her views. And she may be gaslighting. I'm just checking in on all angles. Because there are plenty of other things she said that warrant pulling on. " It was a singular tweet. I agree there are plenty of things she's said that could be pulled on but I'm trying to stick to this row with Fox. | |||
"I'm genuinely surprised we have all seen the news of Fox saying what he said yet we don't know who he was talking about. She's been all over the media since. Maybe it's the echo chamber factor. Or maybe people just don't bother looking into things. No I think it’s far more likely to be that Fox is well known for being a bit of an obnoxious arse and that is how he promotes himself but you seem to have some knowledge of this Ava person but aren’t willing to state what that is….are you worried you might be accused of being defamatory to her? In a conversation in which Geoff Norcott was speaking about Men's Suicide rates Eva said "I think it feeds into the culture war a little bit, this minister for men argument. [Mental illness] is a crisis that’s endemic throughout the country, not specific to men. And I think a lot of ministers bandy this about to – I’m sorry – make an enemy out of women." There was much more to it where she turned the conversation to be about women and their struggles, do bare in mind the conversation was about Geoffs book: The British Bloke Decoded. Laurence then attacked her and now she says "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." It isn't just me that has this knowledge, if anyone was interested, it's out there for all to see. I don't have the full picture.... but from what I've read I don't like any views here. Eva's views resonate with when a conversation is about something that seems to largely affect women (eg DV) and others will bring in that it affects men too. That approach lacks subtlety imo. These things do tend to be multivariate. But sex is often a large predictor. I'm sure others will want a sex blind view... which is fine as long as it's consistent. Fox's views were wrong. No need to go into detail. However I dont see the gas lighting. She did want a monster of MH I believe. And she was accusued of belittling male suicide. I definitely do not agree with what Fox done on air. I'm not trying to defend that. Eva is a nasty piece of work and no one who hates Fox will see it. The gaslighting come in the form of her saying... "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." Why? Because she actually said much more than that and is now complaining about 'reimagining' with providing the complete words she said. do you know whether there was a question immediately before that quote? I agree she said much more than that. But if she was asked directly about her belittling suicide then it is a fair answer and probs not gas lighting. Again, for the purposes of some fab posters (not you). I'm not defending her veiws. I don't agree with her views. And she may be gaslighting. I'm just checking in on all angles. Because there are plenty of other things she said that warrant pulling on. It was a singular tweet. I agree there are plenty of things she's said that could be pulled on but I'm trying to stick to this row with Fox. " yeah, standalone tweet feels like it is, at best, missunderstanding the issues here. Unfortunately the guys have allowed her to control the narrative. And I meant plenty of angles on that on one bbc clip alone. I have no idea what other views she has ! | |||
"I'm genuinely surprised we have all seen the news of Fox saying what he said yet we don't know who he was talking about. She's been all over the media since. Maybe it's the echo chamber factor. Or maybe people just don't bother looking into things. No I think it’s far more likely to be that Fox is well known for being a bit of an obnoxious arse and that is how he promotes himself but you seem to have some knowledge of this Ava person but aren’t willing to state what that is….are you worried you might be accused of being defamatory to her? In a conversation in which Geoff Norcott was speaking about Men's Suicide rates Eva said "I think it feeds into the culture war a little bit, this minister for men argument. [Mental illness] is a crisis that’s endemic throughout the country, not specific to men. And I think a lot of ministers bandy this about to – I’m sorry – make an enemy out of women." There was much more to it where she turned the conversation to be about women and their struggles, do bare in mind the conversation was about Geoffs book: The British Bloke Decoded. Laurence then attacked her and now she says "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." It isn't just me that has this knowledge, if anyone was interested, it's out there for all to see. I don't have the full picture.... but from what I've read I don't like any views here. Eva's views resonate with when a conversation is about something that seems to largely affect women (eg DV) and others will bring in that it affects men too. That approach lacks subtlety imo. These things do tend to be multivariate. But sex is often a large predictor. I'm sure others will want a sex blind view... which is fine as long as it's consistent. Fox's views were wrong. No need to go into detail. However I dont see the gas lighting. She did want a monster of MH I believe. And she was accusued of belittling male suicide. I definitely do not agree with what Fox done on air. I'm not trying to defend that. Eva is a nasty piece of work and no one who hates Fox will see it. The gaslighting come in the form of her saying... "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." Why? Because she actually said much more than that and is now complaining about 'reimagining' with providing the complete words she said. do you know whether there was a question immediately before that quote? I agree she said much more than that. But if she was asked directly about her belittling suicide then it is a fair answer and probs not gas lighting. Again, for the purposes of some fab posters (not you). I'm not defending her veiws. I don't agree with her views. And she may be gaslighting. I'm just checking in on all angles. Because there are plenty of other things she said that warrant pulling on. It was a singular tweet. I agree there are plenty of things she's said that could be pulled on but I'm trying to stick to this row with Fox. yeah, standalone tweet feels like it is, at best, missunderstanding the issues here. Unfortunately the guys have allowed her to control the narrative. And I meant plenty of angles on that on one bbc clip alone. I have no idea what other views she has ! " I read that as you giving her a (slight) benefit of doubt, as is your right. I feel she knows exactly what she's doing, it's how people like her operate. | |||
"I'm genuinely surprised we have all seen the news of Fox saying what he said yet we don't know who he was talking about. She's been all over the media since. Maybe it's the echo chamber factor. Or maybe people just don't bother looking into things. No I think it’s far more likely to be that Fox is well known for being a bit of an obnoxious arse and that is how he promotes himself but you seem to have some knowledge of this Ava person but aren’t willing to state what that is….are you worried you might be accused of being defamatory to her? In a conversation in which Geoff Norcott was speaking about Men's Suicide rates Eva said "I think it feeds into the culture war a little bit, this minister for men argument. [Mental illness] is a crisis that’s endemic throughout the country, not specific to men. And I think a lot of ministers bandy this about to – I’m sorry – make an enemy out of women." There was much more to it where she turned the conversation to be about women and their struggles, do bare in mind the conversation was about Geoffs book: The British Bloke Decoded. Laurence then attacked her and now she says "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." It isn't just me that has this knowledge, if anyone was interested, it's out there for all to see. I don't have the full picture.... but from what I've read I don't like any views here. Eva's views resonate with when a conversation is about something that seems to largely affect women (eg DV) and others will bring in that it affects men too. That approach lacks subtlety imo. These things do tend to be multivariate. But sex is often a large predictor. I'm sure others will want a sex blind view... which is fine as long as it's consistent. Fox's views were wrong. No need to go into detail. However I dont see the gas lighting. She did want a monster of MH I believe. And she was accusued of belittling male suicide. I definitely do not agree with what Fox done on air. I'm not trying to defend that. Eva is a nasty piece of work and no one who hates Fox will see it. The gaslighting come in the form of her saying... "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." Why? Because she actually said much more than that and is now complaining about 'reimagining' with providing the complete words she said. do you know whether there was a question immediately before that quote? I agree she said much more than that. But if she was asked directly about her belittling suicide then it is a fair answer and probs not gas lighting. Again, for the purposes of some fab posters (not you). I'm not defending her veiws. I don't agree with her views. And she may be gaslighting. I'm just checking in on all angles. Because there are plenty of other things she said that warrant pulling on. It was a singular tweet. I agree there are plenty of things she's said that could be pulled on but I'm trying to stick to this row with Fox. yeah, standalone tweet feels like it is, at best, missunderstanding the issues here. Unfortunately the guys have allowed her to control the narrative. And I meant plenty of angles on that on one bbc clip alone. I have no idea what other views she has ! I read that as you giving her a (slight) benefit of doubt, as is your right. I feel she knows exactly what she's doing, it's how people like her operate. " What does that even really mean? That she has a story and uses her brain to ask the questions that reinforce it? She’s a journalist, and if you want to compare how people like her operate perhaps you should talk to other female people like her who work for the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Daily Express etc and make your point to them? I suppose you could always compare her with someone like Wooton who is still at the time of writing a journalist and see if he operates like her? | |||
