GB News presenter

[henrysmithsgloves]

13 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

I think the responses confirm a total lack of watching. 

Too busy watching RT 🤔

[Gundermann]

Lozza Fox... 😆

 

In a hole with a spade and still digging. 

 

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

He's really not a very nice chap is he? 

[Cade]

Tasty wee defamation case there likes.

 

And this kind of childish ranting will only result in him being denied access to the weans too.

 

Not the sharpest tool in the box.

[Gundermann]

25 minutes ago, Cade said:

Tasty wee defamation case there likes.

 

And this kind of childish ranting will only result in him being denied access to the weans too.

 

Not the sharpest tool in the box.

 

Aye, but free speech...

[i wish jj was my dad]

6 hours ago, Gundermann said:

 

Aye, but free speech...

Nah, he'll be fine. It's only Scotland that penalises right wing extremists that preach intolerance and use the internet to defame people. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

13 hours ago, Gundermann said:

 

Aye, but free speech...

 

You do come across as very against freedom of speech unless of course it's the same narrative you pursue. 

[Gizmo]

16 hours ago, Gundermann said:

Lozza Fox... 😆

 

In a hole with a spade and still digging. 

 

 

He's a performative chancer, no question, but £47K surely cannot be for a month's child maintenance??

[Dawnrazor]

2 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

He's a performative chancer, no question, but £47K surely cannot be for a month's child maintenance??

I've no time for him, but I do sympathise with his as far as access and maintenance goes, I've a good mate that's going through absolute hell trying to see his daughter, what mothers can get away with is truly a national scandal.

[Gundermann]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

You do come across as very against freedom of speech unless of course it's the same narrative you pursue. 

 

How come? Feel free to answer freely btw.

[Gundermann]

30 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

He's a performative chancer, no question, but £47K surely cannot be for a month's child maintenance??

 

Yeah, sounds strange. Who knows what other shit he's involved himself in. Maybe it includes legal bills?

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

You do come across as very against freedom of speech unless of course it's the same narrative you pursue. 

Bang on 

[i wish jj was my dad]

Freedom of speech is something we should cherish and protect but in a decent, progressive society it has to accept decent boundaries of behaviour. That point goes over the head of 'libertarians' who accept no responsibility for the consequences of their actions and behaviour and squeal when pulled up. 

 

There is something about defamatory statements that I imagine this particular character might have learned by now given his previous experience of what happens when you can't moderate your behaviour.  Most people would learn from but that seems to have passed him by so he can't complain when he gets his next set of dumps in the court and if it bankrupts him he only has himself to blame. Personal responsibility and all that? 

 

Regardless of his relationship with his ex, what he is publicly  saying / inferring about the mother of his children will be something they will have to deal with for the rest of their life. I think that provides an insight into his character and values.

I can see why he appeals to some extremists on here. 

[I P Knightley]

11 hours ago, i wish jj was my dad said:

Freedom of speech is something we should cherish and protect but in a decent, progressive society it has to accept decent boundaries of behaviour. That point goes over the head of 'libertarians' who accept no responsibility for the consequences of their actions and behaviour and squeal when pulled up. 

 

There is something about defamatory statements that I imagine this particular character might have learned by now given his previous experience of what happens when you can't moderate your behaviour.  Most people would learn from but that seems to have passed him by so he can't complain when he gets his next set of dumps in the court and if it bankrupts him he only has himself to blame. Personal responsibility and all that? 

 

Regardless of his relationship with his ex, what he is publicly  saying / inferring about the mother of his children will be something they will have to deal with for the rest of their life. I think that provides an insight into his character and values.

I can see why he appeals to some extremists on here. 

A fine post.

 

For too many people, "freedom of speech" is a cowardly or ignorant defence against being abusive, cruel or insulting.

 

Whilst a literal interpretation of that phrase would appear to be a "get out of jail free" card for all sorts of name-calling, it would take someone with limited powers of thought to fail to spot the nuances.

