All hail @Chizz; the font of all knowledge and the one true voice, always on hand to correct mere mortals on their woefully misguided and out of date views.
Tiresome, very tiresome.
but you know that , don't you?
I didn't realise I did until @Chizz told me I did.
I am sure that the DG and the entire staff of the BBC were all as mad as hell when they were rung up and told what had happened on air. It is impressive that every single person at the BBC all agreed that Thommo should not be hired for a few weeks. If only all of us on CL were so united...
All hail @Chizz; the font of all knowledge and the one true voice, always on hand to correct mere mortals on their woefully misguided and out of date views.
Thommo is an Addick through and through - Justice for the Lincoln One. He serves his local community with pride and his reporting enables him still to play an active and worthy role in the game he loves. The BBC's craven nit-picking unjustly demeans an honourable and respected guy.
Take this chance to enjoy some more old-school broadcasting, before Monty Python too is wiped/
How many complaints does the BBC need to take action and who in the BBC decides what to ban? Do they have any objective criteria that would stand up in a court of law?
All the huge problems in the world and someone chooses to get upset about this????
What a fantastic summary. Works over here too and is one of the main reasons Boris wiped out Jezza last year. People don't want all this shite, playing to the twitter sphere and those who shout loudest about what their specific issues are.
How many complaints does the BBC need to take action and who in the BBC decides what to ban? Do they have any objective criteria that would stand up in a court of law?
All the huge problems in the world and someone chooses to get upset about this????
What a fantastic summary. Works over here too and is one of the main reasons Boris wiped out Jezza last year. People don't want all this shite, playing to the twitter sphere and those who shout loudest about what their specific issues are.
Just plain common sense and the bigger picture.
The 'left' are clearly aware of how they're perceived but they're caught in a trap. To question any of the new orthodoxies is to invite ruin upon yourself so most just go along with the nuttier elements within their ranks. The end result is election after election being lost but the alternative seems too painful to contemplate.
How many complaints does the BBC need to take action and who in the BBC decides what to ban? Do they have any objective criteria that would stand up in a court of law?
All the huge problems in the world and someone chooses to get upset about this????
What a fantastic summary. Works over here too and is one of the main reasons Boris wiped out Jezza last year. People don't want all this shite, playing to the twitter sphere and those who shout loudest about what their specific issues are.
Just plain common sense and the bigger picture.
The 'left' are clearly aware of how they're perceived but they're caught in a trap. To question any of the new orthodoxies is to invite ruin upon yourself so most just go along with the nuttier elements within their ranks. The end result is election after election being lost but the alternative seems too painful to contemplate.
I think if the left got out of the toxic spiral it is in in terms of identity politics, they would do so, so much better as a proposition to the electorate. It really doesn't resonate with the vast majority of people.
It means they will have to ignore a lot of their prospective voters, but I would argue that they aren't really the kind of people you want to appeal to, if you want to win an election, rather than "winning the argument" on a forum like Twitter, which is a very good barometer, of how a very strange group of people think.
How many complaints does the BBC need to take action and who in the BBC decides what to ban? Do they have any objective criteria that would stand up in a court of law?
All the huge problems in the world and someone chooses to get upset about this????
For a wry look at the nonsense of wokery, read Titania McGrath's twitter feed. For a more substantial critique, watch the real "Titania", Andrew Doyle, on any number of Youtube videos. It's great to see someone from the "home" of wokery (his politics are of the left) smashing it to pieces.
The BBC seem to think they have a lot of “right on” type catching up to do after ignoring the institutionalised nonce-ism of its former stars for so long.
Even the once respected BBC news has been destroyed by woke-ism. They now pick up many of their 'news' stories from the insane microcosm of wankery that is the Twitter woke-o-sphere. So a few moronic, right-on twats doing their usual witch-hunt over trivial issues is suddenly deemed important to a nation of millions. It's nuts.
To make things worse, they have picked up a nasty habit from the Guardian (and no doubt other partisan news sources on both sides) which is simply ignoring any news which does not fit their narrative. They didn't used to do this and were a reliable news source. Not any more; they simply cannot be trusted.
The whole organisation needs a reboot. I believe that it can be saved, but it seems it would rather bring about its own destruction. It's sad really.
How many complaints does the BBC need to take action and who in the BBC decides what to ban? Do they have any objective criteria that would stand up in a court of law?
All the huge problems in the world and someone chooses to get upset about this????
For a wry look at the nonsense of wokery, read Titania McGrath's twitter feed. For a more substantial critique, watch the real "Titania", Andrew Doyle, on any number of Youtube videos. It's great to see someone from the "home" of wokery (his politics are of the left) smashing it to pieces.
Douglas Murray's The Madness of Crowds is an interesting insight to where we currently are.
Absolute nuts some of this stuff these days and trivialises and detracts from real issues of injustice and discrimination and turns many people off.
Keep telling people they're ignorant, bigoted or dinosaurs for daring to question things like whether it's moral and ethical to prescribe puberty blockers to children or whatever the latest thing we're all supposed to placidly accept without question and it's no mystery why dangerous people like Trump get voted in.