"I'm genuinely surprised we have all seen the news of Fox saying what he said yet we don't know who he was talking about. She's been all over the media since. Maybe it's the echo chamber factor. Or maybe people just don't bother looking into things. No I think it’s far more likely to be that Fox is well known for being a bit of an obnoxious arse and that is how he promotes himself but you seem to have some knowledge of this Ava person but aren’t willing to state what that is….are you worried you might be accused of being defamatory to her? In a conversation in which Geoff Norcott was speaking about Men's Suicide rates Eva said "I think it feeds into the culture war a little bit, this minister for men argument. [Mental illness] is a crisis that’s endemic throughout the country, not specific to men. And I think a lot of ministers bandy this about to – I’m sorry – make an enemy out of women." There was much more to it where she turned the conversation to be about women and their struggles, do bare in mind the conversation was about Geoffs book: The British Bloke Decoded. Laurence then attacked her and now she says "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." It isn't just me that has this knowledge, if anyone was interested, it's out there for all to see. I don't have the full picture.... but from what I've read I don't like any views here. Eva's views resonate with when a conversation is about something that seems to largely affect women (eg DV) and others will bring in that it affects men too. That approach lacks subtlety imo. These things do tend to be multivariate. But sex is often a large predictor. I'm sure others will want a sex blind view... which is fine as long as it's consistent. Fox's views were wrong. No need to go into detail. However I dont see the gas lighting. She did want a monster of MH I believe. And she was accusued of belittling male suicide. I definitely do not agree with what Fox done on air. I'm not trying to defend that. Eva is a nasty piece of work and no one who hates Fox will see it. The gaslighting come in the form of her saying... "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." Why? Because she actually said much more than that and is now complaining about 'reimagining' with providing the complete words she said. do you know whether there was a question immediately before that quote? I agree she said much more than that. But if she was asked directly about her belittling suicide then it is a fair answer and probs not gas lighting. Again, for the purposes of some fab posters (not you). I'm not defending her veiws. I don't agree with her views. And she may be gaslighting. I'm just checking in on all angles. Because there are plenty of other things she said that warrant pulling on. It was a singular tweet. I agree there are plenty of things she's said that could be pulled on but I'm trying to stick to this row with Fox. yeah, standalone tweet feels like it is, at best, missunderstanding the issues here. Unfortunately the guys have allowed her to control the narrative. And I meant plenty of angles on that on one bbc clip alone. I have no idea what other views she has ! I read that as you giving her a (slight) benefit of doubt, as is your right. I feel she knows exactly what she's doing, it's how people like her operate. What does that even really mean? That she has a story and uses her brain to ask the questions that reinforce it? She’s a journalist, and if you want to compare how people like her operate perhaps you should talk to other female people like her who work for the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Daily Express etc and make your point to them? I suppose you could always compare her with someone like Wooton who is still at the time of writing a journalist and see if he operates like her? "What???? What story does she have? The one she's telling or the true one? I don't have to speak to people. I can see what they write and how they present things with my own eyes. I really couldn't care less about Dan Wootton. What you're really doing is exactly what Ava does, move one subject to another using whataboutery. I note you have no comment on my answers to you  | |||
"I'm genuinely surprised we have all seen the news of Fox saying what he said yet we don't know who he was talking about. She's been all over the media since. Maybe it's the echo chamber factor. Or maybe people just don't bother looking into things. No I think it’s far more likely to be that Fox is well known for being a bit of an obnoxious arse and that is how he promotes himself but you seem to have some knowledge of this Ava person but aren’t willing to state what that is….are you worried you might be accused of being defamatory to her? In a conversation in which Geoff Norcott was speaking about Men's Suicide rates Eva said "I think it feeds into the culture war a little bit, this minister for men argument. [Mental illness] is a crisis that’s endemic throughout the country, not specific to men. And I think a lot of ministers bandy this about to – I’m sorry – make an enemy out of women." There was much more to it where she turned the conversation to be about women and their struggles, do bare in mind the conversation was about Geoffs book: The British Bloke Decoded. Laurence then attacked her and now she says "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." It isn't just me that has this knowledge, if anyone was interested, it's out there for all to see. I don't have the full picture.... but from what I've read I don't like any views here. Eva's views resonate with when a conversation is about something that seems to largely affect women (eg DV) and others will bring in that it affects men too. That approach lacks subtlety imo. These things do tend to be multivariate. But sex is often a large predictor. I'm sure others will want a sex blind view... which is fine as long as it's consistent. Fox's views were wrong. No need to go into detail. However I dont see the gas lighting. She did want a monster of MH I believe. And she was accusued of belittling male suicide. I definitely do not agree with what Fox done on air. I'm not trying to defend that. Eva is a nasty piece of work and no one who hates Fox will see it. The gaslighting come in the form of her saying... "says something about the period of post truth we’re in that I can say we need a minister for mental health and somehow that’s been reimagined as laughing at suicide." Why? Because she actually said much more than that and is now complaining about 'reimagining' with providing the complete words she said. do you know whether there was a question immediately before that quote? I agree she said much more than that. But if she was asked directly about her belittling suicide then it is a fair answer and probs not gas lighting. Again, for the purposes of some fab posters (not you). I'm not defending her veiws. I don't agree with her views. And she may be gaslighting. I'm just checking in on all angles. Because there are plenty of other things she said that warrant pulling on. It was a singular tweet. I agree there are plenty of things she's said that could be pulled on but I'm trying to stick to this row with Fox. yeah, standalone tweet feels like it is, at best, missunderstanding the issues here. Unfortunately the guys have allowed her to control the narrative. And I meant plenty of angles on that on one bbc clip alone. I have no idea what other views she has ! I read that as you giving her a (slight) benefit of doubt, as is your right. I feel she knows exactly what she's doing, it's how people like her operate. What does that even really mean? That she has a story and uses her brain to ask the questions that reinforce it? She’s a journalist, and if you want to compare how people like her operate perhaps you should talk to other female people like her who work for the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Daily Express etc and make your point to them? I suppose you could always compare her with someone like Wooton who is still at the time of writing a journalist and see if he operates like her?
