I got the impression from John Mann that pursuing the alleged Westminster paedophile ring is much more important than other more trivial considerations (such as the outcome of the 2015 General Election).
Did I hear Nick Ferrari agree to help him? ("Yes we will").
Turned off JOB "discussing" Clarkson in disgust. One of his theories is that all the people who signed the petition in support are unthinking morons and they also probably support a particular political party (no prizes for guessing the one he has in mind) that thinks that elderly white Englishmen should be considered beyond reproach whatever they care to do, followed by an imitation of a "posh" old buffer outraged by the BBC's actions.
By 10:30 (when I gave up on it) after a longer than usual windbag introduction to the topic he had taken only three callers, the first of whom wanted to support Clarkson at least until such time as the facts of the case had time to emerge more clearly, but he then made the mistake of getting into a "what if it was your son who'd been hit?" exchange in which JOB interrupted every sentence and talked over him. Later in the programme this caller was accused of shouting at him, but he'd only shouted to try and be heard when JOB was shouting over what he had been trying to say in the first place.
The second caller supported the presenter's argument so went uninterrupted for a moment or two but then said something he didn't agree with so he got talked over and cut off too.
The final one before 10:30 started by asking if he could make his point first and then deal with any hypothetical questions but was told "No, sorry mate, you've got 45 seconds, I want you to answer Yes or No, what if it had been your son who had been attacked etc etc etc?" And the attempted response was cut off after about 5 seconds. Needless to say JOB then went on talking about the subject for another minute or two before going to the news, so there would have been time for the caller to have said what he phoned up to say which we never heard a word of.
The arrogance of this presenter is beyond belief.
Incidentally I have no particular interest in Top Gear or Clarkson but since it's the main news story at the moment I would have liked to have heard some reasoned discussion of the matter.
I've been trying to resist commenting on J O'B but I must agree. It was obvious that he would dismiss anybody who disagreed with him. I wonder how many more ways he'll find to slip in a snide UKIP insult without actually naming them. This morning's was the second, after the 'strange whiff left in the studio by Farage' remark.
JOB demands that callers have marshalled their argument before they are put on air. It was exactly the same when George Galloway was on Talk Sport.
If you don't do that........if you have never heard the show......if you don't own a radio (Huh?)........Big Mistake.
JOB had lots of callers this morning who were not ready to debate the topic with JOB......or anybody else. If they need "more time to collect their thoughts"......they can phone Shelagh Fogarty instead.
The JOB aggression works fine for me. It is 100 times more acceptable to me than the snide sarcasm of NF.
JOB demands that callers have marshalled their argument before they are put on air. It was exactly the same when George Galloway was on Talk Sport.
If you don't do that........if you have never heard the show......if you don't own a radio (Huh?)........Big Mistake.
JOB had lots of callers this morning who were not ready to debate the topic with JOB......or anybody else. If they need "more time to collect their thoughts"......they can phone Shelagh Fogarty instead.
The JOB aggression works fine for me. It is 100 times more acceptable to me than the snide sarcasm of NF.
I can only speak about what I heard (i.e. the first 30 minutes) and I never got to hear any arguments because he wouldn't let callers speak more than two or three words without interrupting or talking over them. Apart from the caller who started by agreeing with him, that is. On this issue he'd made up his mind and was not going to listen to anything in contradiction.
Brian talked to the hapless former UKIP man Winston Mackenzie earlier on and it was all good natured knockout stuff. If Mr Mackenzie was a white UKIP member would Brian have been so jocular? It was all rather patronising, slapstick and odd. Brian has said that he changes his accent when he talks to tradesmen who are working on his million pound plus property so nothing would surprise me. He seems to have an unusual agenda.
Who is actually frightened of immigration, as Brian claims? Where I live it isn't even an issue, it's very happily multicultural. Why does Brian live in an 80% white enclave if he is so fond of multiculturalism? He lives in a bubble and has no idea what he's talking about, I wonder what the ethnic breakdown of his public school was?
They do seem to attract more criticism than the others, at least, on a regular basis. We get the occasional outburst against Iain and Cristo but Steve and James are the main vitriol magnets. It's the same on the LBC Facebook group. Not sure if it says something about S and J or something about people who post on internet forums!
Morning all.
It says that they are the only two presenters left on the station that aren't dull as dishwater!
Often in the news, there is a report from "our American reporter" Simon Marks. He is actually the President and Chief Correspondent for Feature Story News. Now, I have heard Tom Swarbrick on FSN !
Originally Posted by*Ken Tun:
“Turned off JOB "discussing" Clarkson in disgust. One of his theories is that all the people who signed the petition in support are unthinking morons and they also probably support a particular political party (no prizes for guessing the one he has in mind)
Jeremy Clarkson is heavily pro-EU / federal United States of Europe and once wrote he saw himself as 'European first and British second' so I'm not sure that meant UKIP.
Here's a simple request... When quoting a post which is especially long (and I'm thinking of the recent posts by orangeballoon and Ken Tun here) is there any chance of deleting the bulk of the quote and replacing it with ellipses ( ... ). Otherwise the forum gets filled up with pages of repetition. (More than it already is, that is!)
