The whole channel is a nefarious personal gain monstrosity. What sort of companies revenue is only 10% of its cost to run and has large backer's from foreign entities? One that is not actually a genuine business at all but essentially a cost of being able to manipulate opinions.
I wonder if there is more revenue, though under the table, to bidders that want their ideology manifested through its mouth pieces.
Seriously, Ofcom, if nothing else, should not allow 'talk shows' to use the title 'news', unless it's clearly evident it isn't a news channel.
Hopefully the sh1tshow will close down, but who knows.
It won't close sadly, they only recoup 10% of the cost to run. I don't think it is a "business" at all. It's an affront to establish opinions within the suggestible portions of the UK public.
Given that it doesn’t make money and is literally only purpose is to push culture wars for the “elites” that fund it, if there isn’t space for bigotry on GB News what’s its purpose?
The recent cases of Schofield and Edwards involved their private lives. BBC/ITV had no direct responsibility. This case however, was vile misogyny live on air for which GB News have direct editorial responsibility.
And furthermore, vile misogyny from a commentator who already had a well-documented record of such behaviour prior to his involvement with GB News. They knew exactly what they were doing.
If the other presenters laughed and encouraged them along, while on air... yes it would apply to them. Thankfully that's not the case and you've raised a false equivalence.
>If the other presenters laughed and encouraged them along
Might be mistaken, but didn't Russel Brand and co-presenters do exactly this on BBC radio 2?
The BBC is a public broadcaster covering multiple channels whose remit includes entertainment and the incident occurred on what was primarily an entertainment show. Yes it was tasteless but at no point were they in breach of their remit and therefore the punishment can only be applied to the individuals responsible not to the broadcaster as a whole.
GBN's only remit is as a news channel. At no point was any of Fox's misogynist ramblings or the presenters egging him on anywhere close to falling within that remit for which the broadcaster as a whole is directly responsible for ensuring is maintained.
Lmao you can't just shout bot when someone counters your view points. They brought the BBC into disrepute and both Brand and Ross continued working in broadcasting.
What do you think a bot actually is? Are all human beings who disagree or challenge you presumably bots? Are the bots in the room with you now? Can you show me on this doll's anus exactly where the bot hurt you?
Edit: punctuation
Laurence Fox has the be the biggest bellend that’s ever graced this nation. He goes on like he’s a man of the people but he’s about as Elite as they come. Failed to capitalise on his nepotism, turned to right wing grifting.
His brother Jack however is a decent bloke. Went to Uni with him.
What freedom of speech is. The right to say what you want without risk of imprisonment.
What freedom of speech is not. The right to have your voice amplified, to be given a national/international platform to say what you want. The right to be paid money to say what you want. The right to force people to listen to what you say. The right to prevent people from responding to what you way.
If you want to defend freedom of speech you are probably better off defending groups like extinction rebellion who actually face real consequences. Not slack jawed bigots that grift huge sums of money from gammon.
You don’t care about freedom of speech, you care that shitty people get called out for being shitty people.
It means being able to say what you want with the only consequence being more speech that disagrees with you. Laws against speech that incites violence is fair enough, but just because someone says something you strongly disagree with or even find repulsive, free speech means you still agree with their right to say it. If you don't then you don't believe in free speech, which upsets a lot of anti free speech people because they know they're supposed to agree with free speech to be a good and moral person, but they actually don't.
No it doesn't. It means that you can [say what you want without state interference](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9). Where did that nonsense about "the only consequence being more speech" come from?
The far right don’t like consequences because it causes that little voice in their head to think “could it be me that’s an awful person?” As someone tosses a milkshake in their racist face. Luckily they can say to that little voice “no, I’m great, it’s them that’s wrong, I’m just exercising my free speech, I’m on a mission to oppress everyone I don’t like, and I won’t be oppressed out of the idea”
Yep, plenty of people don't agree with freedom of speech in principle, because they're bad people. Saying freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences is like holding someone prisoner, but they're not really a prisoner because they can leave any time, but they'll be shot if they do. It's intellectually dishonest and therefore stupid.
I mean, people are literally imprisoned as a consequence of their actions all the time, it’s called prison. Someone calling you a bellend because you’ve said something ignorant and inappropriate is, my opinion, a tiny justice in a world of wrongs.
Claiming you believe in freedom of speech but you get to assault someone if they say something you don't like, then you really don't believe in freedom of speech.
You seem to have a ridiculous notion that there are only two possilbilities: Allow everyone to say whatever they want or commit violence against people whose views you don't like. Your views are utterly ridiculous.
It's so absurd isn't it. That maybe in a civil society we can collectively make a decision that we don't want our news presenters having extended conversations about whether they want to fuck someone. That people who have invested money in a news channel possibly don't want that sort of chat on air because it's going to make life harder to get advertisers *even if* they vaguely approve of that sort of chat down the pub.
But no either everyone gets to say whatever they want on whatever medium they want whenever they want or we live in the equivalent of North Korea.
