The James Whale sacking.

[Park Life 71]

Debating with Parky is pointless, any facts you bring up are dismissed and countered with ideas you cannot prove. Isn't Talksport an independent station, the radio station who sacked him, and not one owned by the government? Or is that another "fact" that proves the opposite?

 

Your facts so far is that he was sacked cause 3 people complained and it's aginst the ofcom rules. It is an independent station, and that is precisely my point. The BBC are so colourless a James Whale type wouldn't be tolerated.

 

This debate isn't really about facts it is about a more abstract concept called Free Speech. There seems little of it around these days.

 

 

Parky, You seem to be confusing free speech and the discussion of opposing views in a forum the public at large can access, with free speech for a miniscule population of tv and radio presenters.

 

As a chairperson of a discussion, it should be James Whale's place to invite views from any side of an argument and stimulate the debate by playing devils advocate with each individual he talks to, without ever disclosing a personal point of view. In giving his own view, and arguing most vehemently for it he can only invite sycophantic agreement from one side and a harshly opposed disagreement from the other, where the presenter holds the position of power in being able to censor whatever dissenting voices do call in.

 

 

What's the line between playing devils advocate/encouraging debate and making jokes about Livingstone? If in that mediation and that process of debate he crosses the line from time to time should he be sacked? Surely you can see this is a gross over-reaction and huge pressure must have been alligned against Kelvin Mckenzie and his boys to ditch Whale (a person who is completely at odds with my politics btw).

 

If this was France there would be a white van protest across London by now halting trafffic and burning sheep or whatever...

[Park Life 71]

Debating with Parky is pointless, any facts you bring up are dismissed and countered with ideas you cannot prove. Isn't Talksport an independent station, the radio station who sacked him, and not one owned by the government? Or is that another "fact" that proves the opposite?

 

Your facts so far is that he was sacked cause 3 people complained and it's aginst the ofcom rules. It is an independent station, and that is precisely my point. The BBC are so colourless a James Whale type wouldn't be tolerated.

 

This debate isn't really about facts it is about a more abstract concept called Free Speech. There seems little of it around these days.

 

 

Yes, so if it's an independent station how does his sacking off him stink of a conspiracy because he's anti-Labour (and thus anti-government) when the radio station aren't controlled by the government? If the station want to sack him, then that's their buisness.

 

 

Oh, the debate isn't about facts is it, my apologies for pointing out the blinding obvious ones that undermine your conspiracy claptrap.

 

You have pointed out nothing. Just regurgitated the official line of the sacking. If you consider that debating then I'm aghast. At no point have you dared to be discursive. I know what you're saying, I agree with what you're saying...But that ain't what this is....

 

 

 

How about this?

"The BBC was banned last night from broadcasting fresh allegations in the cash for honours investigation.

Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, obtained an injunction to stop the BBC proceeding with a news story for the 10 O'Clock News after a two-hour hearing in chambers at the royal courts of justice in London."

 

 

I'm really beginning to wonder where the lines of legitimacy are now.

 

There is a sickness in the land mark my words.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

Debating with Parky is pointless, any facts you bring up are dismissed and countered with ideas you cannot prove. Isn't Talksport an independent station, the radio station who sacked him, and not one owned by the government? Or is that another "fact" that proves the opposite?

 

Your facts so far is that he was sacked cause 3 people complained and it's aginst the ofcom rules. It is an independent station, and that is precisely my point. The BBC are so colourless a James Whale type wouldn't be tolerated.

 

This debate isn't really about facts it is about a more abstract concept called Free Speech. There seems little of it around these days.

 

 

Parky, You seem to be confusing free speech and the discussion of opposing views in a forum the public at large can access, with free speech for a miniscule population of tv and radio presenters.

 

As a chairperson of a discussion, it should be James Whale's place to invite views from any side of an argument and stimulate the debate by playing devils advocate with each individual he talks to, without ever disclosing a personal point of view. In giving his own view, and arguing most vehemently for it he can only invite sycophantic agreement from one side and a harshly opposed disagreement from the other, where the presenter holds the position of power in being able to censor whatever dissenting voices do call in.

