I'm having trouble watching this because the host looks like Chris Morris in Brass Eye! The drugs section will have celebs tell "Da Kids" not to take cake soon. They'll be having celebs against pedophiles tomorrow!
I knew that yob who insulted Christine H was just a wannabe. It is impossible to have this sort of programme these days without booking the brain dead, faked tanned, just want to be famous brigade. This is a rip off of Kilroy, but it is an inferior version. You are not going to get reasoned debate with the unitelligent rentagob.
O'Brien is a conceited and arrogant twerp on radio as well as on this - and his face is only fit for radio too. He had no control over the audience, everyone was having their own "conversations", if you can call it that. A shouty mess. Come back the Loose 'Uns.
I think it's a potentially good show but the host needs to go. Although, I do like him on the radio.
There's also too much going on. Have fewer people speaking for longer would work better.[/QUOTEI think it's the other way round. The show is just terrible! James O'Brien is brilliant on other LBC and Newsnight.
Is that woman on the front row talking about working with the police the same woman who was on Jeremy Kyle accussed of lying about having cancer (Luekemia)? She looks the same.
I think they do have some of the same panelists on a handful of shows each, as Graham Stanier from Jeremy Kyle's show has been on before from what I've read above, although I missed seeing him on that episode.
That is so bloody stupid calling James O'Brien an arrogant, conceited twerp, on radio as well as this programme, and having a face for radio, and who couldn't control the audience. He comes across as absolutely fine. No different from other people on television that I've seen. I've seen other debate shows where audiences have their own conversations as it were, and don't quieten down straightaway, not just on O'Brien.
I didn't like the methods of the paedophile hunter and his arrogance in his last comments in not being partly responsible in a paedophile's death and that the man in question was solely responsible. I agreed with the lady sitting opposite him who disagreed with his methods, and her way of dealing with paedophiles however.
That Danika/Danica lady with pink hair came across as a right stroppy, harsh little madam. She got very defensive and accusing James of patronising her, after she told the story that she was responsible for posting porn of someone she knew in revenge, and it being spread over the national papers when the truth came out about it.
What on earth did she think would happen when the truth came out about what she did? Did she think she would get a medal for her actions that had no justification? Or did she think/hope the person on the receiving end would sit and take that humiliation?
She was coming across like she was expecting she could say her part only, for everyone to understand her reasons, not to "attack" her by saying anything against her actions and attitudes, and then to move forward after the conversation, and for no one to ever talk, nor think about it seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, later.
That is so bloody stupid calling James O'Brien an arrogant, conceited twerp, on radio as well as this programme, and having a face for radio, and who couldn't control the audience. He comes across as absolutely fine.No different from other people on television that I've seen. I've seen other debate shows where audiences have their own conversations as it were, and don't quieten down straightaway, not just on O'Brien.
So people who don't agree with you are bloody stupid. No wonder you like Gobber O'Brien, two of a kind.
this murderer who was on today's show must be acting in an ironic manner or something cuz he's going around twitter telling people who are slagging him off 'bloodthirsty.' considering what he's done...! :eek:
The woman whose sister died of a drugs overdose when she bought a 2 for 1 deal after being clean for 4 months was also on Jeremy Kyle. It was an hour long special where they took the sister away, got her through detox and it showed how much she had changed. But the sting in the tail was that she had a massive heart attack just after she left detox and died. It was really sad but the way it was presented was that it was just that her system was so damaged that her heart gave way - no mention on Kyle's show that she had a drugs relapse and died of an overdose. It was revealed a few days after that aired (coroners report) that she had taken drugs. It was a bit of a weird programme, not fully representative of the facts, but awful for her mum (who was lovely) and her sisters.
This programme is still a mess. O'Brien is not fully comfortable in this role, a bit self-conscious particularly when he walks on. He will probably get better but the production of it needs tightening up. Shocking camera angles, the "celeb" panel too far away from the other attendees, and a complete lack of discipline with everyone talking over each other. The right questions are not getting asked either - it would have been interesting to hear what the murderer thought should of happened to him if he did not agree with prison or the death penalty - did he think he should go unpunished?
I think this may be produced at the same place as Kyle's show - it has a similar feel to it. That is why the same guests are appearing on both.
I didn't like the methods of the paedophile hunter and his arrogance in his last comments in not being partly responsible in a paedophile's death and that the man in question was solely responsible. I agreed with the lady sitting opposite him who disagreed with his methods, and her way of dealing with paedophiles however.
That Danika/Danica lady with pink hair came across as a right stroppy, harsh little madam. She got very defensive and accusing James of patronising her, after she told the story that she was responsible for posting porn of someone she knew in revenge, and it being spread over the national papers when the truth came out about it.
What on earth did she think would happen when the truth came out about what she did? Did she think she would get a medal for her actions that had no justification? Or did she think/hope the person on the receiving end would sit and take that humiliation?
She was coming across like she was expecting she could say her part only, for everyone to understand her reasons, not to "attack" her by saying anything against her actions and attitudes, and then to move forward after the conversation, and for no one to ever talk, nor think about it seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, later.
Those two stood out to me too as odd characters, both immediately out to take offence to and correct O'Brien, arrogant and narcissistic when their circumstances mean they ought to behave with some humility. Danika grilling the Take Me Out bloke about on his reasons for coming on the show, implying he was looking for fame and shouldn't complain about death threats, was particularly hypocritical, since fame is exactly what she seems to be out for. Difference is he had done nothing to be ashamed of. She was also bragging on Facebook about becoming famous from her court case.
Oh yeah, and the drug dealer too, smirking when O'Brien was introducing him, tacitly admitting he's still dealing and then excusing himself with 'I'm just making a living'. What a ****!