[Armageddon]

On 27/03/2024 at 20:19, Gundermann said:

Lozza Fox... 😆

 

In a hole with a spade and still digging. 

 

 

 

Isn't he and his family loaded?

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

3 hours ago, Armageddon said:

 

Isn't he and his family loaded?

A lot of grifters are loaded.

[periodictabledancer]

On 28/03/2024 at 23:13, i wish jj was my dad said:

Freedom of speech is something we should cherish and protect but in a decent, progressive society it has to accept decent boundaries of behaviour. That point goes over the head of 'libertarians' who accept no responsibility for the consequences of their actions and behaviour and squeal when pulled up. 

 

There is something about defamatory statements that I imagine this particular character might have learned by now given his previous experience of what happens when you can't moderate your behaviour.  Most people would learn from but that seems to have passed him by so he can't complain when he gets his next set of dumps in the court and if it bankrupts him he only has himself to blame. Personal responsibility and all that? 

 

Regardless of his relationship with his ex, what he is publicly  saying / inferring about the mother of his children will be something they will have to deal with for the rest of their life. I think that provides an insight into his character and values.

I can see why he appeals to some extremists on here. 

Freedom of speech was originally intended to be the right to be heard without fear of persecution. It has now been *******ised by the loony right to be the right to say what you want,  regardless, and not be

"cancelled". 

Quite a turnaround.  

[Spellczech]

Moaning about your ex- on social media for the World to see is not the smartest thing to do...

[ToadKiller Dog]

Have to congratulate Gbeebies news they are doing a great job in helping make the tory party unelectable. 

[doctor jambo]

On 27/03/2024 at 20:19, Gundermann said:

Lozza Fox... 😆

 

In a hole with a spade and still digging. 

 

 

He’s obviously in massive arears.

so he now owes fortunes and thinks he shouldn’t have to support his kids.

I hate morons like that .

[doctor jambo]

10 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

Freedom of speech was originally intended to be the right to be heard without fear of persecution. It has now been *******ised by the loony right to be the right to say what you want,  regardless, and not be

"cancelled". 

Quite a turnaround.  

It’s not just the right. That is unfair.

the left are just as bad.

 

[Ulysses]

10 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

Freedom of speech was originally intended to be the right to be heard without fear of persecution. It has now been *******ised by the loony right to be the right to say what you want,  regardless, and not be

"cancelled". 

Quite a turnaround.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

58 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

It’s not just the right. That is unfair.

the left are just as bad.

 

Tbf while he is generalising, I think that the 28 page thread suggests that the left are less concerned than the right. 

[periodictabledancer]

1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

It’s not just the right. That is unfair.

the left are just as bad.

 

Personally, I'm struggling to think of  any overtly  "left"  funded TV channel in the UK that selectively invites it's guests/writers in the way gb"news" blatantly does & with the backing of sitting  "left" MPs in contravention of UK broadcasting rules , but I'm sure you can give some examples. And  given the vast majority of the "London" media is owned by offshore,non dom, non tax paying right wing supporters I'm also struggling to see any "left" equivalents there either. 

 

Regardles, my main point being , freedom of speech isn't freedom to say what you want, regardless of consequences.

[i wish jj was my dad]

18 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

 

Regardles, my main point being , freedom of speech isn't freedom to say what you want, regardless of consequences.

I tried to make the same point on the HCA thread.  Society is entitled to expect freedom of speech to be accompanied by at least some common decency but some people lack that and even the filter in their brain to prevent them from crossing the obvious line. That's what seems to be rustling a particular set of jimmies. 

[Gizmo]

27 minutes ago, periodictabledancer said:

Personally, I'm struggling to think of  any overtly  "left"  funded TV channel in the UK that selectively invites it's guests/writers in the way gb"news" blatantly does & with the backing of sitting  "left" MPs in contravention of UK broadcasting rules , but I'm sure you can give some examples. And  given the vast majority of the "London" media is owned by offshore,non dom, non tax paying right wing supporters I'm also struggling to see any "left" equivalents there either. 