 

 

What's the line between playing devils advocate/encouraging debate and making jokes about Livingstone? If in that mediation and that process of debate he crosses the line from time to time should he be sacked? Surely you can see this is a gross over-reaction and huge pressure must have been alligned against Kelvin Mckenzie and his boys to ditch Whale (a person who is completely at odds with my politics btw).

 

If this was France there would be a white van protest across London by now halting trafffic and burning sheep or whatever...

 

He hasn't been sacked for making jokes about Livingstone has he? He encouraged his listenership to vote Boris. If that's allowed, where would YOU draw the line? What if he'd urged listeners to vote BNP?

[luckyluke 2]

Debating with Parky is pointless, any facts you bring up are dismissed and countered with ideas you cannot prove. Isn't Talksport an independent station, the radio station who sacked him, and not one owned by the government? Or is that another "fact" that proves the opposite?

 

Your facts so far is that he was sacked cause 3 people complained and it's aginst the ofcom rules. It is an independent station, and that is precisely my point. The BBC are so colourless a James Whale type wouldn't be tolerated.

 

This debate isn't really about facts it is about a more abstract concept called Free Speech. There seems little of it around these days.

 

 

Yes, so if it's an independent station how does his sacking off him stink of a conspiracy because he's anti-Labour (and thus anti-government) when the radio station aren't controlled by the government? If the station want to sack him, then that's their buisness.

 

 

Oh, the debate isn't about facts is it, my apologies for pointing out the blinding obvious ones that undermine your conspiracy claptrap.

 

You have pointed out nothing. Just regurgitated the official line of the sacking. If you consider that debating then I'm aghast. At no point have you dared to be discursive. I know what you're saying, I agree with what you're saying...But that ain't what this is....

 

All I'm saying is they've got him bang to rights, and as such can't complain that he's been sacked due to some pro-Labour conspiracy.

 

If I shot Gordon Brown and was proved to have done it, I could hardly object to being sent to prison for it on the grounds that it was a government plot.

[Park Life 71]

Debating with Parky is pointless, any facts you bring up are dismissed and countered with ideas you cannot prove. Isn't Talksport an independent station, the radio station who sacked him, and not one owned by the government? Or is that another "fact" that proves the opposite?

 

Your facts so far is that he was sacked cause 3 people complained and it's aginst the ofcom rules. It is an independent station, and that is precisely my point. The BBC are so colourless a James Whale type wouldn't be tolerated.

 

This debate isn't really about facts it is about a more abstract concept called Free Speech. There seems little of it around these days.

 

 

Parky, You seem to be confusing free speech and the discussion of opposing views in a forum the public at large can access, with free speech for a miniscule population of tv and radio presenters.

 

As a chairperson of a discussion, it should be James Whale's place to invite views from any side of an argument and stimulate the debate by playing devils advocate with each individual he talks to, without ever disclosing a personal point of view. In giving his own view, and arguing most vehemently for it he can only invite sycophantic agreement from one side and a harshly opposed disagreement from the other, where the presenter holds the position of power in being able to censor whatever dissenting voices do call in.

 

 

What's the line between playing devils advocate/encouraging debate and making jokes about Livingstone? If in that mediation and that process of debate he crosses the line from time to time should he be sacked? Surely you can see this is a gross over-reaction and huge pressure must have been alligned against Kelvin Mckenzie and his boys to ditch Whale (a person who is completely at odds with my politics btw).

 

If this was France there would be a white van protest across London by now halting trafffic and burning sheep or whatever...

 

He hasn't been sacked for making jokes about Livingstone has he? He encouraged his listenership to vote Boris. If that's allowed, where would YOU draw the line? What if he'd urged listeners to vote BNP?

 

 

What I want to know is at what fucking point James fuckhead Whale became a threat to the State. It's a joke surely you can see that?

[Park Life 71]

Debating with Parky is pointless, any facts you bring up are dismissed and countered with ideas you cannot prove. Isn't Talksport an independent station, the radio station who sacked him, and not one owned by the government? Or is that another "fact" that proves the opposite?

 

Your facts so far is that he was sacked cause 3 people complained and it's aginst the ofcom rules. It is an independent station, and that is precisely my point. The BBC are so colourless a James Whale type wouldn't be tolerated.