What????
What story does she have? The one she's telling or the true one?
I don't have to speak to people. I can see what they write and how they present things with my own eyes.
I really couldn't care less about Dan Wootton. What you're really doing is exactly what Ava does, move one subject to another using whataboutery.
I note you have no comment on my answers to you "Sorry I went off to do something more useful than carry on with this | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. . People still watch this nonsense?" . Are you able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up your statement ? Viewing figures are rising and the channel always attempts to present both sides of an argument. It is called attempting to be impartial. . Unlike the BBC the channel does not rely on tax payers money or waste public money paying people like Gary Liniker £1.5 million a year. | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. . People still watch this nonsense?. Are you able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up your statement ? Viewing figures are rising and the channel always attempts to present both sides of an argument. It is called attempting to be impartial. . Unlike the BBC the channel does not rely on tax payers money or waste public money paying people like Gary Liniker £1.5 million a year. " Woohoo! Here's a top tip. When you see a "?" Symbol at the end of a sentence, it's a question, not a statement. | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. . People still watch this nonsense?. Are you able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up your statement ? Viewing figures are rising and the channel always attempts to present both sides of an argument. It is called attempting to be impartial. . Unlike the BBC the channel does not rely on tax payers money or waste public money paying people like Gary Liniker £1.5 million a year. Woohoo! Here's a top tip. When you see a "?" Symbol at the end of a sentence, it's a question, not a statement. "It looks like you do not want to produce any evidence. Most rational people would regard starting a TV channel from scratch and surviving for two years as a success story . You referred to the channel as nonsense which is rather derogatory and completely ignores the viewing figures . | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. . People still watch this nonsense?. Are you able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up your statement ? Viewing figures are rising and the channel always attempts to present both sides of an argument. It is called attempting to be impartial. . Unlike the BBC the channel does not rely on tax payers money or waste public money paying people like Gary Liniker £1.5 million a year. Woohoo! Here's a top tip. When you see a "?" Symbol at the end of a sentence, it's a question, not a statement. It looks like you do not want to produce any evidence. Most rational people would regard starting a TV channel from scratch and surviving for two years as a success story . You referred to the channel as nonsense which is rather derogatory and completely ignores the viewing figures ."Hi Pat could you please provide the viewing figures so we can all take a look. Thanks | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. . People still watch this nonsense?. Are you able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up your statement ? Viewing figures are rising and the channel always attempts to present both sides of an argument. It is called attempting to be impartial. . Unlike the BBC the channel does not rely on tax payers money or waste public money paying people like Gary Liniker £1.5 million a year. Woohoo! Here's a top tip. When you see a "?" Symbol at the end of a sentence, it's a question, not a statement. It looks like you do not want to produce any evidence. Most rational people would regard starting a TV channel from scratch and surviving for two years as a success story . You referred to the channel as nonsense which is rather derogatory and completely ignores the viewing figures ."I didn't provide "evidence" because I asked a question. Standard practice dictates that you don't usually provide evidence with asking a question. However it seems like you did answer my question, people do still watch this nonsense when you said "viewing figures are rising". So good work all round! | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. . People still watch this nonsense?. Are you able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up your statement ? Viewing figures are rising and the channel always attempts to present both sides of an argument. It is called attempting to be impartial. . Unlike the BBC the channel does not rely on tax payers money or waste public money paying people like Gary Liniker £1.5 million a year. Woohoo! Here's a top tip. When you see a "?" Symbol at the end of a sentence, it's a question, not a statement. It looks like you do not want to produce any evidence. Most rational people would regard starting a TV channel from scratch and surviving for two years as a success story . You referred to the channel as nonsense which is rather derogatory and completely ignores the viewing figures .
I didn't provide "evidence" because I asked a question. Standard practice dictates that you don't usually provide evidence with asking a question.
However it seems like you did answer my question, people do still watch this nonsense when you said "viewing figures are rising". So good work all round!". Referring to a TV channel as nonsense is hardly a balanced opinion . Up to 150,000 viewers are hardly going to watch what you describe as nonsense. It is both arrogant , insulting and detached from reality to describe people choice of a TV programme as nonsense. Just as well the majority of the population live in the real world and believe in freedom or choice and opinion. | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. . People still watch this nonsense?. Are you able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up your statement ? Viewing figures are rising and the channel always attempts to present both sides of an argument. It is called attempting to be impartial. . Unlike the BBC the channel does not rely on tax payers money or waste public money paying people like Gary Liniker £1.5 million a year. Woohoo! Here's a top tip. When you see a "?" Symbol at the end of a sentence, it's a question, not a statement. It looks like you do not want to produce any evidence. Most rational people would regard starting a TV channel from scratch and surviving for two years as a success story . You referred to the channel as nonsense which is rather derogatory and completely ignores the viewing figures .
I didn't provide "evidence" because I asked a question. Standard practice dictates that you don't usually provide evidence with asking a question.
However it seems like you did answer my question, people do still watch this nonsense when you said "viewing figures are rising". So good work all round!. Referring to a TV channel as nonsense is hardly a balanced opinion . Up to 150,000 viewers are hardly going to watch what you describe as nonsense. It is both arrogant , insulting and detached from reality to describe people choice of a TV programme as nonsense.
"Ah I see, you're confusing popularity with quality. Crack on. " Just as well the majority of the population live in the real world and believe in freedom or choice and opinion. " Except me eh? | |||
"Up to 150,000 viewers are hardly going to watch what you describe as nonsense." You should go look up the viewing figures for Love Island. You'd be amazed at how many people will watch nonsense. | |||
"Up to 150,000 viewers are hardly going to watch what you describe as nonsense. You should go look up the viewing figures for Love Island. You'd be amazed at how many people will watch nonsense." Bread and circuses | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. . People still watch this nonsense?. Are you able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up your statement ? Viewing figures are rising and the channel always attempts to present both sides of an argument. It is called attempting to be impartial. . Unlike the BBC the channel does not rely on tax payers money or waste public money paying people like Gary Liniker £1.5 million a year. Woohoo! Here's a top tip. When you see a "?" Symbol at the end of a sentence, it's a question, not a statement. It looks like you do not want to produce any evidence. Most rational people would regard starting a TV channel from scratch and surviving for two years as a success story . You referred to the channel as nonsense which is rather derogatory and completely ignores the viewing figures .
I didn't provide "evidence" because I asked a question. Standard practice dictates that you don't usually provide evidence with asking a question.
However it seems like you did answer my question, people do still watch this nonsense when you said "viewing figures are rising". So good work all round!. Referring to a TV channel as nonsense is hardly a balanced opinion . Up to 150,000 viewers are hardly going to watch what you describe as nonsense. It is both arrogant , insulting and detached from reality to describe people choice of a TV programme as nonsense. Just as well the majority of the population live in the real world and believe in freedom or choice and opinion. "Hi Pat where did you get the 150,000 number from? Best I have seen is 71,000 viewers in prime time but those figure could now be out of date. | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. . People still watch this nonsense?. Are you able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up your statement ? Viewing figures are rising and the channel always attempts to present both sides of an argument. It is called attempting to be impartial. . Unlike the BBC the channel does not rely on tax payers money or waste public money paying people like Gary Liniker £1.5 million a year. Woohoo! Here's a top tip. When you see a "?" Symbol at the end of a sentence, it's a question, not a statement. It looks like you do not want to produce any evidence. Most rational people would regard starting a TV channel from scratch and surviving for two years as a success story . You referred to the channel as nonsense which is rather derogatory and completely ignores the viewing figures .