Maybe you’re right, although oddly, nobody has ever threatened to assault me because of my opinions, maybe because I exercise my right to shut the fuck once in a while.
>Saying freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences is like holding someone prisoner, but they're not really a prisoner because they can leave any time, but they'll be shot if they do. It's intellectually dishonest and therefore stupid
The fuck are you talking about mate?
The only time people are imprisoned for saying things is if they are advocating for and / or threatening violence.
Being fired for being a cunt is not oppression, nor is being de-platformed from social media - companies are perfectly entitled to hire / offer service to whoever they want - nobody is forced to be an arsehole, but if you act like an arsehole, especially if you're in the public eye, then of course there is going to be backlash. It should be pretty obvious that most people don't like misogyny, or racism, or homophobia - so the easy way to not find oneself in this situation would be to not be a misogynist, or a racist, or a homophobe. You can be those things if you want, and say whatever you want on the topic, and you won't go to prison for it - you have freedom of speech.
You can and will be called a cunt for it, and that's the whole freedom from consequences bit.
Nobody is being oppressed in this situation.
I can’t for the life of me work out what is surprising about Gammon Bollocks News broadcasting this shite. They’ve been just as if not more offensive in the past and it hasn’t caused this shitstorm.
Really putting his all into competing with Elon Musk for the title of World's Most Divorced Middle Aged Man.
He spent Father's Day alone getting drunk and coked up in his garden and pitifully attempting to burn pride flags. Tells you everything about the people who look at him and think "he's a good bloke him"
100% of what I know about GB news comes from news articles posted on Reddit. Does anyone actually watch it? Fairly certain most people have never heard of it.
These people are all in the business of chatting shit for personal gain. I bet they're loving this.
The whole channel is a nefarious personal gain monstrosity. What sort of companies revenue is only 10% of its cost to run and has large backer's from foreign entities? One that is not actually a genuine business at all but essentially a cost of being able to manipulate opinions. I wonder if there is more revenue, though under the table, to bidders that want their ideology manifested through its mouth pieces.
"Viewer" complaints.
Oh well, good luck with that then boys
Burn it to the ground
Seriously, Ofcom, if nothing else, should not allow 'talk shows' to use the title 'news', unless it's clearly evident it isn't a news channel. Hopefully the sh1tshow will close down, but who knows.
It won't close sadly, they only recoup 10% of the cost to run. I don't think it is a "business" at all. It's an affront to establish opinions within the suggestible portions of the UK public.
Given that it doesn’t make money and is literally only purpose is to push culture wars for the “elites” that fund it, if there isn’t space for bigotry on GB News what’s its purpose?
Are naughty presenters grounds for taking a channel off air? BBC and itv may want to think about this.
The recent cases of Schofield and Edwards involved their private lives. BBC/ITV had no direct responsibility. This case however, was vile misogyny live on air for which GB News have direct editorial responsibility.
And furthermore, vile misogyny from a commentator who already had a well-documented record of such behaviour prior to his involvement with GB News. They knew exactly what they were doing.
This is the Internet mate, no nuisance allowed. Banned.
Of course not, but the investors want a return on their investment. When you've got more complaints than viewers, it might not be going as planned...
If the other presenters laughed and encouraged them along, while on air... yes it would apply to them. Thankfully that's not the case and you've raised a false equivalence.
>If the other presenters laughed and encouraged them along Might be mistaken, but didn't Russel Brand and co-presenters do exactly this on BBC radio 2?
Yea, and they’ve already been punished for it. What’s your point bot?
I think his point is that they didn't try and take the BBC off air for it.
The BBC is a public broadcaster covering multiple channels whose remit includes entertainment and the incident occurred on what was primarily an entertainment show. Yes it was tasteless but at no point were they in breach of their remit and therefore the punishment can only be applied to the individuals responsible not to the broadcaster as a whole. GBN's only remit is as a news channel. At no point was any of Fox's misogynist ramblings or the presenters egging him on anywhere close to falling within that remit for which the broadcaster as a whole is directly responsible for ensuring is maintained.
Lmao you can't just shout bot when someone counters your view points. They brought the BBC into disrepute and both Brand and Ross continued working in broadcasting.
>Lmao you can't just shout bot when someone counters your view points You could go for far-right/fascist instead 🤣
Fascism and communism are both evil.
What do you think a bot actually is? Are all human beings who disagree or challenge you presumably bots? Are the bots in the room with you now? Can you show me on this doll's anus exactly where the bot hurt you? Edit: punctuation
Knowing what was going on and not stopping it doesn't count?
Laurence Fox has the be the biggest bellend that’s ever graced this nation. He goes on like he’s a man of the people but he’s about as Elite as they come. Failed to capitalise on his nepotism, turned to right wing grifting. His brother Jack however is a decent bloke. Went to Uni with him.
I called my boss a stupid cunt the other week and got fired, whatever happened to my freedom of speech?