 

This debate isn't really about facts it is about a more abstract concept called Free Speech. There seems little of it around these days.

 

 

Yes, so if it's an independent station how does his sacking off him stink of a conspiracy because he's anti-Labour (and thus anti-government) when the radio station aren't controlled by the government? If the station want to sack him, then that's their buisness.

 

 

Oh, the debate isn't about facts is it, my apologies for pointing out the blinding obvious ones that undermine your conspiracy claptrap.

 

You have pointed out nothing. Just regurgitated the official line of the sacking. If you consider that debating then I'm aghast. At no point have you dared to be discursive. I know what you're saying, I agree with what you're saying...But that ain't what this is....

 

All I'm saying is they've got him bang to rights, and as such can't complain that he's been sacked due to some pro-Labour conspiracy.

 

If I shot Gordon Brown and was proved to have done it, I could hardly object to being sent to prison for it on the grounds that it was a government plot.

 

Now you're rambling.

[Happy Face 29]

Good of Parky to tell us what's wrong with freedom of speech in the UK and where our broadcastoing regulations are going wrong when he's resident in a country where holocaust denial is illegal to EVERYONE and punishable by prison.

[Happy Face 29]

Debating with Parky is pointless, any facts you bring up are dismissed and countered with ideas you cannot prove. Isn't Talksport an independent station, the radio station who sacked him, and not one owned by the government? Or is that another "fact" that proves the opposite?

 

Your facts so far is that he was sacked cause 3 people complained and it's aginst the ofcom rules. It is an independent station, and that is precisely my point. The BBC are so colourless a James Whale type wouldn't be tolerated.

 

This debate isn't really about facts it is about a more abstract concept called Free Speech. There seems little of it around these days.

 

 

Parky, You seem to be confusing free speech and the discussion of opposing views in a forum the public at large can access, with free speech for a miniscule population of tv and radio presenters.

 

As a chairperson of a discussion, it should be James Whale's place to invite views from any side of an argument and stimulate the debate by playing devils advocate with each individual he talks to, without ever disclosing a personal point of view. In giving his own view, and arguing most vehemently for it he can only invite sycophantic agreement from one side and a harshly opposed disagreement from the other, where the presenter holds the position of power in being able to censor whatever dissenting voices do call in.

 

 

What's the line between playing devils advocate/encouraging debate and making jokes about Livingstone? If in that mediation and that process of debate he crosses the line from time to time should he be sacked? Surely you can see this is a gross over-reaction and huge pressure must have been alligned against Kelvin Mckenzie and his boys to ditch Whale (a person who is completely at odds with my politics btw).

 

If this was France there would be a white van protest across London by now halting trafffic and burning sheep or whatever...

 

He hasn't been sacked for making jokes about Livingstone has he? He encouraged his listenership to vote Boris. If that's allowed, where would YOU draw the line? What if he'd urged listeners to vote BNP?

 

 

What I want to know is at what fucking point James fuckhead Whale became a threat to the State. It's a joke surely you can see that?

 

He never did. He just broke some broadcasting regulations and lost his job for it. Probably so Talksport won't have to pay the hefty fine.

[Park Life 71]

Good of Parky to tell us what's wrong with freedom of speech in the UK and where our broadcastoing regulations are going wrong when he's resident in a country where holocaust denial is illegal to EVERYONE and punishable by prison.

 

I think you'll find the gravity of the two issues are worlds apart.

 

Must try harder in your ludicrous attempts (yes I igonored the BNP baits as well) to set a fatous trap (in your mind).

 

This is a ridiculous sacking by any stretch of the imagination, I could understand it if hundreds of people complained etc...But really this is storm in a teacup stuff. More people complain about the wrong latin names on flower show programs.

[luckyluke 2]

Debating with Parky is pointless, any facts you bring up are dismissed and countered with ideas you cannot prove. Isn't Talksport an independent station, the radio station who sacked him, and not one owned by the government? Or is that another "fact" that proves the opposite?

 

Your facts so far is that he was sacked cause 3 people complained and it's aginst the ofcom rules. It is an independent station, and that is precisely my point. The BBC are so colourless a James Whale type wouldn't be tolerated.