I didn't provide "evidence" because I asked a question. Standard practice dictates that you don't usually provide evidence with asking a question.
However it seems like you did answer my question, people do still watch this nonsense when you said "viewing figures are rising". So good work all round!. Referring to a TV channel as nonsense is hardly a balanced opinion . Up to 150,000 viewers are hardly going to watch what you describe as nonsense. It is both arrogant , insulting and detached from reality to describe people choice of a TV programme as nonsense. Just as well the majority of the population live in the real world and believe in freedom or choice and opinion.
Hi Pat where did you get the 150,000 number from? Best I have seen is 71,000 viewers in prime time but those figure could now be out of date."This is the latest figures I could find which compare other outlets. https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/gb-news-ratings-two-year-anniversary-digital-growth/ | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. . People still watch this nonsense?. Are you able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up your statement ? Viewing figures are rising and the channel always attempts to present both sides of an argument. It is called attempting to be impartial. . Unlike the BBC the channel does not rely on tax payers money or waste public money paying people like Gary Liniker £1.5 million a year. Woohoo! Here's a top tip. When you see a "?" Symbol at the end of a sentence, it's a question, not a statement. It looks like you do not want to produce any evidence. Most rational people would regard starting a TV channel from scratch and surviving for two years as a success story . You referred to the channel as nonsense which is rather derogatory and completely ignores the viewing figures .
I didn't provide "evidence" because I asked a question. Standard practice dictates that you don't usually provide evidence with asking a question.
However it seems like you did answer my question, people do still watch this nonsense when you said "viewing figures are rising". So good work all round!. Referring to a TV channel as nonsense is hardly a balanced opinion . Up to 150,000 viewers are hardly going to watch what you describe as nonsense. It is both arrogant , insulting and detached from reality to describe people choice of a TV programme as nonsense. Just as well the majority of the population live in the real world and believe in freedom or choice and opinion.
Hi Pat where did you get the 150,000 number from? Best I have seen is 71,000 viewers in prime time but those figure could now be out of date.
This is the latest figures I could find which compare other outlets.
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media-audience-and-business-data/media_metrics/gb-news-ratings-two-year-anniversary-digital-growth/"That’s what I was looking at... “While the company has seen digital growth, linear reach has grown more slowly. In May, according to BARB, the TV channel reached 3.4 million people, which while ahead of TalkTV on 1.8 million was behind Sky News (8.7 million) and market leader BBC News (10.7 million). In prime time it sometimes however, reaches a similar audience to Sky News. This month both channels have averaged 71,000 viewers in prime time.” Those figures are from May do I was wondering where Pat got his figures from? | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. . People still watch this nonsense?. Are you able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up your statement ? Viewing figures are rising and the channel always attempts to present both sides of an argument. It is called attempting to be impartial. . Unlike the BBC the channel does not rely on tax payers money or waste public money paying people like Gary Liniker £1.5 million a year. Woohoo! Here's a top tip. When you see a "?" Symbol at the end of a sentence, it's a question, not a statement. It looks like you do not want to produce any evidence. Most rational people would regard starting a TV channel from scratch and surviving for two years as a success story . You referred to the channel as nonsense which is rather derogatory and completely ignores the viewing figures .
I didn't provide "evidence" because I asked a question. Standard practice dictates that you don't usually provide evidence with asking a question.
However it seems like you did answer my question, people do still watch this nonsense when you said "viewing figures are rising". So good work all round!. Referring to a TV channel as nonsense is hardly a balanced opinion . Up to 150,000 viewers are hardly going to watch what you describe as nonsense. It is both arrogant , insulting and detached from reality to describe people choice of a TV programme as nonsense. Just as well the majority of the population live in the real world and believe in freedom or choice and opinion.
Hi Pat where did you get the 150,000 number from? Best I have seen is 71,000 viewers in prime time but those figure could now be out of date.". It looks like you may have misread my statement ( maybe that is deliberate ) Various forum users on here dislike success stories . I said up to 150,000 viewers | |||
"Up to 150,000 viewers are hardly going to watch what you describe as nonsense. You should go look up the viewing figures for Love Island. You'd be amazed at how many people will watch nonsense." . Difficult to see what possible relevance your comment has . One programme is for entertainment , the other is a newly established news channel which has achieved considerable success despite the efforts of the merchants and doom and gloom and those who sneer at people who have different opinions to theirs. . | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. . People still watch this nonsense?. Are you able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up your statement ? Viewing figures are rising and the channel always attempts to present both sides of an argument. It is called attempting to be impartial. . Unlike the BBC the channel does not rely on tax payers money or waste public money paying people like Gary Liniker £1.5 million a year. Woohoo! Here's a top tip. When you see a "?" Symbol at the end of a sentence, it's a question, not a statement. It looks like you do not want to produce any evidence. Most rational people would regard starting a TV channel from scratch and surviving for two years as a success story . You referred to the channel as nonsense which is rather derogatory and completely ignores the viewing figures .
I didn't provide "evidence" because I asked a question. Standard practice dictates that you don't usually provide evidence with asking a question.
However it seems like you did answer my question, people do still watch this nonsense when you said "viewing figures are rising". So good work all round!. Referring to a TV channel as nonsense is hardly a balanced opinion . Up to 150,000 viewers are hardly going to watch what you describe as nonsense. It is both arrogant , insulting and detached from reality to describe people choice of a TV programme as nonsense. Just as well the majority of the population live in the real world and believe in freedom or choice and opinion.
Hi Pat where did you get the 150,000 number from? Best I have seen is 71,000 viewers in prime time but those figure could now be out of date.. It looks like you may have misread my statement ( maybe that is deliberate ) Various forum users on here dislike success stories . I said up to 150,000 viewers "Being honest I missed the “up to”. So where is that figure from? Which day(s) did they hit that number? How often did they hit that peak? Which programme was driving that? Or just tell me where you are getting your data so I can look. 150,000 is 79,000 more than their average or 112% higher than their average. So quite the peak. Must also mean they have tiny viewing figures other times of the day (different programmes) to reduce the average from peak by over a half! | |||
"Up to 150,000 viewers are hardly going to watch what you describe as nonsense. You should go look up the viewing figures for Love Island. You'd be amazed at how many people will watch nonsense.. Difficult to see what possible relevance your comment has . One programme is for entertainment , the other is a newly established news channel which has achieved considerable success despite the efforts of the merchants and doom and gloom and those who sneer at people who have different opinions to theirs. ." Never heard Love Island described as a "news channel". But there we go. | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. . People still watch this nonsense?. Are you able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up your statement ? Viewing figures are rising and the channel always attempts to present both sides of an argument. It is called attempting to be impartial. . Unlike the BBC the channel does not rely on tax payers money or waste public money paying people like Gary Liniker £1.5 million a year. Woohoo! Here's a top tip. When you see a "?" Symbol at the end of a sentence, it's a question, not a statement. It looks like you do not want to produce any evidence. Most rational people would regard starting a TV channel from scratch and surviving for two years as a success story . You referred to the channel as nonsense which is rather derogatory and completely ignores the viewing figures .
