New Alternative News Channel "GB News" chaired by Andrew Neil launching - read OP before posting

Faugheen

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117715944#Comment_117715944

Wait, what?

This didn't happen, surely?

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117715985#Comment_117715985

Of course there's a link but it goes both ways and "culture" is a constantly evolving thing.

It's not like current UK culture is a completely closed thing and that the introduction of a small number of people that think/act differently will have an irrevocable negative impact.

The people arriving will change their behaviour far more to assimilate than the local culture will adjust to accommodate them but ultimately is all just blends into a slightly changed overall condition.

Countries don't get to "decide" who comes seeking asylum , equally they don't get to say "we'll accept you , but not that other person" - That's just not how asylum works ANYWHERE. If the asylum claim is valid it's valid , end of discussion.

We are in full agreement about Immigration - By all means pick and choose who you wish to give permanent visas to based on current gaps in skills/demographics etc. etc.

But we are talking about Asylum seekers here , not immigrants and your seeming inability to differentiate between the two is somewhat of a tell.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117715991#Comment_117715991

No, they have repeatedly misquoted me.

I was raising the very real spectre of rich, powerful people hiding any inappropriate / illegitimate / improper activity behind a veil of charity. We all know that multimillionaires do this. I gave several of the most obvious and prominent examples: the Clintons, Jimmy Saville, and Jeffrey Epstein; all of whom were manipulating charity for their own personal interests.

I drew the comparison that, if The Spectator article provides evidence of same, then this would be yet another example of the above.

Alas, we are still awaiting that article. It may or may not appear.

Joe_ Public

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117715924#Comment_117715924

But it's not really about the broader point though, is it? At least not with Farage anyway as exaggeration and hysteria is the only tactic he has as he knows the majority of the British people want a more compassionate and humane policy on asylum seekers.

As for control, all these people enter a system where their cases are examined and then judged as to whether they can remain or not. So it is entirely above board and transparent. I've asked you multiple times for evidence "gigantic" numbers were entering illegally but you never respond so....

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117715857#Comment_117715857

I have to admit I get great amusement from individuals like yourself pontificating about the undesirable views held by some migrants, and wanting to protect the progressive steps made here.

People used to talk about Irish people, and look down on them, the same way you do with Africans. Think about that for a moment.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716020#Comment_117716020

I'm looking down on bad ideas, irrespective of where they come from.

Though, as with the UK Muslim population (which, if anything, you'd have thought would be far less than 50% wanting LGBT illegal!), there does appear to be a particular aversion to LGBT / women, among Muslim-majority countries.

Import these ideas at great peril.

Take a look at what's happened to Sweden; from a Nordic oasis of calm to the rape nucleus of Europe.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117715985#Comment_117715985

The absolute irony of you typing out that first sentence, and then doubling down by actually posting it!! 🤣🙈

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716085#Comment_117716085

We don't get serious replies here: only sardonic dismissals whose function is solely to appeal to the wider majority view.

The above is one of hundreds of possible examples.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716017#Comment_117716017

Wait do you STILL think that Spectator article is real?

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716091#Comment_117716091

You wrongly called me a racist

You likened Rashford to Jimmy Saville

You claimed Jim Davidson isn't a wife beating racist

The list goes on and on, why would anyone take you seriously?

As soon as you are proven wrong you just skip to the next non story and ignore any further discussion on what you have previously posted.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117715754#Comment_117715754

How are those programmes fake reality TV? Are the criminals planted? Do you think the TV producers selectively edit somehow to make non-whites look bad?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716104#Comment_117716104

I did not "compare Jimmy Saville to Marcus Rashford". I was highlighting the real link between powerful people and charity, whilst also stating we must await The Spectator allegations.

Please provide evidence of where I supposedly made the claim that Jim Davidson does not beat his wife.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716117#Comment_117716117

Do you think the TV producers selectively edit somehow

You know , you might be on to something there.....

Who would watch a TV show about loads of perfectly law abiding people coming in without any issues or queries. That would be beyond dull.

It focusses exclusively on the bad/extreme/ridiculous.

The result is a skewed view of the reality of the process leading to low engagement viewers beginning to assume that all people entering the country are somehow untrustworthy etc.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716156#Comment_117716156

Or quite simply just a fair representation of what Border Force face at our points of entry?

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716163#Comment_117716163

Oh please....So in your mind the vast majority of people that come through the border process are somehow up to various levels of no good??

What's shown is true and did happen , but they are edge cases that make for "good" tv.

Like I said , no one is going to watch a load of people going through the "nothing to declare channels" with a smile and a wave from the staff.

Weepsie

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716130#Comment_117716130

Well you refused to answer the question about his own recollections of beating his wife. You instead talked about his stint on hell's kitchen and how other contestants should have risen above.

