Politics

[bolty58]

11 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

Stop being a cunt Cheese ❤️

Just like you lot. Asking for the impossible.

[Spider]

9 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

It's losers that wail matey as we have seen for a few years now. We won this one too.

Mind you, debatable whether you won or lost the other one?

I thought the victory being sought was that free speech supersedes all else?

I thought your big issue was folk being “cancelled” by the woke for daring to air an opinion? You go mad when folk are “cancelled” for going on GB News and airing their thoughts.

Yet here we have a tv presenter doing exactly that, and he’s being loudly and publicly vilified. For voicing an opinion.

Who’s won what, exactly?

Block me if you must, but you cannot claim a victory here. I’m not sure anyone can,

[bolty58]

I wanted him gone and he is...if at least only temporarily. Shouldn't be too hard for you to grasp.

He can fuck off and work for Amnesty International or similar now which would seem to suit. I wonder how many illegals he gets around those lovely country lanes the media were waiting for him in this morning? Hypocrites? There's one right there.

I never 'go mad' sonny. I claim a victory. 1-0 and then 2-0 when he is finally gone.

[Spider]

10 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

I wanted him gone and he is...if at least only temporarily. Shouldn't be too hard for you to grasp.

He can fuck off and work for Amnesty International or similar now which would seem to suit. I wonder how many illegals he gets around those lovely country lanes the media were waiting for him in this morning? Hypocrites? There's one right there.

I never 'go mad' sonny. I claim a victory. 1-0 and then 2-0 when he is finally gone.

So when they get Alex Scott in as presenter, that ok for you?

[Spider]

11 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

I wanted him gone and he is...if at least only temporarily. Shouldn't be too hard for you to grasp.

He can fuck off and work for Amnesty International or similar now which would seem to suit. I wonder how many illegals he gets around those lovely country lanes the media were waiting for him in this morning? Hypocrites? There's one right there.

I never 'go mad' sonny. I claim a victory. 1-0 and then 2-0 when he is finally gone.

By the way, he’ll be back next week

[jmjhb]

He'll be back presenting in two weeks

[royal white]

1 minute ago, jmjhb said:

He'll be back presenting in two weeks

Correct! 

[Not in Crawley]

22 minutes ago, Spider said:

I thought the victory being sought was that free speech supersedes all else?

I thought your big issue was folk being “cancelled” by the woke for daring to air an opinion? You go mad when folk are “cancelled” for going on GB News and airing their thoughts.

Yet here we have a tv presenter doing exactly that, and he’s being loudly and publicly vilified. For voicing an opinion.

Who’s won what, exactly?

Block me if you must, but you cannot claim a victory here. I’m not sure anyone can,

Exactly, it's a sad state of affairs that this is a thing. It helps no-one.

The odd thing folk like Bolty gone on about the BBC being a left leaning cabal, when all facts show that it's got itself into a real pickle with certain appointments.

Bolty doesn't understand hypocrisy, as on this he's the poster boy of the believe what I do or else off you pop.

 

[London Wanderer]

1 hour ago, Spider said:

I do hope the angry men having their full English breakfasts in benidorm this morning are combing the socials and getting ready to unleash their woke fury on any and all BBC staff who’ve ever uttered an opinion.

It’s all about consistency fellas. When you’re being a wokie 

I wonder if they ever sit there moaning about how immigration is destroying our way of life in England.

Whilst eating chips&gravy, in Little Britannia, in Spain. 

[London Wanderer]

10 hours ago, royal white said:

He’s broke rules in the past, he’s been warned. Simples.

Yes apply them to everyone, I’m not sure who’s saying they shouldn’t be applied to everyone. 
 

“Miss miss he’s been calling people names as well”! Like a school playground grasses everywhere 😂😂

The impartiality rules aren’t simple, that’s the point. For the third time of asking- please go back and read the link you posted 😂 They would struggle to hold them up in a court if he fought a dismissal.

Your comparisons have been very weird of late… Johnny the plumber and now this school playground one. Do you put their voices on as you type? 
 

Usually you’re pretty good at winding the lefties up, nice and sharp an all that. But these past few pages you’ve just come across as a bit daft mate❤️I think we all expected Bolty not to see the hypocrisy in this, no surprises there, even after his 7 posts in a row this morning. But I honestly thought you’d see it, just like Piers Morgan & Clarkson did.

 

[Wanderlust]

11 hours ago, Leyther_Matt said:

I’ll leave this here. He should drop the mic at the end, really.

 

The BBC has dug itself into a massive hole since it was taken over by the Tories and Solhekol could have cited far more examples of the hypocrisy of the criticism against Lineker. My personal bugbear is Fiona Bruce on Question Time - who unlike Lineker is a BBC employee - has ruined a what was once a programme that let folk speak their mind.

The double standards issue they are now embroiled in is a hole they have dug for themselves and as it's pretty obvious the presenters, pundits - and now the clubs and players - won't be dictated to, I'm wondering how they are going to get out of it without backtracking.

Tonight's MOTD will be an interesting watch and both the reaction to it and the BBC's next moves equally so.

[Not in Crawley]

11 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

The impartiality rules aren’t simple, that’s the point. For the third time of asking- please go back and read the link you posted 😂 They would struggle to hold them up in a court if he fought a dismissal.

Your comparisons have been very weird of late… Johnny the plumber and now this school playground one. Do you put their voices on as you type? 
 