I didn't provide "evidence" because I asked a question. Standard practice dictates that you don't usually provide evidence with asking a question.
However it seems like you did answer my question, people do still watch this nonsense when you said "viewing figures are rising". So good work all round!. Referring to a TV channel as nonsense is hardly a balanced opinion . Up to 150,000 viewers are hardly going to watch what you describe as nonsense. It is both arrogant , insulting and detached from reality to describe people choice of a TV programme as nonsense. Just as well the majority of the population live in the real world and believe in freedom or choice and opinion.
Hi Pat where did you get the 150,000 number from? Best I have seen is 71,000 viewers in prime time but those figure could now be out of date.. It looks like you may have misread my statement ( maybe that is deliberate ) Various forum users on here dislike success stories . I said up to 150,000 viewers "Wow if that logic applies then can I say that my dick could be up to 16” long then Pat? | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. . People still watch this nonsense?. Are you able to produce a single piece of evidence to back up your statement ? Viewing figures are rising and the channel always attempts to present both sides of an argument. It is called attempting to be impartial. . Unlike the BBC the channel does not rely on tax payers money or waste public money paying people like Gary Liniker £1.5 million a year. Woohoo! Here's a top tip. When you see a "?" Symbol at the end of a sentence, it's a question, not a statement. It looks like you do not want to produce any evidence. Most rational people would regard starting a TV channel from scratch and surviving for two years as a success story . You referred to the channel as nonsense which is rather derogatory and completely ignores the viewing figures .
I didn't provide "evidence" because I asked a question. Standard practice dictates that you don't usually provide evidence with asking a question.
However it seems like you did answer my question, people do still watch this nonsense when you said "viewing figures are rising". So good work all round!. Referring to a TV channel as nonsense is hardly a balanced opinion . Up to 150,000 viewers are hardly going to watch what you describe as nonsense. It is both arrogant , insulting and detached from reality to describe people choice of a TV programme as nonsense. Just as well the majority of the population live in the real world and believe in freedom or choice and opinion.
Hi Pat where did you get the 150,000 number from? Best I have seen is 71,000 viewers in prime time but those figure could now be out of date.. It looks like you may have misread my statement ( maybe that is deliberate ) Various forum users on here dislike success stories . I said up to 150,000 viewers
Wow if that logic applies then can I say that my dick could be up to 16” long then Pat? "We have to respect your opinion and not cancel you for identifying as a man with a 16” dick but we might ask you to prove it and provide credible sources | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are!" . What is the source of your 35 viewers? Viewing numbers appear to have taken a dramatic jump in your later post . At least GB news is self funding and has to compete against unfair competition from the BBC. Let's hope we elect a government who will committ to abolishing the TV licence and make it pay to view. | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are!. What is the source of your 35 viewers? Viewing numbers appear to have taken a dramatic jump in your later post . At least GB news is self funding and has to compete against unfair competition from the BBC. Let's hope we elect a government who will committ to abolishing the TV licence and make it pay to view. " Well there was a point early in GB news life where they were receiving too few viewers to register on whatever scale is used, and as such officially (according to the people who monitor this stuff) had zero viewers. | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are!. What is the source of your 35 viewers? Viewing numbers appear to have taken a dramatic jump in your later post . At least GB news is self funding and has to compete against unfair competition from the BBC. Let's hope we elect a government who will committ to abolishing the TV licence and make it pay to view. " Chill out Pat the “35” was a joke. I must have forgotten you so 36
I note you STILL have no explained where you got the “up to 150,000” figure from!
As for self funding...er nope! They have a proprietor who has pumped £millions in. They are loss making and cannot be classed as self funding until they generate sufficient advertising revenue to cover their operating costs. Long way to go yet as they will need significantly higher viewing figures to up advertising revenue. | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are!. What is the source of your 35 viewers? Viewing numbers appear to have taken a dramatic jump in your later post . At least GB news is self funding and has to compete against unfair competition from the BBC. Let's hope we elect a government who will committ to abolishing the TV licence and make it pay to view. Well there was a point early in GB news life where they were receiving too few viewers to register on whatever scale is used, and as such officially (according to the people who monitor this stuff) had zero viewers. " FYI it is called BARB and they have a panel of several thousand viewers across the UK and extrapolate the viewing figures of that panel up to the whole country. | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are!. What is the source of your 35 viewers? Viewing numbers appear to have taken a dramatic jump in your later post . At least GB news is self funding and has to compete against unfair competition from the BBC. Let's hope we elect a government who will committ to abolishing the TV licence and make it pay to view. Chill out Pat the “35” was a joke. I must have forgotten you so 36
I note you STILL have no explained where you got the “up to 150,000” figure from!
As for self funding...er nope! They have a proprietor who has pumped £millions in. They are loss making and cannot be classed as self funding until they generate sufficient advertising revenue to cover their operating costs. Long way to go yet as they will need significantly higher viewing figures to up advertising revenue. "From what I can work out, GBN peaked at just under 100k. On that day they beat all other news channels including BBC. Not sure what the news was that day. They did average more than all except BBC in Nov/Dec 22. | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are!. What is the source of your 35 viewers? Viewing numbers appear to have taken a dramatic jump in your later post . At least GB news is self funding and has to compete against unfair competition from the BBC. Let's hope we elect a government who will committ to abolishing the TV licence and make it pay to view. Chill out Pat the “35” was a joke. I must have forgotten you so 36
I note you STILL have no explained where you got the “up to 150,000” figure from!
As for self funding...er nope! They have a proprietor who has pumped £millions in. They are loss making and cannot be classed as self funding until they generate sufficient advertising revenue to cover their operating costs. Long way to go yet as they will need significantly higher viewing figures to up advertising revenue. ". Your post is a bit bizarre . You claim that your 35 viewing figure was a joke yet you want full supporting documentation for their maximum viewing figures for the most successfull programmes . Most rational people are hardly going to write down the source of their information just in case on the off chance someone asks them on a swingers forum. In any event you have already said that you have a detailed knowledge of the press and their circulation figures so I am certain you are more than capable of doing your own research and verifying the figure yourself . You might also like to check the mean , median and mode. GB news is self funding in that they do not receive any tax payer funds. We are all compelled to buy TV licences which gives the BBC an unfair advantage over other more efficient private sector channels. I would be quite happen to see the BBC made into a pay to view channel and at least we can decide how how to spend our hard earned cash. | |||
| |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are!. What is the source of your 35 viewers? Viewing numbers appear to have taken a dramatic jump in your later post . At least GB news is self funding and has to compete against unfair competition from the BBC. Let's hope we elect a government who will committ to abolishing the TV licence and make it pay to view. Chill out Pat the “35” was a joke. I must have forgotten you so 36
I note you STILL have no explained where you got the “up to 150,000” figure from!
