• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Radio
LBC General Chit-Chat (Part 32)
<<
<
20 of 557
>>
>
Nosedive
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by Cayce:
“Well 'we' don't necessarily need a female presenter in the slot but, LBC seems to like schedule one in the afternoons. What amazes me is the lack of decent female presenters in the first place, are they a rarity? ”

They can't get Kay Burley back because she already does her afternoon TV show.
gurney-slade
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by Nosedive:
“They can't get Kay Burley back because she already does her afternoon TV show.”

Proof that there is a God!
Cayce
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by The_Moth:
“Did Fanny Allen really dedicate the whole of this morning's show to the Saville Report; attacking the BBC (obviously), Dame Janet Smith and even Claire McAlpine, the poor child who killed herself and defending "in the business" Tony Blackburn?

He ranted about it for the first 35 minutes after which I fell asleep but was still in full flow when the alarm woke me at 5.55 and continued for the rest of the show. In fact, the last half hour could easily have been a repeat of the first half hour.

I don't know if he hadn't bothered to read the news stories about why Blackburn had been sacked or that, as usual, he was simply incapable of understanding the facts but his constant bleating that Blackburn hadn't "even been charged with anything", stories from "in the business" about young girls that dress older than their age and throw themselves at unwitting DJs and assertions that Claire McAlpine's family must make her diaries public to explain the situation were typically nonsensical and missed the point.

Fanny's brand of ignorant diatribe may arguably be entertaining when it is directed at the world of show business but he really should be directed away from anything serious.”

Many a time I've ranted on here when Steve embraces serious topics. I didn't hear him this morning but I can imagine. He has the unhappy knack of belittling the seriousness of the crime in hand, for instance belittling victims of paedophilia. He seems caught up in a bygone era where society 'looked the other way'. The fact is, Savile groomed mere children, some were only eight years old,
I wish Steve would stop his meddlesome comments.... silly old fool.
gurney-slade
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by The_Moth:
“Did Fanny Allen really dedicate the whole of this morning's show to the Saville Report; attacking the BBC (obviously), Dame Janet Smith and even Claire McAlpine, the poor child who killed herself and defending "in the business" Tony Blackburn?

He ranted about it for the first 35 minutes after which I fell asleep but was still in full flow when the alarm woke me at 5.55 and continued for the rest of the show. In fact, the last half hour could easily have been a repeat of the first half hour.

I don't know if he hadn't bothered to read the news stories about why Blackburn had been sacked or that, as usual, he was simply incapable of understanding the facts but his constant bleating that Blackburn hadn't "even been charged with anything", stories from "in the business" about young girls that dress older than their age and throw themselves at unwitting DJs and assertions that Claire McAlpine's family must make her diaries public to explain the situation were typically nonsensical and missed the point.

Fanny's brand of ignorant diatribe may arguably be entertaining when it is directed at the world of show business but he really should be directed away from anything serious.”

I heard the last half hour and did wonder if he'd been at it since 4am. At least it gave his audience a rest from the usual suspects, topics and reminiscences! I'm surprised he appeared to be surprised about Saville. You'd think that somebody with their finger on the pulse of showbiz (as he claims) would have heard all the rumours about Saville's predilections. His creepy reputation seems to have been an open secret for years.
Fish_and_Chips
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by PAUL_BEXFIELD2:
“I certainly think that they have finally realised Talk Radio may be a threat
There's already more lighter topics creeping in as already mentioned the last few days
Bring it on I say”

Dunno about a threat, apart from a few people on a couple of threads on an Internet forum I don't now anyone else who's talking about a new talk station. A lot of people I talk to don't even know any of the shows or presenters on LBC a long established staion which sometimes features in the news.
Mike Rackabit
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by tahiti:
“She only ever had a few topics: immigrants, East Europeans, benefit claimants, Muslims. That's it.

That said she does fit well wih Brexiters alongside David Icke, Farage, Galloway etc”

That's two more topics than Sister Superior Shelagh of Widdecombe discusses usually.
BanglaRoad
26-02-2016
Nick Ferarri walking on eggshells with that caller Gary. Nick had to give him a warning about possibly libeling someone on LBC as they could lose their licence.
Venetian
26-02-2016
double post
Venetian
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by gurney-slade:
“I heard the last half hour and did wonder if he'd been at it since 4am. At least it gave his audience a rest from the usual suspects, topics and reminiscences! I'm surprised he appeared to be surprised about Saville. You'd think that somebody with their finger on the pulse of showbiz (as he claims) would have heard all the rumours about Saville's predilections. His creepy reputation seems to have been an open secret for years.”

I heard the first half hour but not the last, he certainly professed no surprise regarding Saville at that time, typical Steve to have come out with entirely different representations within one show! When he climbed off the high horse re Saville he expanded by telling us that he knew loads and loads and loads of people currently in "the business" who were horrible nasty bullies but were universally "loved" by the public to whom they presented an entirely different lovable side, also said we would be totally shocked and surprised at who he was talking about. Went on to say he couldn't or wouldn't name them. I would have thought that following the repercussions of the Saville report being published it would have been an excellent opportunity to name such people, if what he is saying is true it would not be libellous.
Mike Rackabit
26-02-2016
BBC Brian. Sounds like a huge conflict of interest has occurred. Well done to Iain Dale, Ian Collins, Nick Ferrari and to some extent Steve Allen.
BanglaRoad
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by Mike Rackabit:
“BBC Brian. Sounds like a huge conflict of interest has occurred. Well done to Iain Dale, Ian Collins, Nick Ferrari and to some extent Steve Allen.”