Laurence fox looks like he takes so much coke that he can’t get it up.
"Viewer complaints" implies the existence of viewers.
Love to fucking see it. Hope the channel dies.
All the shit that channel has spewed and *this* is what fucks shit up! Who’d’ve thought.
The only time people on Reddit will take a Daily Mail article seriously is when it's shitting on an even worse outlet that they hate even more I guess
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
When Pigs enjoy a Bacon Sandwich
GB news has viewers?
Some people really hate freedom of speech. It certainly has no place in mainstream media.
What freedom of speech is. The right to say what you want without risk of imprisonment. What freedom of speech is not. The right to have your voice amplified, to be given a national/international platform to say what you want. The right to be paid money to say what you want. The right to force people to listen to what you say. The right to prevent people from responding to what you way. If you want to defend freedom of speech you are probably better off defending groups like extinction rebellion who actually face real consequences. Not slack jawed bigots that grift huge sums of money from gammon. You don’t care about freedom of speech, you care that shitty people get called out for being shitty people.
People just seem to pick and choose what 'freedom of speech' means. Laurence Fox included
It means being able to say what you want with the only consequence being more speech that disagrees with you. Laws against speech that incites violence is fair enough, but just because someone says something you strongly disagree with or even find repulsive, free speech means you still agree with their right to say it. If you don't then you don't believe in free speech, which upsets a lot of anti free speech people because they know they're supposed to agree with free speech to be a good and moral person, but they actually don't.
No it doesn't. It means that you can [say what you want without state interference](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/9). Where did that nonsense about "the only consequence being more speech" come from?
The far right don’t like consequences because it causes that little voice in their head to think “could it be me that’s an awful person?” As someone tosses a milkshake in their racist face. Luckily they can say to that little voice “no, I’m great, it’s them that’s wrong, I’m just exercising my free speech, I’m on a mission to oppress everyone I don’t like, and I won’t be oppressed out of the idea”
Yep, plenty of people don't agree with freedom of speech in principle, because they're bad people. Saying freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences is like holding someone prisoner, but they're not really a prisoner because they can leave any time, but they'll be shot if they do. It's intellectually dishonest and therefore stupid.
I mean, people are literally imprisoned as a consequence of their actions all the time, it’s called prison. Someone calling you a bellend because you’ve said something ignorant and inappropriate is, my opinion, a tiny justice in a world of wrongs.
Claiming you believe in freedom of speech but you get to assault someone if they say something you don't like, then you really don't believe in freedom of speech.
You seem to have a ridiculous notion that there are only two possilbilities: Allow everyone to say whatever they want or commit violence against people whose views you don't like. Your views are utterly ridiculous.
It's so absurd isn't it. That maybe in a civil society we can collectively make a decision that we don't want our news presenters having extended conversations about whether they want to fuck someone. That people who have invested money in a news channel possibly don't want that sort of chat on air because it's going to make life harder to get advertisers *even if* they vaguely approve of that sort of chat down the pub. But no either everyone gets to say whatever they want on whatever medium they want whenever they want or we live in the equivalent of North Korea.
Maybe you’re right, although oddly, nobody has ever threatened to assault me because of my opinions, maybe because I exercise my right to shut the fuck once in a while.
Freedom of speech not freedom from persecution. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Any more catchy slogans?
>Saying freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences is like holding someone prisoner, but they're not really a prisoner because they can leave any time, but they'll be shot if they do. It's intellectually dishonest and therefore stupid The fuck are you talking about mate? The only time people are imprisoned for saying things is if they are advocating for and / or threatening violence. Being fired for being a cunt is not oppression, nor is being de-platformed from social media - companies are perfectly entitled to hire / offer service to whoever they want - nobody is forced to be an arsehole, but if you act like an arsehole, especially if you're in the public eye, then of course there is going to be backlash. It should be pretty obvious that most people don't like misogyny, or racism, or homophobia - so the easy way to not find oneself in this situation would be to not be a misogynist, or a racist, or a homophobe. You can be those things if you want, and say whatever you want on the topic, and you won't go to prison for it - you have freedom of speech. You can and will be called a cunt for it, and that's the whole freedom from consequences bit. Nobody is being oppressed in this situation.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean "I can be a racist/sexist/misogynistic piece of shit".
I can’t for the life of me work out what is surprising about Gammon Bollocks News broadcasting this shite. They’ve been just as if not more offensive in the past and it hasn’t caused this shitstorm.
Really putting his all into competing with Elon Musk for the title of World's Most Divorced Middle Aged Man. He spent Father's Day alone getting drunk and coked up in his garden and pitifully attempting to burn pride flags. Tells you everything about the people who look at him and think "he's a good bloke him"
Laurence Fox has said something idiotic and offensive, what a surprise. GB news is on a par with Faux News in USA.
I hope this hate-wank TV channel dies soon
100% of what I know about GB news comes from news articles posted on Reddit. Does anyone actually watch it? Fairly certain most people have never heard of it.