As for self funding...er nope! They have a proprietor who has pumped £millions in. They are loss making and cannot be classed as self funding until they generate sufficient advertising revenue to cover their operating costs. Long way to go yet as they will need significantly higher viewing figures to up advertising revenue. . Your post is a bit bizarre . You claim that your 35 viewing figure was a joke yet you want full supporting documentation for their maximum viewing figures for the most successfull programmes . Most rational people are hardly going to write down the source of their information just in case on the off chance someone asks them on a swingers forum. In any event you have already said that you have a detailed knowledge of the press and their circulation figures so I am certain you are more than capable of doing your own research and verifying the figure yourself . You might also like to check the mean , median and mode.
GB news is self funding in that they do not receive any tax payer funds. We are all compelled to buy TV licences which gives the BBC an unfair advantage over other more efficient private sector channels. I would be quite happen to see the BBC made into a pay to view channel and at least we can decide how how to spend our hard earned cash. "Ah so either your “up to 150,000 viewers” was a joke or you made it up. Gotcha! There was me thinking you had data more up-to-date than I had seen. Guess not. So average of 71,000 then. At least we settled that. Liz Truss is a good endorsement in your eyes then. Ok cool. To be fair, it does look like her event was better attended than many in the main Conservative Party Conference. | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are!. What is the source of your 35 viewers? Viewing numbers appear to have taken a dramatic jump in your later post . At least GB news is self funding and has to compete against unfair competition from the BBC. Let's hope we elect a government who will committ to abolishing the TV licence and make it pay to view. Chill out Pat the “35” was a joke. I must have forgotten you so 36
I note you STILL have no explained where you got the “up to 150,000” figure from!
As for self funding...er nope! They have a proprietor who has pumped £millions in. They are loss making and cannot be classed as self funding until they generate sufficient advertising revenue to cover their operating costs. Long way to go yet as they will need significantly higher viewing figures to up advertising revenue. . Your post is a bit bizarre . You claim that your 35 viewing figure was a joke yet you want full supporting documentation for their maximum viewing figures for the most successfull programmes . Most rational people are hardly going to write down the source of their information just in case on the off chance someone asks them on a swingers forum. In any event you have already said that you have a detailed knowledge of the press and their circulation figures so I am certain you are more than capable of doing your own research and verifying the figure yourself . You might also like to check the mean , median and mode.
GB news is self funding in that they do not receive any tax payer funds. We are all compelled to buy TV licences which gives the BBC an unfair advantage over other more efficient private sector channels. I would be quite happen to see the BBC made into a pay to view channel and at least we can decide how how to spend our hard earned cash.
Ah so either your “up to 150,000 viewers” was a joke or you made it up. Gotcha! There was me thinking you had data more up-to-date than I had seen. Guess not. So average of 71,000 then. At least we settled that.
Liz Truss is a good endorsement in your eyes then. Ok cool. To be fair, it does look like her event was better attended than many in the main Conservative Party Conference."Your post appears to fail to distinguish between average and peak viewing for a channel . I am assuming you did that deliberately in order to distort the figures . In any event the figure which I quoted would appear to be on the low side . See below Last night’s BARB viewing figures for GB News and TalkTV are listed below. Clearly, GB News is still miles ahead, with all its prime time stars thrashing the competition over in the Baby Shard. Farage’s anti-woke banking crusade pulled in nearly 200,000 viewers at its peak GB News Dewbs & Co 94,900 Nigel Farage 197,600 Jacob Rees-Mogg 111,300 Dan Wootton 125,900 TalkTV Vanessa Feltz 14,900 Jeremy Kyle 10,600 Piers Morgan 42,900 The Talk 43,700 First Edition 9,900 | |||
"Liz Truss thanked GB news for their economic reporting today. Great to see a very talented politician recognising the contribution of GB reporters on economic performance " Wonder if any of those reporters have a mortgage renewal coming up? | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are!. What is the source of your 35 viewers? Viewing numbers appear to have taken a dramatic jump in your later post . At least GB news is self funding and has to compete against unfair competition from the BBC. Let's hope we elect a government who will committ to abolishing the TV licence and make it pay to view. Chill out Pat the “35” was a joke. I must have forgotten you so 36
I note you STILL have no explained where you got the “up to 150,000” figure from!
As for self funding...er nope! They have a proprietor who has pumped £millions in. They are loss making and cannot be classed as self funding until they generate sufficient advertising revenue to cover their operating costs. Long way to go yet as they will need significantly higher viewing figures to up advertising revenue. . Your post is a bit bizarre . You claim that your 35 viewing figure was a joke yet you want full supporting documentation for their maximum viewing figures for the most successfull programmes . Most rational people are hardly going to write down the source of their information just in case on the off chance someone asks them on a swingers forum. In any event you have already said that you have a detailed knowledge of the press and their circulation figures so I am certain you are more than capable of doing your own research and verifying the figure yourself . You might also like to check the mean , median and mode.
GB news is self funding in that they do not receive any tax payer funds. We are all compelled to buy TV licences which gives the BBC an unfair advantage over other more efficient private sector channels. I would be quite happen to see the BBC made into a pay to view channel and at least we can decide how how to spend our hard earned cash.
Ah so either your “up to 150,000 viewers” was a joke or you made it up. Gotcha! There was me thinking you had data more up-to-date than I had seen. Guess not. So average of 71,000 then. At least we settled that.
Liz Truss is a good endorsement in your eyes then. Ok cool. To be fair, it does look like her event was better attended than many in the main Conservative Party Conference.
Your post appears to fail to distinguish between average and peak viewing for a channel . I am assuming you did that deliberately in order to distort the figures . In any event the figure which I quoted would appear to be on the low side . See below
Last night’s BARB viewing figures for GB News and TalkTV are listed below. Clearly, GB News is still miles ahead, with all its prime time stars thrashing the competition over in the Baby Shard. Farage’s anti-woke banking crusade pulled in nearly 200,000 viewers at its peak
GB News
Dewbs & Co 94,900
Nigel Farage 197,600
Jacob Rees-Mogg 111,300
Dan Wootton 125,900
TalkTV
Vanessa Feltz 14,900
Jeremy Kyle 10,600
Piers Morgan 42,900
The Talk 43,700
First Edition 9,900
"The thing I don’t get is that the Conservatives are trying to appeal to a shrinking sub section of the electorate by pandering to GB news while simultaneously losing millions of red wall voters by cancelling the Northern section of Hs2 - it political madness . | |||
"Oh my lord…. Of all the people who would have taken GBNews down… didn’t has it being Ava Santini! Laurence fox went full “Lozza”….. gets suspended… takes down Dan Wootton with him after wootton apologised and fox sent out an “are you REALLY sorry “ tweet with the text chain post show! And the scary thing is that the producers of the show pre show knew what fox was going to say because he said it in the pre show information gathering blurb! Is this the straw that finally breaks the camels back and their license gets revoked…. I didn’t even realise that OFCOM had 10 open investigations into GBNews for breaches of rules going before this one.. Not as many breaches as the BBC, itv, ch4, ch5, or sky. Yeah but to be fair GB News only have about 35 viewers and 10 of those are just people curious about how shit they are!. What is the source of your 35 viewers? Viewing numbers appear to have taken a dramatic jump in your later post . At least GB news is self funding and has to compete against unfair competition from the BBC. Let's hope we elect a government who will committ to abolishing the TV licence and make it pay to view. Chill out Pat the “35” was a joke. I must have forgotten you so 36
I note you STILL have no explained where you got the “up to 150,000” figure from!