Having anything but the party line on every issue of what is and is not acceptable is met with an almost fascist zeal.
It happens on here on occasion when people dare to have a different view or take on things and are ripped apart or demeaned and ridiculed so to be made to feel stupid.
Do that on a mass scale daily and you alienate and marginalise people who just keep their mouths buttoned but then vote for nutters like Trump (or worse) and the Democrats/ Labour etc left scratching their heads wondering why.
Crazy weird times we are in and it is worrying in that it serves to undermine real issues that need rebalancing in society and also ends up making society more divisive ironically which is surely a bad thing.
How many complaints does the BBC need to take action and who in the BBC decides what to ban? Do they have any objective criteria that would stand up in a court of law?
All the huge problems in the world and someone chooses to get upset about this????
For a wry look at the nonsense of wokery, read Titania McGrath's twitter feed. For a more substantial critique, watch the real "Titania", Andrew Doyle, on any number of Youtube videos. It's great to see someone from the "home" of wokery (his politics are of the left) smashing it to pieces.
PS never heard of Andrew Doyle (although know his creations). Looked him up on youtube after the recommendation and find him spot on in what he is saying here and pretty much what my post is getting at.
I am really surprised* at the amount of offence being taken at the BBC making the decision not to continue using a freelancer who isn't very good.
I guess when the Daily Mail and the Sun want their readers to get upset at the BBC, it's now very easy. Especially when they can claim that it's because the corporation is woke and a bit lefty.
A freelancer not being used must be because it's a bit sexist and must be because the woke brigade have had their say. Stands to reason, dunnit?
For me, I think it's better that the BBC decides whom the BBC uses, rather than the Daily Mail and the Sun deciding for them.
Biased Broadcasting Company......I only really get to see the BBC news on a daily basis over here and to be honest its begining to remind me of the various American Newscasters, narrow minded, biased and handicapped by wearing blinkers.
Having said that, they still produce some of the best drama TV in the world. Gotta take the rough with the smooth.
As far as Handbags......its just plain ridiculous, but reflects this society we live in where being outraged over trivia is seen to be a badge of honour.
I am really surprised* at the amount of offence being taken at the BBC making the decision not to continue using a freelancer who isn't very good.
I guess when the Daily Mail and the Sun want their readers to get upset at the BBC, it's now very easy. Especially when they can claim that it's because the corporation is woke and a bit lefty.
A freelancer not being used must be because it's a bit sexist and must be because the woke brigade have had their say. Stands to reason, dunnit?
For me, I think it's better that the BBC decides whom the BBC uses, rather than the Daily Mail and the Sun deciding for them.
(*I'm not surprised at all).
You seem to have basically ignored everything else everyone else has said on here as I imagine you can then pretend you have won the argument.
Creeping culture of censoring thought and language isn't the way forward and that's the point here as you well know but you choose to ignore that. If you go down that path you're on the road to totalitarianism.
Before you rush to label me my politics are on the left and I don't believe in rushing to ban things you don't agree with and forcing people to use words that have just been made up. Those who argue most loudly about 'identity' politics aren't keen about debate but they love to ban and label their opponents.
It’s interesting @Chizz how you focus your defence on this on the angle of him not being very good (in your opinion), rather than on the central part of the issue.
Another example of the way in which we are heading. Publishing staff now appear to want to ban books they probably haven't even read. The staff were apparently in tears.
Another example of the way in which we are heading. Publishing staff now appear to want to ban books they probably haven't even read. The staff were apparently in tears.
Worrying development ... just because he has controversial views or is even wrong does not mean he should not be published.
Let’s just stifle debate and let the loudest voices always win.
Another example of the way in which we are heading. Publishing staff now appear to want to ban books they probably haven't even read. The staff were apparently in tears.
Worrying development ... just because he has controversial views or is even wrong does not mean he should not be published.
Let’s just stifle debate and let the loudest voices always win.
Not a good scenario.
Any intelligent person whatever their political persuasion can do the briefest bit of research on political history and look at the type of regimes most keen on censorship.
Another example of the way in which we are heading. Publishing staff now appear to want to ban books they probably haven't even read. The staff were apparently in tears.
Worrying development ... just because he has controversial views or is even wrong does not mean he should not be published.
Let’s just stifle debate and let the loudest voices always win.
Not a good scenario.
His views are pretty mainstream which is what is most ridiculous.
Big shout out to all the very brave, and nothing but inspirational, individuals at Penguin Random House Canada for speaking out against having to hear views that challenge all of the gender studies and social science FACTS they've been taught over the years by very, very wet teachers and self appointed social scientists. Their falsely engineered bubbles they live in should never be challenged as they are the enlightened ones and should never have to think rationally about their views. They should be allowed to shout and cry and to use that emotional outpouring to shout down anyone who dares to point out that they are, largely, acting like fascists. That alone should be enough to shut down and shut up any differing views.