Usually you’re pretty good at winding the lefties up, nice and sharp an all that. But these past few pages you’ve just come across as a bit daft mate❤️I think we all expected Bolty not to see the hypocrisy in this, no surprises there, even after his 7 posts in a row this morning. But I honestly thought you’d see it, just like Piers Morgan & Clarkson did.

 

Is he buggery, RW is just a bit of a WUM joker, and I think most treat his post as such. Mostly harmless fun.

No point going on about the rules - these are guidelines, there are no rules - but that's as far as it goes. 

Having a few friends who work for Auntie, it's something that is constantly under review because a broadcaster can't been seen as gagging freedom of speech.

It's the hypocrisy of what is being defined as impartiality that has caused this when those in charge of those guidelines can have close ties to one position and call out someone for having an opposing view. It's not complex, it's not difficult. You can't claim independance when you've been put into a position by a political party.

 

 

 

 

[Wanderlust]

 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Wanderlust

[BobyBrno]

For me he can say what he wants within reason. The Nazi Germany reference was clumsy and went too far. I’m not the only one.

 

[Not in Crawley]

Just now, BobyBrno said:

For me he can say what he wants within reason. The Nazi Germany reference was clumsy and went too far. I’m not the only one.

 

I totally agree the Nazi analogy wasn't great. You've already lost the point if you start doing that in my opinion.

[green genie]

48 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

I wonder if they ever sit there moaning about how immigration is destroying our way of life in England.

Whilst eating chips&gravy, in Little Britannia, in Spain. 

That’s the Empire though innit? 
Allows a good Ruby to be enjoyed while downing Belgium beer complaining about multi cultural issues 

[Cheese]

5 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

I totally agree the Nazi analogy wasn't great. You've already lost the point if you start doing that in my opinion.

The "1930's Germany" analogy was referring to the language currently being used to describe immigrants, and "Lefty Lawyers" etc so it was a perfectly valid comment.

[mickbrown]

14 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

For me he can say what he wants within reason. The Nazi Germany reference was clumsy and went too far. I’m not the only one.

 

He said the language used was similar. It was. That's a fact.

[London Wanderer]

21 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

Is he buggery, RW is just a bit of a WUM joker, and I think most treat his post as such. Mostly harmless fun.

No point going on about the rules - these are guidelines, there are no rules - but that's as far as it goes. 

Having a few friends who work for Auntie, it's something that is constantly under review because a broadcaster can't been seen as gagging freedom of speech.

It's the hypocrisy of what is being defined as impartiality that has caused this when those in charge of those guidelines can have close ties to one position and call out someone for having an opposing view. It's not complex, it's not difficult. You can't claim independance when you've been put into a position by a political party.

 

 

 

 

I agree 

[royal white]

41 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

The impartiality rules aren’t simple, that’s the point. For the third time of asking- please go back and read the link you posted 😂 They would struggle to hold them up in a court if he fought a dismissal.

Your comparisons have been very weird of late… Johnny the plumber and now this school playground one. Do you put their voices on as you type? 
 

Usually you’re pretty good at winding the lefties up, nice and sharp an all that. But these past few pages you’ve just come across as a bit daft mate❤️I think we all expected Bolty not to see the hypocrisy in this, no surprises there, even after his 7 posts in a row this morning. But I honestly thought you’d see it, just like Piers Morgan & Clarkson did.

 

He’s broke rules in the past, he knew exactly what he was doing. I don’t know how many times I have to say it I believe in freedom of speech but there’s also a line, if it’s crossed you’re gone. It’s simple. Where was this outpouring of grief and rage when Matt Le tiss was sacked? 

[Not in Crawley]

4 minutes ago, Cheese said:

The "1930's Germany" analogy was referring to the language currently being used to describe immigrants, and "Lefty Lawyers" etc so it was a perfectly valid comment.

I'm not so sure, I think you are already on the backfoot with the analogy.

I agree with the point, just not the wording

[Winchester White]

2 minutes ago, Cheese said:

The "1930's Germany" analogy was referring to the language currently being used to describe immigrants, and "Lefty Lawyers" etc so it was a perfectly valid comment.

Exactly. Saying the language was similar to 1930s Germany is not saying the Tories are nazis like the Daily Mail would have you believe.  They didn't go from saying Jews are bad on Monday and sending them to Auschwitz on the Tuesday ffs.

[mickbrown]

Nice to see skippy sticking to his guns.

Proper brain twister for him this and he's tripping himself up with every visit to his crumb covered keyboard. 

 

[Spider]

1 minute ago, royal white said:

He’s broke rules in the past, he knew exactly what he was doing. I don’t know how many times I have to say it I believe in freedom of speech but there’s also a line, if it’s crossed you’re gone. It’s simple. Where was this outpouring of grief and rage when Matt Le tiss was sacked? 

That was SkySports and he wasn’t sacked

[Not in Crawley]

1 minute ago, royal white said:

He’s broke rules in the past, he knew exactly what he was doing. I don’t know how many times I have to say it I believe in freedom of speech but there’s also a line, if it’s crossed you’re gone. It’s simple. Where was this outpouring of grief and rage when Matt Le tiss was sacked? 

I was wondering if you'd bring up Le Tiss.

Couple of things....

- he wasn't sacked for his views

- sky isn't a publicly owned body

But other than that, nailed it.