The Wright Stuff Discussion Thread (Part 3)

1216217219221222413

Comments

  • cavallicavalli Posts: 18,738
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Wow, that Home and Away actress is divine looking, she's barely aged a day!

    I remember her from years (and years) ago on Heartbreak High, always had a bit of a girl crush on her :kitty:
  • lavender50lavender50 Posts: 596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lovely to see Matthew remember Stephen Sutton at 11am today.
    well done The Wright Stuff
  • IzzySIzzyS Posts: 11,045
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    That was nice of them to do that. I didn't hear about the whole 11am thing until I got home but I joined in when I watched the show back :) had a bit of a bad week, it makes you think.

    Also, on another note, I gather Kevin O'Sullivan is keen on Corrie lol :D
  • DVDfeverDVDfever Posts: 18,535
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lavender50 wrote: »
    lovely to see Matthew remember Stephen Sutton at 11am today.

    Why, did he look like he'd forgotten?
  • lavender50lavender50 Posts: 596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    DVDfever wrote: »
    Why, did he look like he'd forgotten?

    not sure what your point is?
    some tv shows that were live at 11am, didnt respond to the thumbsupforstephen, im pleased The Wright Stuff did. it was a nice genuine gesture.
  • DVDfeverDVDfever Posts: 18,535
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lavender50 wrote: »
    not sure what your point is?
    some tv shows that were live at 11am, didnt respond to the thumbsupforstephen, im pleased The Wright Stuff did. it was a nice genuine gesture.

    Wordplay. Never mind.
  • mimicolemimicole Posts: 50,916
    Forum Member
    Morning
  • AlrightmateAlrightmate Posts: 73,120
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mimicole wrote: »
    Morning

    Morning.

    Who is this guest Johnny Freeman? I'm trying to search for stuff he's done parodying music but I forgot the name of the band he's in that was mentioned. Did anyone catch what it was?
  • domedome Posts: 55,878
    Forum Member
    Morning.

    Who is this guest Johnny Freeman? I'm trying to search for stuff he's done parodying music but I forgot the name of the band he's in that was mentioned. Did anyone catch what it was?

    You're looking for the wrong person.

    It's Stefan Abingdon, The Midnight Beast.
  • jioscarjioscar Posts: 1,438
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Anne Diamond please shut up and go away you like the sound of your own voice to much >:(
  • ChrisEChrisE Posts: 1,877
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jioscar wrote: »
    Anne Diamond please shut up and go away you like the sound of your own voice to much >:(

    Um, that's why she's there.
  • AlrightmateAlrightmate Posts: 73,120
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    dome wrote: »
    You're looking for the wrong person.

    It's Stefan Abingdon, The Midnight Beast.

    Ah thanks. I thought I heard Matthew call him Johnny Freeman. Mind you I had only just woken up and turned it on.

    Matthew always reprimands callers and guests from straying from the specific topic being discussed.
    Yet today we had a caller trying to stick to the topic about Qatar holding the world cup.
    But Matthew was saying "What about Brazil? What about this? What about that?" and the caller quite rightly told him that she was sticking to the topic in hand because that was what the question was asking.
    When pressed to answer him she said that she doesn't agree with Brazil either, but that wasn't what was being discussed.

    If Matthew keeps moving the goalposts, so to speak, and breaking his own rules, how does he expect others to stick to the topic in hand?
  • JeffersonJefferson Posts: 3,736
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Probably not much of a surprise, perhaps, Matt (and other Left-wingers looking to be apologists for the WC corruption.

    Even throwing in the suggestion of "Islamophobia".
  • chitariverachitarivera Posts: 36,905
    Forum Member
    Ah thanks. I thought I heard Matthew call him Johnny Freeman. Mind you I had only just woken up and turned it on.

    Matthew always reprimands callers and guests from straying from the specific topic being discussed.
    Yet today we had a caller trying to stick to the topic about Qatar holding the world cup.
    But Matthew was saying "What about Brazil? What about this? What about that?" and the caller quite rightly told him that she was sticking to the topic in hand because that was what the question was asking.
    When pressed to answer him she said that she doesn't agree with Brazil either, but that wasn't what was being discussed.

    If Matthew keeps moving the goalposts, so to speak, and breaking his own rules, how does he expect others to stick to the topic in hand?