I think some of us, when faced with one of your long rambles, have predefined internalisations that it will contain references which render the post unintelligible to those who don't understand the context. ie: the final sentence of the above quote.
thats like saying you go into an art museum and cant see all there is because you dont want to know.. and more importantly you dont want to know. the breadth of knowledge is a boon not a thing to fear.. then again, there is an awful lot i dont care for & therefore know about and either skip read or ignore so it is not a complaint at all... but those who know the popular cult show would know that reference.
but it is all context and if you dont know it, then its hard to just read a short line correctly if something is more than just steve allen simple unless i add the context... and when i do!!! that 3 minutes seems so relevant to the reaction of any criticism of steve allen on any format. for context it is that scene i have as the internalised frame of reference on how imagine most of those defending steve.
anyway... thats all :)
It says that they are the only two presenters left on the station that aren't dull as dishwater!
If certain presenters choose to repeat themselves over and over again, every time they are on air, then I don't see how they can avoid becoming 'as dull as ditchwater'.
About the only presenter I listen to these days is Ferrari.
Like him or not, agree with him or not, you could never accuse him of being dull.
Keeping it LBC... talking about Steve Allen NEEDS context to explain why he is such a dreadful show.
He often (well he has said it a lot of the few times I have had to listen to him waiting for the travel etc) complained at why we havent just "wiped ISIS away"... context : his faithful listeners assume he has a military understanding because of his talk about his up bringing... yet ISIS is a military trans-national group, with affiliations, that has an income of up to $4,000,000 A DAY from oil sales/extortion & hundreds of millions from potential hostage deals.. (i.e no hobby group of internet trolls, and we have an armed force of only 85000 fully engaged elsewhere... while our partners like the USA... well now its politics and wooo, dont want to talk about that do we).
So as most listeners who agree with "funny old Steve" not having any idea about what Steve is actually talking about... how can you have a meaningful "chat forum" ??
The trouble with JOB for me is he has a rather blinkered,simplistic ,and skewed view of any one who does not think unfettered open door immigration is good for the country.
He seems to think that anyone who is anti EU does not like foreigners end of.He cannot accept or loses sight of the fact that it is the political organisation that is the EU that some people do not want.
Among my acquaintances and friends who are Italian,Spanish and French they didn't want the euro and are unhappy with the EU.We are all people and individuals who come together in a friendly way.
Why he thinks it is pertinent to sneer at someone who is married to a non English European national despite holding anti EU views,as though the two are incompatible is beyond me.
Keeping it LBC... talking about Steve Allen NEEDS context to explain why he is such a dreadful show.
He often (well he has said it a lot of the few times I have had to listen to him waiting for the travel etc) complained at why we havent just "wiped ISIS away"... context : his faithful listeners assume he has a military understanding because of his talk about his up bringing... yet ISIS is a military trans-national group, with affiliations, that has an income of up to $4,000,000 A DAY from oil sales/extortion & hundreds of millions from potential hostage deals.. (i.e no hobby group of internet trolls, and we have an armed force of only 85000 fully engaged elsewhere... while our partners like the USA... well now its politics and wooo, dont want to talk about that do we).
So as most listeners who agree with "funny old Steve" not having any idea about what Steve is actually talking about... how can you have a meaningful "chat forum" ??
Because I don't think anyone takes SA seriously.
I listen to Steve but I know he talks absolute rubbish nearly all of the time , especially when he comes out with sweeping statements about ISIS and the three girls who have gone to Syria.
I know what they're about thanks. I don't need a lesson from you telling me that because I listen to SA that I have no idea what ISIS are.
It is serious and it is not funny. And everytime he talks rubbish another load of people soak in a little more of the half truths they will later subconsciously use in their own opinion forming.
It is serious and it is not funny. And everytime he talks rubbish another load of people soak in a little more of the half truths they will later subconsciously use in their own opinion forming.
It is serious and it is not funny. And everytime he talks rubbish another load of people soak in a little more of the half truths they will later subconsciously use in their own opinion forming.
Please credit the GBP for not "soaking up" rubbish spouted by Steve Allen as being of any merit. Whether we like him or not I doubt very much if anyone takes him seriously?
Individually a listener can be rational like you portray yourself... but en mass we know people are irrational and sheep that follow easy simple trends... 400,000 people signed a petition for a tv presenter - most before any of them actually knew what he had done to get suspended... the nation went into a weird mourning because the self proclaimed queen of their hearts died. most people thought common law wives were a legal thing & in a divorce (even legal ones) they got 50% split.. all wrong but all popular belief because people keep saying wrong things on the likes of the radio.
It is serious and it is not funny. And everytime he talks rubbish another load of people soak in a little more of the half truths they will later subconsciously use in their own opinion forming.
Now who's talking rubbish? That can apply to any presenter.
You've done this before where you have a swipe at SA's listeners as being idiots.
I don't see comments here made about Ferrari's sycophants or Nick Abbot's regulars.
all the presenters will have their regulars and fans but I never see them being referred to as idiots who are incapable of forming their own opinions .