 

Regardles, my main point being , freedom of speech isn't freedom to say what you want, regardless of consequences.

Spot on. The classic example has always been shouting "Fire!" in a packed theatre. 

GB News has been cited as contravening impartiality rules at least 5 times by Ofcom, having sitting MPs acting as "news" presenters.  

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

“Extremists” he’s went full Colonel Kurtz 

 

 

😂

 

[Cade]

18 hours ago, periodictabledancer said:

Freedom of speech was originally intended to be the right to be heard without fear of persecution. It has now been *******ised by the loony right to be the right to say what you want,  regardless, and not be

"cancelled". 

Quite a turnaround.  

 

....the right wing "free speech" crowd are also the ones launching vexatious legal gagging actions against anyone who, erm, speaks out against them.

 

 

[i wish jj was my dad]

55 minutes ago, Cade said:

 

....the right wing "free speech" crowd are also the ones launching vexatious legal gagging actions against anyone who, erm, speaks out against them.

 

 

The wider issue is that pricks who can't control themselves when running off at the mouth don't want to accept that there could be consequences. If you are a bigoted arsehole I can understand why that would make you uncomfortable. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

It certainly looks like some people can’t Control themselves using , potty abusive language about others.   . Dearie me again . 

[luckydug]

35 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

It certainly looks like some people can’t Control themselves using , potty abusive language about others.   . Dearie me again . 

.

[i wish jj was my dad]

I'd expect that if you demand protecting free speech without inhibitions that includes supporting the application of appropriate descriptions. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Using terms like “ bigoted arsehole “ and “ pricks “ is very angry and abrasive  language in any discussion . In fact it evidences an intolerant  approach to a persons rights to free speech by using degrading and demeaning language about them . In effect they have lost any argument . Dearie me . I feel for the persons  he may be referring to . 

[Norm]

10 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Using terms like “ bigoted arsehole “ and “ pricks “ is very angry and abrasive  language in any discussion . In fact it evidences an intolerant  approach to a persons rights to free speech by using degrading and demeaning language about them . In effect they have lost any argument . Dearie me . I feel for the persons  he may be referring to . 

Aren't they just exercising their free speech?

[Hmfc1965]

10 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Using terms like “ bigoted arsehole “ and “ pricks “ is very angry and abrasive  language in any discussion . In fact it evidences an intolerant  approach to a persons rights to free speech by using degrading and demeaning language about them . In effect they have lost any argument . Dearie me . I feel for the persons  he may be referring to . 

No it doesn't.

People have the right to show they're a bigoted arsehole or prick through freedom of speech.

[Gizmo]

11 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Using terms like “ bigoted arsehole “ and “ pricks “ is very angry and abrasive  language in any discussion . In fact it evidences an intolerant  approach to a persons rights to free speech by using degrading and demeaning language about them . In effect they have lost any argument . Dearie me . I feel for the persons  he may be referring to . 

That yon Hitler was a bigoted fascist arsehole.



 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Gizmo said:

That yon Hitler was a bigoted fascist arsehole.



 

The thing is he referring to me in a not very subtle way . It’s offensive and hateful and also cowardly as he never mentions me by name ( obviously ) . Anyway I’ll leave it there . 

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

The thing is he referring to me in a not very subtle way . It’s offensive and hateful and also cowardly as he never mentions me by name ( obviously ) .

 

Hang on a second?  Does that mean you believe that it is OK for someone to exercise their right to express themselves in angry and abrasive language if they're referring to people other than you, but that it's not OK for them to exercise the same right if they're referring to you?  

 

I'm asking because that's actually not how freedom of expression is meant to work.

 

 

3 hours ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

 

Anyway I’ll leave it there . 

 

You might, yeah.

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

It’s sad, really. The right would have so much less traction and so much less scope to spread poison if so many on the left weren’t such sanctimonious, arrogant arseholes.