    He really annoyed me today doing that.
    Credit to the lady caller for holding her temper.
  • CreamteaCreamtea Posts: 14,682
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ah thanks. I thought I heard Matthew call him Johnny Freeman. Mind you I had only just woken up and turned it on.

    Matthew always reprimands callers and guests from straying from the specific topic being discussed.
    Yet today we had a caller trying to stick to the topic about Qatar holding the world cup.
    But Matthew was saying "What about Brazil? What about this? What about that?" and the caller quite rightly told him that she was sticking to the topic in hand because that was what the question was asking.
    When pressed to answer him she said that she doesn't agree with Brazil either, but that wasn't what was being discussed.

    If Matthew keeps moving the goalposts, so to speak, and breaking his own rules, how does he expect others to stick to the topic in hand?

    Wasn't it Russia? But yeah, it was annoying. Good on the lady for not letting the Bell get his own way on that call! I was almost expecting him to say "But what if they were Black?". :D
  • IzzySIzzyS Posts: 11,045
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Creamtea wrote: »
    Wasn't it Russia? But yeah, it was annoying. Good on the lady for not letting the Bell get his own way on that call! I was almost expecting him to say "But what if they were Black?". :D

    Yes it was Russia. Brazil is hosting this years world cup. I was a bit annoyed about that too but then I suppose he was just trying to make the point that if you hold the principle that corruption must be investigated and unfair ballots must be scrapped and re-done (? for want of a better phrase), then that applies across the board and not just to the one host city. Having said that, I missed the presumed moment when that caller, or any of the others, specifically said they'd back Qatar losing rights to host it but wouldn't back the same happening under the same circumstances, to Russia or other cities :confused: if you know what I mean...hmmm(?!).
  • AlrightmateAlrightmate Posts: 73,120
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Creamtea wrote: »
    Wasn't it Russia? But yeah, it was annoying. Good on the lady for not letting the Bell get his own way on that call! I was almost expecting him to say "But what if they were Black?". :D

    Russia probably was mentioned too. But I think Brazil was also mentioned as a place where workers were dying building stadiums.
    The show itself was very specific about the topic. It said Qatar. Not countries including Qatar. Matthew more than likely even set the question himself.

    If I recall correctly it was something like this which ended up with Hardeep and Matthew falling out a bit on the live show. I think Hardeep mentioned something related to the topic to make a point, but Matthew kept trying to restrict him which made it difficult for him to express the point he wanted to make without making reference to that other thing, and it ended up with Hardeep sarcastically saying to him "Okay it's your show, you do what you want Matthew". It was a horrible atmosphere between them. I think that was the last time Hardeep was on the show. Which I understand some people won't mind too much as Hardeep has a lot of detractors on here:D

    But it does illustrate how Matthew creates these uncomfortable situations himself, yet blames everyone else for not playing how he wants to play. He can be a bloody dictator the way he tries to control people with his own pedantic rules, yet conveniently moves the goalposts of show etiquette when it suits himself.
  • AlrightmateAlrightmate Posts: 73,120
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    IzzyS wrote: »
    Yes it was Russia. Brazil is hosting this years world cup. I was a bit annoyed about that too but then I suppose he was just trying to make the point that if you hold the principle that corruption must be investigated and unfair ballots must be scrapped and re-done (? for want of a better phrase), then that applies across the board and not just to the one host city. Having said that, I missed the presumed moment when that caller, or any of the others, specifically said they'd back Qatar losing rights to host it but wouldn't back the same happening under the same circumstances, to Russia or other cities :confused: if you know what I mean...hmmm(?!).

    Yes, but the point is that the question of the topic was specifically titled to be about Qatar.
    I agree with you that in a free flowing conversation people should be allowed to reference other similar examples when it can further the debate. But the point is that usually Matthew reprimands people for not sticking to the specific topic when it suits him. Which the woman was trying to do. When pressed she was quite easily able to comment on the other examples after she had finished making her point about Qatar, saying that she thought that they were equally guilty of malpractices. Good for her I thought.

    It must be extremely difficult for callers when they are posed a question about a topic in hand to offer their opinions, and then Matthew himself deviates away from what points they have thought about and are trying to make.
    If you're calling in to make your point how difficult it must be when Matthew is stopping you and starting you, interrupting you telling you to talk about something else, then interrupting you to tell you to not talk about something.
    I saw it the other day last week when a lady was talking about e-cigs, Matthew was being a confrontational arse and not really listening properly. Butting in, stopping her, talking all over her, and then has the gall to make snide comments about how callers are such frustrating people to deal with.
    Granted, some callers are a handful, but often Matthew is as guilty as those he criticises for exactly the same reasons.