As for self funding...er nope! They have a proprietor who has pumped £millions in. They are loss making and cannot be classed as self funding until they generate sufficient advertising revenue to cover their operating costs. Long way to go yet as they will need significantly higher viewing figures to up advertising revenue. . Your post is a bit bizarre . You claim that your 35 viewing figure was a joke yet you want full supporting documentation for their maximum viewing figures for the most successfull programmes . Most rational people are hardly going to write down the source of their information just in case on the off chance someone asks them on a swingers forum. In any event you have already said that you have a detailed knowledge of the press and their circulation figures so I am certain you are more than capable of doing your own research and verifying the figure yourself . You might also like to check the mean , median and mode.
GB news is self funding in that they do not receive any tax payer funds. We are all compelled to buy TV licences which gives the BBC an unfair advantage over other more efficient private sector channels. I would be quite happen to see the BBC made into a pay to view channel and at least we can decide how how to spend our hard earned cash.
Ah so either your “up to 150,000 viewers” was a joke or you made it up. Gotcha! There was me thinking you had data more up-to-date than I had seen. Guess not. So average of 71,000 then. At least we settled that.
Liz Truss is a good endorsement in your eyes then. Ok cool. To be fair, it does look like her event was better attended than many in the main Conservative Party Conference.
Your post appears to fail to distinguish between average and peak viewing for a channel . I am assuming you did that deliberately in order to distort the figures . In any event the figure which I quoted would appear to be on the low side . See below
Last night’s BARB viewing figures for GB News and TalkTV are listed below. Clearly, GB News is still miles ahead, with all its prime time stars thrashing the competition over in the Baby Shard. Farage’s anti-woke banking crusade pulled in nearly 200,000 viewers at its peak
GB News
Dewbs & Co 94,900
Nigel Farage 197,600
Jacob Rees-Mogg 111,300
Dan Wootton 125,900
TalkTV
Vanessa Feltz 14,900
Jeremy Kyle 10,600
Piers Morgan 42,900
The Talk 43,700
First Edition 9,900
"At last! Thanks Pat. That was all I was asking for. You say last night’s figures. What period do these cover as I am surprised to see Dan Wootton? | |||
| |||
"BTW what is am “anti-woke banking crusade”? Everything seems to be getting labelled “woke” these days which totally dilutes the meaning perceived or otherwise."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#:~:text=Woke%20is%20an%20adjective%20derived,justice%2C%20sexism%20and%20LGBT%20rights.
Started in the States in 1910 and completely agree- meaning has diverged completely from its origins.
| |||
"BTW what is am “anti-woke banking crusade”? Everything seems to be getting labelled “woke” these days which totally dilutes the meaning perceived or otherwise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#:~:text=Woke%20is%20an%20adjective%20derived,justice%2C%20sexism%20and%20LGBT%20rights.
Started in the States in 1910 and completely agree- meaning has diverged completely from its origins.
"That's what it used to mean. Now it seems like a word used by people who feel like they can't be openly racist anymore. So they attack the people who call out bigotry, sexism, homophobia, race hate etc, by labelling them "woke". | |||
"BTW what is am “anti-woke banking crusade”? Everything seems to be getting labelled “woke” these days which totally dilutes the meaning perceived or otherwise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#:~:text=Woke%20is%20an%20adjective%20derived,justice%2C%20sexism%20and%20LGBT%20rights.
Started in the States in 1910 and completely agree- meaning has diverged completely from its origins.
That's what it used to mean. Now it seems like a word used by people who feel like they can't be openly racist anymore. So they attack the people who call out bigotry, sexism, homophobia, race hate etc, by labelling them "woke"."Yep. I know I misuse the term (well actually I don’t think I ever say it) as I just see being “woke” as being nice and polite to people who might be different to you. Just seems like good manners to me! | |||
"BTW what is am “anti-woke banking crusade”? Everything seems to be getting labelled “woke” these days which totally dilutes the meaning perceived or otherwise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#:~:text=Woke%20is%20an%20adjective%20derived,justice%2C%20sexism%20and%20LGBT%20rights.
Started in the States in 1910 and completely agree- meaning has diverged completely from its origins.
That's what it used to mean. Now it seems like a word used by people who feel like they can't be openly racist anymore. So they attack the people who call out bigotry, sexism, homophobia, race hate etc, by labelling them "woke".
Yep. I know I misuse the term (well actually I don’t think I ever say it) as I just see being “woke” as being nice and polite to people who might be different to you. Just seems like good manners to me!"I don't ever use the term but I understand its common use. It's got fuck all to do with 'can't be openly racist'. | |||
"BTW what is am “anti-woke banking crusade”? Everything seems to be getting labelled “woke” these days which totally dilutes the meaning perceived or otherwise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#:~:text=Woke%20is%20an%20adjective%20derived,justice%2C%20sexism%20and%20LGBT%20rights.
Started in the States in 1910 and completely agree- meaning has diverged completely from its origins.
That's what it used to mean. Now it seems like a word used by people who feel like they can't be openly racist anymore. So they attack the people who call out bigotry, sexism, homophobia, race hate etc, by labelling them "woke".
Yep. I know I misuse the term (well actually I don’t think I ever say it) as I just see being “woke” as being nice and polite to people who might be different to you. Just seems like good manners to me!
I don't ever use the term but I understand its common use.
It's got fuck all to do with 'can't be openly racist'."What’s it’s common use in your opinion? | |||
"BTW what is am “anti-woke banking crusade”? Everything seems to be getting labelled “woke” these days which totally dilutes the meaning perceived or otherwise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#:~:text=Woke%20is%20an%20adjective%20derived,justice%2C%20sexism%20and%20LGBT%20rights.
Started in the States in 1910 and completely agree- meaning has diverged completely from its origins.
That's what it used to mean. Now it seems like a word used by people who feel like they can't be openly racist anymore. So they attack the people who call out bigotry, sexism, homophobia, race hate etc, by labelling them "woke".
Yep. I know I misuse the term (well actually I don’t think I ever say it) as I just see being “woke” as being nice and polite to people who might be different to you. Just seems like good manners to me!
I don't ever use the term but I understand its common use.
It's got fuck all to do with 'can't be openly racist'.
What’s it’s common use in your opinion?"more often to term someone as hypocritical and think they are the 'enlightened' despite the fact that they are extremely close-minded and are unable to accept other people's criticism or different perspective. | |||
"BTW what is am “anti-woke banking crusade”? Everything seems to be getting labelled “woke” these days which totally dilutes the meaning perceived or otherwise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#:~:text=Woke%20is%20an%20adjective%20derived,justice%2C%20sexism%20and%20LGBT%20rights.