 

 

[Benny Klack]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

Hang on a second?  Does that mean you believe that it is OK for someone to exercise their right to express themselves in angry and abrasive language if they're referring to people other than you, but that it's not OK for them to exercise the same right if they're referring to you?  

 

I'm asking because that's actually not how freedom of expression is meant to work.

 

 

 

You might, yeah.

 

This place is wild - sometimes you don’t actually need to argue your case, you can just wait until some posters talk so much nonsense that they end up tripping themselves up and exposing their lack of intelligence for you. What a laugh.

[periodictabledancer]

18 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

It’s sad, really. The right would have so much less traction and so much less scope to spread poison if so many on the left weren’t such sanctimonious, arrogant arseholes.

 

 

Ah, OK, it's the fault of "so many on the left" again.

I geddit now. 

Edited April 7 by periodictabledancer

[FWJ]

14 minutes ago, Benny Klack said:

This place is wild - sometimes you don’t actually need to argue your case, you can just wait until some posters talk so much nonsense that they end up tripping themselves up and exposing their lack of intelligence for you. What a laugh.

Yes, the great champion of free speech has told me to stop talking about something he disagreed with.

Edited April 7 by FWJ

[Ulysses]

42 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

It’s sad, really. The right would have so much less traction and so much less scope to spread poison if so many on the left weren’t such sanctimonious, arrogant arseholes.

 

 

 

 

Hang on a second? Does that mean you believe that the right spreads poison, but that it's OK for them to do that because they think the left are sanctimonious and arrogant?  

 

I'm asking because...  ...well, just asking.

[John Findlay]

39 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Hang on a second? Does that mean you believe that the right spreads poison, but that it's OK for them to do that because they think the left are sanctimonious and arrogant?  

 

I'm asking because...  ...well, just asking.

Personally I don't see any difference between the fanatics/radicals of both the left and right.

[Cranston]

12 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Personally I don't see any difference between the fanatics/radicals of both the left and right.

Very true indeed. They all want to keep, the profound them and us society, that has always prevailed. 

 

The Greens are the very worst though, they use climate change against us, while living the high life, hypocrites doesn't even begin to describe these lowlife scum.

[Ulysses]

45 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Personally I don't see any difference between the fanatics/radicals of both the left and right.

 

If the right spreads poison because they think the left are sanctimonious and arrogant, does that also mean that the left spreads poison because of something they don't like about the attitude and behaviour of the right?  

[John Findlay]

14 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

If the right spreads poison because they think the left are sanctimonious and arrogant, does that also mean that the left spreads poison because of something they don't like about the attitude and behaviour of the right?  

I think they both spread poison.

I don't see any difference between them.

Edited April 7 by John Findlay

[Dawnrazor]

6 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

I think they both spread poison.

I don't see any difference between them.

Extremists from either side are as bad as each other.

[Ulysses]

3 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

I think they both spread poison.

I don't see any difference between them.

 

I'd be inclined to agree with you.  But then I'm a centrist, so I'd probably say that anyway. 🤷‍♂️

 

I'm interested in the concept that the right spreads its poison because it sees the left as sanctimonious and arrogant, and as an extension of that, the concept that the left has a similar motive for spreading its poison.

 

 

[John Findlay]

46 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

I'd be inclined to agree with you.  But then I'm a centrist, so I'd probably say that anyway. 🤷‍♂️

 

I'm interested in the concept that the right spreads its poison because it sees the left as sanctimonious and arrogant, and as an extension of that, the concept that the left has a similar motive for spreading its poison.

 

 

I would say both can be arrogant and even sanctimonious. I believe both waffle incessantly, and you really have to listen to pick out the wheat from the chaff. If pushed I would say those on the left are a little more sanctimonious than those on the right, verging on being pious. With those on the right being a little more arrogant than those on the left, as they always believe they are in the right, as in the opposite of being wrong. 

Hope that makes sense.