Individually a listener can be rational like you portray yourself... but en mass we know people are irrational and sheep that follow easy simple trends... 400,000 people signed a petition for a tv presenter - most before any of them actually knew what he had done to get suspended... the nation went into a weird mourning because the self proclaimed queen of their hearts died. most people thought common law wives were a legal thing & in a divorce (even legal ones) they got 50% split.. all wrong but all popular belief because people keep saying wrong things on the likes of the radio.
we deserve better.
If the GBP are as stupid as you make them out to be, I doubt if a rambling old radio presenter can do much more harm.
Comments
Did I hear Nick Ferrari agree to help him? ("Yes we will").
I've been trying to resist commenting on J O'B but I must agree. It was obvious that he would dismiss anybody who disagreed with him. I wonder how many more ways he'll find to slip in a snide UKIP insult without actually naming them. This morning's was the second, after the 'strange whiff left in the studio by Farage' remark.
JOB demands that callers have marshalled their argument before they are put on air. It was exactly the same when George Galloway was on Talk Sport.
If you don't do that........if you have never heard the show......if you don't own a radio (Huh?)........Big Mistake.
JOB had lots of callers this morning who were not ready to debate the topic with JOB......or anybody else. If they need "more time to collect their thoughts"......they can phone Shelagh Fogarty instead.
The JOB aggression works fine for me. It is 100 times more acceptable to me than the snide sarcasm of NF.
I know, but that was not the comparison VQ made.
I can only speak about what I heard (i.e. the first 30 minutes) and I never got to hear any arguments because he wouldn't let callers speak more than two or three words without interrupting or talking over them. Apart from the caller who started by agreeing with him, that is. On this issue he'd made up his mind and was not going to listen to anything in contradiction.
It says that they are the only two presenters left on the station that aren't dull as dishwater!
Jeremy Clarkson is heavily pro-EU / federal United States of Europe and once wrote he saw himself as 'European first and British second' so I'm not sure that meant UKIP.
thats like saying you go into an art museum and cant see all there is because you dont want to know.. and more importantly you dont want to know. the breadth of knowledge is a boon not a thing to fear.. then again, there is an awful lot i dont care for & therefore know about and either skip read or ignore so it is not a complaint at all... but those who know the popular cult show would know that reference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucn6Uv62VUU from 7m45s on this clip of the episode...
but it is all context and if you dont know it, then its hard to just read a short line correctly if something is more than just steve allen simple unless i add the context... and when i do!!! that 3 minutes seems so relevant to the reaction of any criticism of steve allen on any format. for context it is that scene i have as the internalised frame of reference on how imagine most of those defending steve.
anyway... thats all
If certain presenters choose to repeat themselves over and over again, every time they are on air, then I don't see how they can avoid becoming 'as dull as ditchwater'.
About the only presenter I listen to these days is Ferrari.
Like him or not, agree with him or not, you could never accuse him of being dull.
He often (well he has said it a lot of the few times I have had to listen to him waiting for the travel etc) complained at why we havent just "wiped ISIS away"... context : his faithful listeners assume he has a military understanding because of his talk about his up bringing... yet ISIS is a military trans-national group, with affiliations, that has an income of up to $4,000,000 A DAY from oil sales/extortion & hundreds of millions from potential hostage deals.. (i.e no hobby group of internet trolls, and we have an armed force of only 85000 fully engaged elsewhere... while our partners like the USA... well now its politics and wooo, dont want to talk about that do we).
So as most listeners who agree with "funny old Steve" not having any idea about what Steve is actually talking about... how can you have a meaningful "chat forum" ??
He seems to think that anyone who is anti EU does not like foreigners end of.He cannot accept or loses sight of the fact that it is the political organisation that is the EU that some people do not want.
Among my acquaintances and friends who are Italian,Spanish and French they didn't want the euro and are unhappy with the EU.We are all people and individuals who come together in a friendly way.
Why he thinks it is pertinent to sneer at someone who is married to a non English European national despite holding anti EU views,as though the two are incompatible is beyond me.
Because I don't think anyone takes SA seriously.
I listen to Steve but I know he talks absolute rubbish nearly all of the time , especially when he comes out with sweeping statements about ISIS and the three girls who have gone to Syria.
I know what they're about thanks. I don't need a lesson from you telling me that because I listen to SA that I have no idea what ISIS are.
What do you suggest should be done about it?
Please credit the GBP for not "soaking up" rubbish spouted by Steve Allen as being of any merit. Whether we like him or not I doubt very much if anyone takes him seriously?
we deserve better.
Now who's talking rubbish? That can apply to any presenter.
You've done this before where you have a swipe at SA's listeners as being idiots.
I don't see comments here made about Ferrari's sycophants or Nick Abbot's regulars.
all the presenters will have their regulars and fans but I never see them being referred to as idiots who are incapable of forming their own opinions .
If the GBP are as stupid as you make them out to be, I doubt if a rambling old radio presenter can do much more harm.
Wrong? In who's opinion? Yours?
All subjective.