    Often you hear a caller trying to express their point yet they can hardly finish a sentence as Matthew butts in with a sneering expression on his face to ask them "What about this?" "What about that?" before they have the chance to even get their point across. It's as though he's being contrary for the sake of it without showing an interest in what they are actually trying to say to him.

    He's not always like that with callers. But it is very common, and frequently undeserved or unprovoked.
  • GroundhogalGroundhogal Posts: 9,479
    Forum Member
    Russia probably was mentioned too. But I think Brazil was also mentioned as a place where workers were dying building stadiums.
    The show itself was very specific about the topic. It said Qatar. Not countries including Qatar. Matthew more than likely even set the question himself.

    If I recall correctly it was something like this which ended up with Hardeep and Matthew falling out a bit on the live show. I think Hardeep mentioned something related to the topic to make a point, but Matthew kept trying to restrict him which made it difficult for him to express the point he wanted to make without making reference to that other thing, and it ended up with Hardeep sarcastically saying to him "Okay it's your show, you do what you want Matthew". It was a horrible atmosphere between them. I think that was the last time Hardeep was on the show. Which I understand some people won't mind too much as Hardeep has a lot of detractors on here:D

    But it does illustrate how Matthew creates these uncomfortable situations himself, yet blames everyone else for not playing how he wants to play. He can be a bloody dictator the way he tries to control people with his own pedantic rules, yet conveniently moves the goalposts of show etiquette when it suits himself.

    Hardeep's an arrogant tool. His brother,Sanjeev is much funnier.
  • AlrightmateAlrightmate Posts: 73,120
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Hardeep's an arrogant tool. His brother,Sanjeev is much funnier.

    Yes I know that. But just because Hardeep can be an arrogant tool doesn't automatically make Matthew right on this occasion.
  • curmycurmy Posts: 4,723
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It must be extremely difficult for callers when they are posed a question about a topic in hand to offer their opinions, and then Matthew himself deviates away from what points they have thought about and are trying to make.
    If you're calling in to make your point how difficult it must be when Matthew is stopping you and starting you, interrupting you telling you to talk about something else, then interrupting you to tell you to not talk about something.
    I saw it the other day last week when a lady was talking about e-cigs, Matthew was being a confrontational arse and not really listening properly. Butting in, stopping her, talking all over her, and then has the gall to make snide comments about how callers are such frustrating people to deal with.
    Granted, some callers are a handful, but often Matthew is as guilty as those he criticises for exactly the same reasons.

    Often you hear a caller trying to express their point yet they can hardly finish a sentence as Matthew butts in with a sneering expression on his face to ask them "What about this?" "What about that?" before they have the chance to even get their point across. It's as though he's being contrary for the sake of it without showing an interest in what they are actually trying to say to him.

    He's not always like that with callers. But it is very common, and frequently undeserved or unprovoked.

    This is why I gave up watching The Wright Stuff, I'm surprised his Editor doesn't have a word with him, or perhaps he can do no wrong in their eyes !
  • chitariverachitarivera Posts: 36,905
    Forum Member
    Yes, but the point is that the question of the topic was specifically titled to be about Qatar.
    I agree with you that in a free flowing conversation people should be allowed to reference other similar examples when it can further the debate. But the point is that usually Matthew reprimands people for not sticking to the specific topic when it suits him. Which the woman was trying to do. When pressed she was quite easily able to comment on the other examples after she had finished making her point about Qatar, saying that she thought that they were equally guilty of malpractices. Good for her I thought.

    It must be extremely difficult for callers when they are posed a question about a topic in hand to offer their opinions, and then Matthew himself deviates away from what points they have thought about and are trying to make.
    If you're calling in to make your point how difficult it must be when Matthew is stopping you and starting you, interrupting you telling you to talk about something else, then interrupting you to tell you to not talk about something.
    I saw it the other day last week when a lady was talking about e-cigs, Matthew was being a confrontational arse and not really listening properly. Butting in, stopping her, talking all over her, and then has the gall to make snide comments about how callers are such frustrating people to deal with.
    Granted, some callers are a handful, but often Matthew is as guilty as those he criticises for exactly the same reasons.