 

This debate isn't really about facts it is about a more abstract concept called Free Speech. There seems little of it around these days.

 

 

Yes, so if it's an independent station how does his sacking off him stink of a conspiracy because he's anti-Labour (and thus anti-government) when the radio station aren't controlled by the government? If the station want to sack him, then that's their buisness.

 

 

Oh, the debate isn't about facts is it, my apologies for pointing out the blinding obvious ones that undermine your conspiracy claptrap.

 

You have pointed out nothing. Just regurgitated the official line of the sacking. If you consider that debating then I'm aghast. At no point have you dared to be discursive. I know what you're saying, I agree with what you're saying...But that ain't what this is....

 

All I'm saying is they've got him bang to rights, and as such can't complain that he's been sacked due to some pro-Labour conspiracy.

 

If I shot Gordon Brown and was proved to have done it, I could hardly object to being sent to prison for it on the grounds that it was a government plot.

 

Now you're rambling.

 

 

No, I'm stating facts to which you have no answer.

[Park Life 71]

Debating with Parky is pointless, any facts you bring up are dismissed and countered with ideas you cannot prove. Isn't Talksport an independent station, the radio station who sacked him, and not one owned by the government? Or is that another "fact" that proves the opposite?

 

Your facts so far is that he was sacked cause 3 people complained and it's aginst the ofcom rules. It is an independent station, and that is precisely my point. The BBC are so colourless a James Whale type wouldn't be tolerated.

 

This debate isn't really about facts it is about a more abstract concept called Free Speech. There seems little of it around these days.

 

 

Yes, so if it's an independent station how does his sacking off him stink of a conspiracy because he's anti-Labour (and thus anti-government) when the radio station aren't controlled by the government? If the station want to sack him, then that's their buisness.

 

 

Oh, the debate isn't about facts is it, my apologies for pointing out the blinding obvious ones that undermine your conspiracy claptrap.

 

You have pointed out nothing. Just regurgitated the official line of the sacking. If you consider that debating then I'm aghast. At no point have you dared to be discursive. I know what you're saying, I agree with what you're saying...But that ain't what this is....

 

All I'm saying is they've got him bang to rights, and as such can't complain that he's been sacked due to some pro-Labour conspiracy.

 

If I shot Gordon Brown and was proved to have done it, I could hardly object to being sent to prison for it on the grounds that it was a government plot.

 

Now you're rambling.

 

 

No, I'm stating facts to which you have no answer.

 

Well done.

[Happy Face 29]

Good of Parky to tell us what's wrong with freedom of speech in the UK and where our broadcastoing regulations are going wrong when he's resident in a country where holocaust denial is illegal to EVERYONE and punishable by prison.

 

I think you'll find the gravity of the two issues are worlds apart.

 

How so?

 

Must try harder in your ludicrous attempts (yes I igonored the BNP baits as well) to set a fatous trap (in your mind).

You mean you failed to answer the valid point I made. I asked where YOU would draw the line? Who can radio presenters lobby on behalf of? Just the major parties? The Green Party? The more restrained nationalist parties like UKIP? Not bait, just debate.

 

This is a ridiculous sacking by any stretch of the imagination, I could understand it if hundreds of people complained etc...But really this is storm in a teacup stuff. More people complain about the wrong latin names on flower show programs.

 

Ofcom judge every decision on the regulations, your fixation on the number of complaints received has no place in the argument. 44,000 complaints were made against big brother which was upheld, but no-one lost their job.

 

Whale previously had a complaint to ofcom upheld after receiving a single complaint....from the person whose email address he read out without permission. He wasn't sacked though. Ofcom haven't even investigated this case yet, but knowing that a huge fine was on their way, Talksport have hung him out to dry on his own.

 

If you really believe that Gordon Brown and Labour intervened to get rid of a bloke who was telling the odd joke about Ken Livingstone (a constant thorn in New Labour's side) your rampant paranoia knows no bounds.

[Fop 1]

Debating with Parky is pointless, any facts you bring up are dismissed and countered with ideas you cannot prove. Isn't Talksport an independent station, the radio station who sacked him, and not one owned by the government? Or is that another "fact" that proves the opposite?