I was at the recording of todays show. It's broadcast on Thursday I believe. Interesting debates but the panel are too lame, and it was the same old faces. Edwina Currie and White Dee. They hardly had any input or contributed to the discussions going on. Love her or loathe her I think they should get Katie Hopkins on. She would sure shake things up and not take any nonsense from O'Brien
I was at the recording of todays show. It's broadcast on Thursday I believe. Interesting debates but the panel are too lame, and it was the same old faces. Edwina Currie and White Dee. They hardly had any input or contributed to the discussions going on. Love her or loathe her I think they should get Katie Hopkins on. She would sure shake things up and not take any nonsense from O'Brien
No, Hopkins isn't about debate except to insult and sensationalise to boost her profile. At the moment this show is a bit haphazard, I would like to see them trying to improve it as it has potential but it needs to work on the quality of the discussion.
It's amazing how you never see a white working class person on these type of shows arguing against the cultural genocide taking place in areas all over England.
It's amazing how you never see a white working class person on these type of shows arguing against the cultural genocide taking place in areas all over England.
There was a white, working class woman complaining about immigration's effect on the NHS moments before you posted this complaint. Selective blindness?
Problem is, these people generally come off as ignorant, uneducated and incapable of intelligent argument (which is presumably why they hold such opinions in the first place), they don't exactly make for compelling TV. At the end, the woman I mentioned simply ignored the several corrections offered and repeated her initial line unmodified.
As for 'genocide', I suggest you look up the definition. I know it's a sexy, tabloidal term for scaremongering with and accuracy is not your goal, but a modicum of integrity would be welcome.
There was a white, working class woman complaining about immigration's effect on the NHS moments before you posted this complaint. Selective blindness?
Problem is, these people generally come off as ignorant, uneducated and incapable of intelligent argument (which is presumably why they hold such opinions in the first place), they don't exactly make for compelling TV. At the end, the woman I mentioned simply ignored the several corrections offered and repeated her initial line unmodified.
As for 'genocide', I suggest you look up the definition. I know it's a sexy, tabloidal term for scaremongering with and accuracy is not your goal, but a modicum of integrity would be welcome.
Cultural genocide is perfectly apt. Tower hamlets being one example, turning English towns into middle east suburbs.
This notion that people who don't want their way of life changing and not wanting the place they live in to become a foreign hole as uneducated is nonsense.
Comments
Funnily enough, he features under the definition of 'Arrogant' as well.
I see what you mean, what's wrong with his turtle neck? - a bizarre posture from a youngish man.
O'Brien is a conceited and arrogant twerp on radio as well as on this - and his face is only fit for radio too. He had no control over the audience, everyone was having their own "conversations", if you can call it that. A shouty mess. Come back the Loose 'Uns.
I forgot his show was on, so didn't see it today.
And on tomorrows show
Just asking.
That is so bloody stupid calling James O'Brien an arrogant, conceited twerp, on radio as well as this programme, and having a face for radio, and who couldn't control the audience. He comes across as absolutely fine. No different from other people on television that I've seen. I've seen other debate shows where audiences have their own conversations as it were, and don't quieten down straightaway, not just on O'Brien.
I didn't like the methods of the paedophile hunter and his arrogance in his last comments in not being partly responsible in a paedophile's death and that the man in question was solely responsible. I agreed with the lady sitting opposite him who disagreed with his methods, and her way of dealing with paedophiles however.
That Danika/Danica lady with pink hair came across as a right stroppy, harsh little madam. She got very defensive and accusing James of patronising her, after she told the story that she was responsible for posting porn of someone she knew in revenge, and it being spread over the national papers when the truth came out about it.
What on earth did she think would happen when the truth came out about what she did? Did she think she would get a medal for her actions that had no justification? Or did she think/hope the person on the receiving end would sit and take that humiliation?
She was coming across like she was expecting she could say her part only, for everyone to understand her reasons, not to "attack" her by saying anything against her actions and attitudes, and then to move forward after the conversation, and for no one to ever talk, nor think about it seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, later.
So people who don't agree with you are bloody stupid. No wonder you like Gobber O'Brien, two of a kind.
This programme is still a mess. O'Brien is not fully comfortable in this role, a bit self-conscious particularly when he walks on. He will probably get better but the production of it needs tightening up. Shocking camera angles, the "celeb" panel too far away from the other attendees, and a complete lack of discipline with everyone talking over each other. The right questions are not getting asked either - it would have been interesting to hear what the murderer thought should of happened to him if he did not agree with prison or the death penalty - did he think he should go unpunished?
I think this may be produced at the same place as Kyle's show - it has a similar feel to it. That is why the same guests are appearing on both.
Oh yeah, and the drug dealer too, smirking when O'Brien was introducing him, tacitly admitting he's still dealing and then excusing himself with 'I'm just making a living'. What a ****!
I like JoB on Newsnight and LBC, but I gave up on this after 2 episodes.
No, Hopkins isn't about debate except to insult and sensationalise to boost her profile. At the moment this show is a bit haphazard, I would like to see them trying to improve it as it has potential but it needs to work on the quality of the discussion.
Problem is, these people generally come off as ignorant, uneducated and incapable of intelligent argument (which is presumably why they hold such opinions in the first place), they don't exactly make for compelling TV. At the end, the woman I mentioned simply ignored the several corrections offered and repeated her initial line unmodified.
As for 'genocide', I suggest you look up the definition. I know it's a sexy, tabloidal term for scaremongering with and accuracy is not your goal, but a modicum of integrity would be welcome.
This notion that people who don't want their way of life changing and not wanting the place they live in to become a foreign hole as uneducated is nonsense.