What conflict of interest? You said you never listened to JOB yesterday so I don't know what sounds you have been hearing for you to say he has a conflict of interest.
Cayce
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by Venetian:
“I heard the first half hour but not the last, he certainly professed no surprise regarding Saville at that time, typical Steve to have come out with entirely different representations within one show! When he climbed off the high horse re Saville he expanded by telling us that he knew loads and loads and loads of people currently in "the business" who were horrible nasty bullies but were universally "loved" by the public to whom they presented an entirely different lovable side, also said we would be totally shocked and surprised at who he was talking about. Went on to say he couldn't or wouldn't name them. I would have thought that following the repercussions of the Saville report being published it would have been an excellent opportunity to name such people, if what he is saying is true it would not be libellous.”

You'd think if Steve knew of other offenders, if that's what he was implying, he would go to the police if he was genuinely concerned, wouldn't you?
Lone Drinker
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by Cayce:
“You'd think if Steve knew of other offenders, if that's what he was implying, he would go to the police if he was genuinely concerned, wouldn't you?”

Podcast not up yet. Hmmmmmm
PAUL_BEXFIELD2
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by BanglaRoad:
“What conflict of interest? You said you never listened to JOB yesterday so I don't know what sounds you have been hearing for you to say he has a conflict of interest.”

That's right he didn't and we have that in writing but never let that get in the way of a good rant though
Venetian
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by Cayce:
“You'd think if Steve knew of other offenders, if that's what he was implying, he would go to the police if he was genuinely concerned, wouldn't you?”

Sorry I need to clarify here. Steve was not implying the people he was lambasting were offenders, the people he would not mention were nasty bullies, divas and generally a bad lot, the opposite to the way the presented themselves to the public. I just wondered why he wouldn't name them, after yesterday's revelations about people keeping silent when they should not have he would have probably received a round of applause
PAUL_BEXFIELD2
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by Cayce:
“You'd think if Steve knew of other offenders, if that's what he was implying, he would go to the police if he was genuinely concerned, wouldn't you?”

In fairness Cayce the same could be said of many others and the majority of them did or are still working at the Beeb
Steve obviously not working there at anytime
PAUL_BEXFIELD2
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by Venetian:
“Sorry I need to clarify here. Steve was not implying the people he was lambasting were offenders, the people he would not mention were nasty bullies, divas and generally a bad lot, the opposite to the way the presented themselves to the public. I just wondered why he wouldn't name them, after yesterday's revelations about people keeping silent when they should not have he would have probably received a round of applause”

He knows exactly how far he can go when it comes to stuff like that
And I've no doubt at all that Steve would be the first at the police station if anything sexual was going on
Venetian
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by PAUL_BEXFIELD2:
“He knows exactly how far he can go when it comes to stuff like that
And I've no doubt at all that Steve would be the first at the police station if anything sexual was going on”

And I would expect so. There are times when Steve should remain silent, he just relishes nastiness on occasions, why does he think it is interesting? I know you can't answer that Paul but it's not good broadcasting as far as I am concerned.
Mike Rackabit
26-02-2016
"A great desire for binary" - BBC Brian.

Who on earth thinks that all the Muslims in Britain should be punished for the grooming gangs in Rotherham? Pointless hyperbole from our BBC endorsing chum.
PAUL_BEXFIELD2
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by Venetian:
“And I would expect so. There are times when Steve should remain silent, he just relishes nastiness on occasions, why does he think it is interesting? I know you can't answer that Paul but it's not good broadcasting as far as I am concerned.”

It's interesting I suppose in the same way as you used to get the gossip pages in the paper who had some dirt about someone which they knew they'd probably get sued for if they ran the whole story
So they'd said for example which supposedly straight 35 year old soap star was seen on the town with a lad who only looked 15 !!
Obviously that's not a real scenario but you get the idea
That kind of thing is still alive and well even on DS
There's a thread in entertainment called
100% ALLEGED showbiz blind items and gossip
It's full of that kind of thing
It works by virtue of the fact that people INFER stuff
Sadly some people are gormless enough to think that if they go down that route it leaves them Scot free if something they posted went to court ..it doesn't .. Steve said exactly enough so as not to cross that boundary
You ARE right it's not good broadcasting in the same way as its not good journalism but it sells papers
Cayce
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by Mike Rackabit:
“"A great desire for binary" - BBC Brian.

Who on earth thinks that all the Muslims in Britain should be punished for the grooming gangs in Rotherham? Pointless hyperbole from our BBC endorsing chum.”

Doesn't butter any parsnips with me either.
PAUL_BEXFIELD2
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by Mike Rackabit:
“"A great desire for binary" - BBC Brian.

Who on earth thinks that all the Muslims in Britain should be punished for the grooming gangs in Rotherham? Pointless hyperbole from our BBC endorsing chum.”

You really talk out of your backside sometimes Mike
You call James our BBC endorsing chum
He works for them but that doesn't mean he endorses them
By saying that by inference you are labelling any presenter on LBC who has ever spoken on there
In the same way
I've seen Iain Dale Nick F Cristo and many others on there before now
BanglaRoad
26-02-2016
What a fantastic call from Shan from Ilford.
Mike Rackabit
26-02-2016
BBC Brian, the arch radio troll, has accused a caller of trolling him. There isn't really a great deal of difference between him and the barmy caller at times. Age and public school not mentioned yet and we are 30 minutes into the show, is this a first?
Cayce
26-02-2016
Originally Posted by Venetian:
“Sorry I need to clarify here. Steve was not implying the people he was lambasting were offenders, the people he would not mention were nasty bullies, divas and generally a bad lot, the opposite to the way the presented themselves to the public. I just wondered why he wouldn't name them, after yesterday's revelations about people keeping silent when they should not have he would have probably received a round of applause”

Thanks for clarifying Venetian, I take back my comments.
<<
<
20 of 557
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map