    Often you hear a caller trying to express their point yet they can hardly finish a sentence as Matthew butts in with a sneering expression on his face to ask them "What about this?" "What about that?" before they have the chance to even get their point across. It's as though he's being contrary for the sake of it without showing an interest in what they are actually trying to say to him.

    He's not always like that with callers. But it is very common, and frequently undeserved or unprovoked.

    Absolutely agree with everything you've said.

    I think we should all write in and tell them - they will lose viewers in the end if Matthew doesn't rein himself in.
    I switched off because of how he spoke to that lady.
    And I haven't watched today.
    Some callers need to be kept on topic and 'managed' but in this instance the caller was not a problem caller.
  • domedome Posts: 55,878
    Forum Member
    Yes, but the point is that the question of the topic was specifically titled to be about Qatar.
    I agree with you that in a free flowing conversation people should be allowed to reference other similar examples when it can further the debate. But the point is that usually Matthew reprimands people for not sticking to the specific topic when it suits him. Which the woman was trying to do. When pressed she was quite easily able to comment on the other examples after she had finished making her point about Qatar, saying that she thought that they were equally guilty of malpractices. Good for her I thought.

    It must be extremely difficult for callers when they are posed a question about a topic in hand to offer their opinions, and then Matthew himself deviates away from what points they have thought about and are trying to make.
    If you're calling in to make your point how difficult it must be when Matthew is stopping you and starting you, interrupting you telling you to talk about something else, then interrupting you to tell you to not talk about something.
    I saw it the other day last week when a lady was talking about e-cigs, Matthew was being a confrontational arse and not really listening properly. Butting in, stopping her, talking all over her, and then has the gall to make snide comments about how callers are such frustrating people to deal with.
    Granted, some callers are a handful, but often Matthew is as guilty as those he criticises for exactly the same reasons.

    Often you hear a caller trying to express their point yet they can hardly finish a sentence as Matthew butts in with a sneering expression on his face to ask them "What about this?" "What about that?" before they have the chance to even get their point across. It's as though he's being contrary for the sake of it without showing an interest in what they are actually trying to say to him.

    He's not always like that with callers. But it is very common, and frequently undeserved or unprovoked.

    One of the main reasons I rarely tune in these days.
  • IzzySIzzyS Posts: 11,045
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yes, but the point is that the question of the topic was specifically titled to be about Qatar.
    I agree with you that in a free flowing conversation people should be allowed to reference other similar examples when it can further the debate. But the point is that usually Matthew reprimands people for not sticking to the specific topic when it suits him. Which the woman was trying to do. When pressed she was quite easily able to comment on the other examples after she had finished making her point about Qatar, saying that she thought that they were equally guilty of malpractices. Good for her I thought.

    It must be extremely difficult for callers when they are posed a question about a topic in hand to offer their opinions, and then Matthew himself deviates away from what points they have thought about and are trying to make.
    If you're calling in to make your point how difficult it must be when Matthew is stopping you and starting you, interrupting you telling you to talk about something else, then interrupting you to tell you to not talk about something.
    I saw it the other day last week when a lady was talking about e-cigs, Matthew was being a confrontational arse and not really listening properly. Butting in, stopping her, talking all over her, and then has the gall to make snide comments about how callers are such frustrating people to deal with.
    Granted, some callers are a handful, but often Matthew is as guilty as those he criticises for exactly the same reasons.

    Often you hear a caller trying to express their point yet they can hardly finish a sentence as Matthew butts in with a sneering expression on his face to ask them "What about this?" "What about that?" before they have the chance to even get their point across. It's as though he's being contrary for the sake of it without showing an interest in what they are actually trying to say to him.

    He's not always like that with callers. But it is very common, and frequently undeserved or unprovoked.

    Yes he can be like that, it is quite frustrating, I agree. If he's going to insist they reference other examples, I think he should perhaps give the caller a bit more time and not continually interrupt, he could at least wait for the caller to finish what their currently saying before posing the question. I suppose it (in part) boils down to having a limited amount of time for each talking point. I hoped the extended episodes would have helped with that but it seemed they just tried to cram in more topics and they still seemed a bit too rushed for my liking, personally.
  • StrakerStraker Posts: 79,567
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Check out the comments:

    http://www.channel5.com/shows/the-wright-stuff/episodes/episode-102-67

    You`d think someone would have a word with him....
This discussion has been closed.