 

Your facts so far is that he was sacked cause 3 people complained and it's aginst the ofcom rules. It is an independent station, and that is precisely my point. The BBC are so colourless a James Whale type wouldn't be tolerated.

 

This debate isn't really about facts it is about a more abstract concept called Free Speech. There seems little of it around these days.

 

 

Yes, so if it's an independent station how does his sacking off him stink of a conspiracy because he's anti-Labour (and thus anti-government) when the radio station aren't controlled by the government? If the station want to sack him, then that's their buisness.

 

 

Oh, the debate isn't about facts is it, my apologies for pointing out the blinding obvious ones that undermine your conspiracy claptrap.

 

You have pointed out nothing. Just regurgitated the official line of the sacking. If you consider that debating then I'm aghast. At no point have you dared to be discursive. I know what you're saying, I agree with what you're saying...But that ain't what this is....

 

All I'm saying is they've got him bang to rights, and as such can't complain that he's been sacked due to some pro-Labour conspiracy.

 

If I shot Gordon Brown and was proved to have done it, I could hardly object to being sent to prison for it on the grounds that it was a government plot.

 

Now you're rambling.

 

 

No, I'm stating facts to which you have no answer.

 

Was it you that killed Jill Dando too?

[sweetleftpeg 0]

Apparently Jason Donovan got done for backing Boris on his radio show as well, but got off on it on the basis no fucker was listening.

 

Me thinks there was more to this than meets the eye, James Whale had fallen out with his bosses in the months leading up to the sacking as he wanted to stand for Mayor and was told if he did he would be sacked. They were looking for an excuse to be honest.

 

I'd like to second Jimbo about Tommy Boyd, should never have been sacked...bring back Stephen Hawkins!

[Park Life 71]

Good of Parky to tell us what's wrong with freedom of speech in the UK and where our broadcastoing regulations are going wrong when he's resident in a country where holocaust denial is illegal to EVERYONE and punishable by prison.

 

I think you'll find the gravity of the two issues are worlds apart.

 

How so?

 

Must try harder in your ludicrous attempts (yes I igonored the BNP baits as well) to set a fatous trap (in your mind).

You mean you failed to answer the valid point I made. I asked where YOU would draw the line? Who can radio presenters lobby on behalf of? Just the major parties? The Green Party? The more restrained nationalist parties like UKIP? Not bait, just debate.

 

This is a ridiculous sacking by any stretch of the imagination, I could understand it if hundreds of people complained etc...But really this is storm in a teacup stuff. More people complain about the wrong latin names on flower show programs.

 

Ofcom judge every decision on the regulations, your fixation on the number of complaints received has no place in the argument. 44,000 complaints were made against big brother which was upheld, but no-one lost their job.

 

Whale previously had a complaint to ofcom upheld after receiving a single complaint....from the person whose email address he read out without permission. He wasn't sacked though. Ofcom haven't even investigated this case yet, but knowing that a huge fine was on their way, Talksport have hung him out to dry on his own.

 

If you really believe that Gordon Brown and Labour intervened to get rid of a bloke who was telling the odd joke about Ken Livingstone (a constant thorn in New Labour's side) your rampant paranoia knows no bounds.

 

I'm all ranted out mate. Might come back to this later. Cheers.

[Fop 1]

If you really believe that Gordon Brown and Labour intervened to get rid of a bloke who was telling the odd joke about Ken Livingstone (a constant thorn in New Labour's side) your rampant paranoia knows no bounds.

 

Ken's back in the fold (or was), and ironically probably lost as much from that in this election as he originally gained for not towing the line in that election.

[Park Life 71]

If you really believe that Gordon Brown and Labour intervened to get rid of a bloke who was telling the odd joke about Ken Livingstone (a constant thorn in New Labour's side) your rampant paranoia knows no bounds.

 

Ken's back in the fold (or was), and ironically probably lost as much from that in this election as he originally gained for not towing the line in that election.

 

Correct.

 

Not easily delineated by the casual observer however.