Your refusal to answer that question when it was put to you says a lot.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716180#Comment_117716180

I have no idea about Jim Davidson's relationship with his wife.

Apparently from what I read in an earlier post, Davidson admitted to clobbering his wife and giving her a black eye or something to that affect. If that's written in Davidson's biography, why would I waste my time denying it?

I made no such denial. It was invented out of thin air (one of dozens of false allegations levelled against me on here, incidentally).

Weepsie

You were asked your opinion of it and continued your defence of him while just ignoring that point.

He's an odious cretin, yet you twisted and turned your way about to defend him. You only stopped when he was replaced on the show.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716130#Comment_117716130

On Rashford being likened to Saville

"Jimmy Savile raised enormous funds for charity, over $40 million. But that doesn't mean we should overlook his crimes - or to point to someone else and say, "But, why aren't you saying anything about [insert alternative]?".

Like Rashford, we cannot allow someone to use "charity" as a Trojan horse for other, inappropriate activity."

Here you admit to comparing Rashford to Saville

"Also, my comparison with Jimmy Saville stands. My point is that powerful people cannot be allowed to get away with inappropriate activity (financial, abusive, or any other kind) just because their public persona is associated with charity."

As for Davidson you made a wishy washy post about how you enjoyed watching him on some cooking show but you never defended his wife beating and I will concede that point.

What actually happened was it was pointed out to you that he was a wife beating racist who had an affair with a sixteen year old girl and you ignored (as usual) those posts and moved onto your next non story.

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716163#Comment_117716163

But you're Irish though.... Our? Ports of entry ...

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716184#Comment_117716184

You of course didn't deny that he beat his wife , but you did dismiss that him being a racist misogynist wife beater should be a reason for him not to be an acceptable TV guest.

He was "old school funny" and that was enough for you , you were perfectly happy to ignore the fact that he is an all round awful person. Just as you were with Anne Widdecome.

THAT is what people are calling you out on as I think you are fully aware.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117715985#Comment_117715985

But let's just consider what type of politicians in the UK are the ones who have attempted to legislatively limit the rights of gay people... They're generally the likes of Anne Widdecombe who according to yourself isn't homophobic... You and Wojtek are weirdly jumping all over the place in relation to homophobia or restriction of rights that ye deem acceptable.

Also fyi, the likes of Sadiq Khan tends to be the type of Muslim politicians that do get elected. More progressive than Widdecombe by a long shot.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716199#Comment_117716199

I'll accept your retraction of the false allegation you levelled against me re: Jim Davidson.

Now time for the second retraction. Here, in my own words, which you kindly found for me, is what I said:

**Also, my comparison with Jimmy Saville stands. My point is that powerful people cannot be allowed to get away with inappropriate activity (financial, abusive, or any other kind) just because their public persona is associated with charity.**

That is exactly what I said about five posts ago in response to another poster.

I've been 100% consistent all the way through.

You can focus on the word comparison, but you are deliberately avoiding the context that follows.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716221#Comment_117716221

Yeah, you can admit you wrongly called me a racist and retract that statement before we move on.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716221#Comment_117716221

You still haven't provided proof of anything improper happening. You appear to be implying you can keep going with the claim if an article is never produced. It's also very relevant that you chose to liken Rashford spending a fortune to help the impoverished (with no proof of him doing anything untoward) to sexual predators.... For a man with such a high IQ, you do like to push nonsense...

In relation to Davidson, you kept announcing how hilarious he was while ignoring remarks about his atrocious behavior...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716213#Comment_117716213

You are comparing apples and oranges.

Anne Widdecombe is the apple, who is extant in the UK and part of the existing population that is against gay marriage.

Mass immigration from Muslim-majority countries (or other anti-LGBT/women countries) is the orange, and not yet part of the population that is against gay marriage / wants it illegal.

The question is: why add to the problem of anti-LGBT by importing more people with the same bad ideas?

If Anne Widdecombe is a bad person for these ideas, surely that means you also think that immigrants with these views are also bad people?

But it seems you want to condemn Widdecombe, but welcome more Anne Widdecombe's into the country? It makes absolutely no sense.

Again, why add to a pre-existing problem to make it worse than it already is?

It's not me who is being inconsistent, it's you.

Morgans

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716252#Comment_117716252

More views than GB News itself.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716255#Comment_117716255

I'm happy to admit there are homophobic Christians and Muslims... This is hardly news. On top of that, a person seeking refugee status can have crap views, I've never disputed that however I'm equally unwilling to send a person back to a country where they're likely to be killed... They will still be subject to the same laws as anyone else etc. If Anne Widdecombe was seeking asylum for political reasons or whatever, I would fully support giving it to her regardless of her being a homophobe btw. I'm pretty consistent and unlike yourself a Wojtek am not arguing for drownings.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716291#Comment_117716291

Here we go again...