Started in the States in 1910 and completely agree- meaning has diverged completely from its origins.
That's what it used to mean. Now it seems like a word used by people who feel like they can't be openly racist anymore. So they attack the people who call out bigotry, sexism, homophobia, race hate etc, by labelling them "woke".
Yep. I know I misuse the term (well actually I don’t think I ever say it) as I just see being “woke” as being nice and polite to people who might be different to you. Just seems like good manners to me!"That works too. I would take the dictionary definition. Or the way Farage, GBNews ect use it to lash out at non-racists standing up for their beliefs. Long and short of it, anyone that uses "woke" as an insult is telling you a lot about themselves. (Although in Garage's case, it's nothing we didn't already know). | |||
"BTW what is am “anti-woke banking crusade”? Everything seems to be getting labelled “woke” these days which totally dilutes the meaning perceived or otherwise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke#:~:text=Woke%20is%20an%20adjective%20derived,justice%2C%20sexism%20and%20LGBT%20rights.
Started in the States in 1910 and completely agree- meaning has diverged completely from its origins.
That's what it used to mean. Now it seems like a word used by people who feel like they can't be openly racist anymore. So they attack the people who call out bigotry, sexism, homophobia, race hate etc, by labelling them "woke".
Yep. I know I misuse the term (well actually I don’t think I ever say it) as I just see being “woke” as being nice and polite to people who might be different to you. Just seems like good manners to me!
That works too.
I would take the dictionary definition. Or the way Farage, GBNews ect use it to lash out at non-racists standing up for their beliefs.
Long and short of it, anyone that uses "woke" as an insult is telling you a lot about themselves. (Although in Garage's case, it's nothing we didn't already know)."*Farage. Lol | |||
| |||
| |||
"Rupert won’t be doing anything. He retired recently handing the reigns to his son." Umm don’t think he will be retired, he is one of those who will stay till his passing https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/21/rupert-murdoch-will-never-give-up-power-00117410 | |||
"Rupert won’t be doing anything. He retired recently handing the reigns to his son. Umm don’t think he will be retired, he is one of those who will stay till his passing https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/21/rupert-murdoch-will-never-give-up-power-00117410" Yeah true enough | |||
"Guido has confirmed the truth of a rumour going around News UK that the firm has sought to buy GB News, which is smashing the media corporation’s TalkTV in the news channel ratings battle. Last night Nigel Farage had 150 times the audience of Jeremy Kyle, and Jacob Rees Mogg now regularly wins double or triple the audience of has-been Piers Morgan. Sky News is revamping their line-up too, as it also regularly loses the ratings battle to GB News. A GB News executive has confirmed to Guido that News UK has twice tried to convince GB News to sell and merge the channels. The owners of GB News have made it clear the channel is not for sale. There is a precedent for Murdoch buying a rival channel, merging it and making it a great success. When Sky first launched it had a rival in the Daily Mail Group-owned British Satellite Broadcasting and their famous “Squarial“. The competition was hurting both channels financially, and eventually Murdoch bought the rival out and merged them to form British Sky Broadcasting and go on to great success. It seems that Rupert will be denied the chance to repeat the trick…" Legatum and Sir Paul Marshall own GB news and their finance structure is about as opaque as a stained glass window. | |||
"Guido has confirmed the truth of a rumour going around News UK that the firm has sought to buy GB News, which is smashing the media corporation’s TalkTV in the news channel ratings battle. Last night Nigel Farage had 150 times the audience of Jeremy Kyle, and Jacob Rees Mogg now regularly wins double or triple the audience of has-been Piers Morgan. Sky News is revamping their line-up too, as it also regularly loses the ratings battle to GB News. A GB News executive has confirmed to Guido that News UK has twice tried to convince GB News to sell and merge the channels. The owners of GB News have made it clear the channel is not for sale. There is a precedent for Murdoch buying a rival channel, merging it and making it a great success. When Sky first launched it had a rival in the Daily Mail Group-owned British Satellite Broadcasting and their famous “Squarial“. The competition was hurting both channels financially, and eventually Murdoch bought the rival out and merged them to form British Sky Broadcasting and go on to great success. It seems that Rupert will be denied the chance to repeat the trick…" Mogg's show was excellent again yesterday. Several topics debated. Some fiercely opposing views but all got heard without interruption or being shouted down | |||
"Guido has confirmed the truth of a rumour going around News UK that the firm has sought to buy GB News, which is smashing the media corporation’s TalkTV in the news channel ratings battle. Last night Nigel Farage had 150 times the audience of Jeremy Kyle, and Jacob Rees Mogg now regularly wins double or triple the audience of has-been Piers Morgan. Sky News is revamping their line-up too, as it also regularly loses the ratings battle to GB News. A GB News executive has confirmed to Guido that News UK has twice tried to convince GB News to sell and merge the channels. The owners of GB News have made it clear the channel is not for sale. There is a precedent for Murdoch buying a rival channel, merging it and making it a great success. When Sky first launched it had a rival in the Daily Mail Group-owned British Satellite Broadcasting and their famous “Squarial“. The competition was hurting both channels financially, and eventually Murdoch bought the rival out and merged them to form British Sky Broadcasting and go on to great success. It seems that Rupert will be denied the chance to repeat the trick… Mogg's show was excellent again yesterday. Several topics debated. Some fiercely opposing views but all got heard without interruption or being shouted down" He does seem a brilliant and engaging host. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Laurence fox and Calvin Robinson both sacked by GB news… that can’t bode well for Dan Wootton " Their website has a whole section dedicated to "cancel culture". No mention of them cancelling their own staff there. Shoddy reporting. | |||
"Not sure what Calvin Robinson has done to deserve the sack tbh. Will be interesting to find out what. Looks like Laurence Fox was arrested today for "conspiracy to commit criminal damage"" The whole thing is imploding and it’s going to become a lot more serious, Byeline Times say Wooton gone by next week and CEO fighting for survival | |||
"Not sure what Calvin Robinson has done to deserve the sack tbh. Will be interesting to find out what. Looks like Laurence Fox was arrested today for "conspiracy to commit criminal damage" The whole thing is imploding and it’s going to become a lot more serious, Byeline Times say Wooton gone by next week and CEO fighting for survival " I expect both of those to go. Seeing what the others have been sacked for 'sexual harrasment' should be an easy dismissal | |||
"Not sure what Calvin Robinson has done to deserve the sack tbh. Will be interesting to find out what. Looks like Laurence Fox was arrested today for "conspiracy to commit criminal damage" The whole thing is imploding and it’s going to become a lot more serious, Byeline Times say Wooton gone by next week and CEO fighting for survival I expect both of those to go. Seeing what the others have been sacked for 'sexual harrasment' should be an easy dismissal" Ironically , Paul Marshall’s son is Winston Marshall ( part of Mumford and Sons) and left the band after praising a book called Antigua’s Radical plan to destroy democracy. | |||