[Happy Face 29]

If you really believe that Gordon Brown and Labour intervened to get rid of a bloke who was telling the odd joke about Ken Livingstone (a constant thorn in New Labour's side) your rampant paranoia knows no bounds.

 

Ken's back in the fold (or was), and ironically probably lost as much from that in this election as he originally gained for not towing the line in that election.

 

Correct.

 

Not easily delineated by the casual observer however.

 

 

You'll rejoin the debate for your little digs though eh?

 

I'm fully aware Livingstone got back into the Labour party....entirely on his own terms though, it was only the slightly less embarrasing option for the party to coming fourth in the '04 election. There's no love lost.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

White van driver baiting shit for brains.

 

He's got a unique broadcasting style you mean?

 

Feel sorry for him.

 

Why has he been sacked though? 3 complaints?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7385370.stm

 

although it's slightly weird they'll only suspend you for this:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6955065.stm

I reckon Gary Bushell probably is gay. He doth protest too much.

 

And he looks like a bear.

[Fop 1]

White van driver baiting shit for brains.

 

He's got a unique broadcasting style you mean?

 

Feel sorry for him.

 

Why has he been sacked though? 3 complaints?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7385370.stm

 

although it's slightly weird they'll only suspend you for this:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6955065.stm

I reckon Gary Bushell probably is gay. He doth protest too much.

 

And he looks like a bear.

 

Well he'd have to make his mind up if he were homosexual, a paedophile, or both first. Or maybe so long as you're not "receiving" you can still be a football fan.

[Park Life 71]

If you really believe that Gordon Brown and Labour intervened to get rid of a bloke who was telling the odd joke about Ken Livingstone (a constant thorn in New Labour's side) your rampant paranoia knows no bounds.

 

Ken's back in the fold (or was), and ironically probably lost as much from that in this election as he originally gained for not towing the line in that election.

 

Correct.

 

Not easily delineated by the casual observer however.

 

 

You'll rejoin the debate for your little digs though eh?

 

I'm fully aware Livingstone got back into the Labour party....entirely on his own terms though, it was only the slightly less embarrasing option for the party to coming fourth in the '04 election. There's no love lost.

 

The bottom line is I don't actually give a fuck about James Whale, I was ranting a bit and loved the banter once we got going. No more to it really. You of all should know me by now.

 

England has lost/losing too many things and apartchniks are taking over it seems. It saddens me. No really.

[Park Life 71]

White van driver baiting shit for brains.

 

He's got a unique broadcasting style you mean?

 

Feel sorry for him.

 

Why has he been sacked though? 3 complaints?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7385370.stm

 

although it's slightly weird they'll only suspend you for this:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6955065.stm

I reckon Gary Bushell probably is gay. He doth protest too much.

 

And he looks like a bear.

 

People with too much hair are not safe...

[Meenzer 14247]

Well he'd have to make his mind up if he were homosexual, a paedophile, or both first. Or maybe so long as you're not "receiving" you can still be a football fan.

Gerrin!

[The Fish 9382]

Well he'd have to make his mind up if he were homosexual, a paedophile, or both first. Or maybe so long as you're not "receiving" you can still be a football fan.

Gerrin!

Your heart, your ranks and your pants doth swell.

[Happy Face 29]

If you really believe that Gordon Brown and Labour intervened to get rid of a bloke who was telling the odd joke about Ken Livingstone (a constant thorn in New Labour's side) your rampant paranoia knows no bounds.

 

Ken's back in the fold (or was), and ironically probably lost as much from that in this election as he originally gained for not towing the line in that election.

 

Correct.

 

Not easily delineated by the casual observer however.

 

 

You'll rejoin the debate for your little digs though eh?

 

I'm fully aware Livingstone got back into the Labour party....entirely on his own terms though, it was only the slightly less embarrasing option for the party to coming fourth in the '04 election. There's no love lost.

 

The bottom line is I don't actually give a fuck about James Whale, I was ranting a bit and loved the banter once we got going. No more to it really. You of all should know me by now.

 

England has lost/losing too many things and apartchniks are taking over it seems. It saddens me. No really.

 

 

Me neither, me too, I do, it hasn't, they aren't and no reason for it to.