It’s interesting @Chizz how you focus your defence on this on the angle of him not being very good (in your opinion), rather than on the central part of the issue.
What's the "central part of the issue"? The frothing, anti-BBC rhetoric trotted out by the right wing press, coupled with a quote, not from Thompson himself or an independent media commentator, but from a convicted football hooligan?
My first reaction to the Daily Mail and the Sun stirring up comments like "woke" among its readers is to question the facts presented. Was he sacked? No. Did he come out with dull clichés? Yes. Did anyone claim to be "offended"? No. Was he being broadcast on a station with a very high listenership? No.
It's my view that the BBC isn't using him for a while because he isn't very good, not that he is "sexist". They're giving him the chance to improve before returning. But the story "BBC continues to improve" isn't the narrative that most of the right leaning media want to present.
Also, it's not "defence", because nothing needs defending. It's unashamed support.
Comments
It's a sport for many people. Very sad people it has to be said.
Defending things like this simply to be a contrarian (yawn) is also pretty sad...
Thommo is an Addick through and through - Justice for the Lincoln One. He serves his local community with pride and his reporting enables him still to play an active and worthy role in the game he loves. The BBC's craven nit-picking unjustly demeans an honourable and respected guy.
Take this chance to enjoy some more old-school broadcasting, before Monty Python too is wiped/
What a fantastic summary. Works over here too and is one of the main reasons Boris wiped out Jezza last year. People don't want all this shite, playing to the twitter sphere and those who shout loudest about what their specific issues are.
Just plain common sense and the bigger picture.
It means they will have to ignore a lot of their prospective voters, but I would argue that they aren't really the kind of people you want to appeal to, if you want to win an election, rather than "winning the argument" on a forum like Twitter, which is a very good barometer, of how a very strange group of people think.
Gender biased overtones of sexual repression that identifies with a minority, disadvantaged section of society.
To make things worse, they have picked up a nasty habit from the Guardian (and no doubt other partisan news sources on both sides) which is simply ignoring any news which does not fit their narrative. They didn't used to do this and were a reliable news source. Not any more; they simply cannot be trusted.
The whole organisation needs a reboot. I believe that it can be saved, but it seems it would rather bring about its own destruction. It's sad really.
Absolute nuts some of this stuff these days and trivialises and detracts from real issues of injustice and discrimination and turns many people off.
Keep telling people they're ignorant, bigoted or dinosaurs for daring to question things like whether it's moral and ethical to prescribe puberty blockers to children or whatever the latest thing we're all supposed to placidly accept without question and it's no mystery why dangerous people like Trump get voted in.
Having anything but the party line on every issue of what is and is not acceptable is met with an almost fascist zeal.
It happens on here on occasion when people dare to have a different view or take on things and are ripped apart or demeaned and ridiculed so to be made to feel stupid.
Do that on a mass scale daily and you alienate and marginalise people who just keep their mouths buttoned but then vote for nutters like Trump (or worse) and the Democrats/ Labour etc left scratching their heads wondering why.
Crazy weird times we are in and it is worrying in that it serves to undermine real issues that need rebalancing in society and also ends up making society more divisive ironically which is surely a bad thing.
And if theres one group you should offend it's the crazy people. It makes them crazier!
PS never heard of Andrew Doyle (although know his creations). Looked him up on youtube after the recommendation and find him spot on in what he is saying here and pretty much what my post is getting at.
I guess when the Daily Mail and the Sun want their readers to get upset at the BBC, it's now very easy. Especially when they can claim that it's because the corporation is woke and a bit lefty.
A freelancer not being used must be because it's a bit sexist and must be because the woke brigade have had their say. Stands to reason, dunnit?
For me, I think it's better that the BBC decides whom the BBC uses, rather than the Daily Mail and the Sun deciding for them.
(*I'm not surprised at all).
Having said that, they still produce some of the best drama TV in the world. Gotta take the rough with the smooth.
As far as Handbags......its just plain ridiculous, but reflects this society we live in where being outraged over trivia is seen to be a badge of honour.
Creeping culture of censoring thought and language isn't the way forward and that's the point here as you well know but you choose to ignore that. If you go down that path you're on the road to totalitarianism.
Before you rush to label me my politics are on the left and I don't believe in rushing to ban things you don't agree with and forcing people to use words that have just been made up. Those who argue most loudly about 'identity' politics aren't keen about debate but they love to ban and label their opponents.
Another example of the way in which we are heading. Publishing staff now appear to want to ban books they probably haven't even read. The staff were apparently in tears.
My first reaction to the Daily Mail and the Sun stirring up comments like "woke" among its readers is to question the facts presented. Was he sacked? No. Did he come out with dull clichés? Yes. Did anyone claim to be "offended"? No. Was he being broadcast on a station with a very high listenership? No.
It's my view that the BBC isn't using him for a while because he isn't very good, not that he is "sexist". They're giving him the chance to improve before returning. But the story "BBC continues to improve" isn't the narrative that most of the right leaning media want to present.
Also, it's not "defence", because nothing needs defending. It's unashamed support.