Please provide evidence where I've welcomed or argued for migrants drowning in the English Channel.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716304#Comment_117716304

Well you're backing Farage who is very much so backing the RNLI doing nothing. Do you think he's wrong?

Tony EH

Eskimohunt - "I did not "compare Jimmy Saville to Marcus Rashford".

Also Eskimohunt - "my comparison with Jimmy Saville stands."

Look at yourself for a second. You're tying yourself up in knots simply because you cannot admit to something. Below is the definition of a "comparison". I suggest that you read it.

__________________________________________________________________________________

comparison

/kəmˈparɪs(ə)n/

noun

noun: comparison; plural noun: comparisons

1. a consideration or estimate of the similarities or dissimilarities between two things or people.

"they drew a comparison between Gandhi's teaching and that of other teachers"

Similar: contrast, juxtaposition, collation, differentiation

• an analogy.
• "perhaps the best comparison is that of seasickness"

the quality of being similar or equivalent.

"when it comes to achievements this season, there's no comparison between Linfield and Bangor"

Similar: resemblance, likeness, similarity, similitude, correspondence

__________________________________________________________________________________

When you include figures, things, or situations in the same discussion point you are either attempting to draw a likeness, a "comparison" with them, or to show their differences. You didn't attempt to contrast Rashford and Saville, your tried to make a connection between them. Therefore, you are definitely making a COMPARISON in that regard.

Your later attempts to try and qualify your comparison means nothing, because the original comparison still remains and your weasel words aren't going to clear you of it. You compared a footballer who's involved with certain charities and who has nothing against his name, thus far, with a man that was responsible for some of the worst examples of abuse that has come to light in decades and who doesn't even belong in the same sentence as the former individual.

The correct thing to do here is to simply admit that you over egged the pudding in your attempt to have a go at Marcus Rashford, because of a Spectator article that hasn't even seen the light of day.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716333#Comment_117716333

Where did I specifically back comments that Farage made arguing in favour of migrants drowning? I want both the post where a source shows Farage claimed this, alongside my quoting that saying how good idea I think it is.

If you can't provide the above evidence, then please retract this disgusting accusation.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716130#Comment_117716130

You did. Repeatedly. You even sank so low as to invoke Jeffrey Epstein for some unfathomable reason. I'll find quotes for you once you honor all of the requests for evidence that have been made of you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716521#Comment_117716521

I have repeatedly compared Rashford to every other major millionaire / billionaire celebrity that deploys charity as a public relations exercise.

That includes Jimmy Saville, yes. It also includes Bill Gates (who, incidentally, was close to Epstein).

I could go on, but the broad point stands.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716255#Comment_117716255

It is just as likely that refugees to the UK have left their home country because of various types of persecution, including, at least for some, their own sexuality and so it is disingenuous to suggest that they would arrive on mass with the worst views of the country from which they left as being something they ascribe to.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716541#Comment_117716541

You are making the gigantic leap that they are all genuine refugees and asylum seekers.

I take leave to doubt that, I really do.

Look at what happened Sweden when your perspective was adopted en masse.

Tell me how

I wonder what Nigel will focus on on his show tonight?

https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1423660418246094853

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716537#Comment_117716537

I'm not remotely sensitive about it. This is just yet another fabrication of yours. Gaslighting doesn't really work on a text-based website.

Back to the topic at hand, GB News sinks just a little lower:

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1423578977663397895

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716537#Comment_117716537

Eh, you explicitly mentioned Savile and Epstein....

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716548#Comment_117716548

And you are taking a leap in assuming that they are all sleeper radicals looking to set up some sort of a caliphate in Grimsby.

Which scenario do you think is more likely?

extra gravy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716549#Comment_117716549

"Cancel culture - it's only bad when it's not us doing it."

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716482#Comment_117716482

Can you explain what would happen to drowning refugees if the RNLI didn't intervene? Meanwhile Farage is describing them as a taxi service because they are rescuing them.... So it logically follows that he doesn't want their interventions and wishes to leave them to drown.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716549#Comment_117716549

Fair play. Nice to see companies distance themselves from this lying little racist.

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117716552#Comment_117716552

What magnificent broadcasting that is.

Jokes aside the lass probably just uttered one of the smartest soundbytes to air on the channel to date.

More success for GB News and Nigel Farage.

Farage's ratings have gone up 50% since his inaugural show, reaching a peak of 157,000 viewers.

https://twitter.com/MediaGuido/status/1423636802620035077

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117718820#Comment_117718820

NIGEL

FARAGE

IS

NOT

GBNEWS

HE

IS

JUST

A

ONE

HOUR

SEGMENT!

noelfirl

And as Robert Coxwell points out on Twitter, it's selective picking of one night's ratings - the previous night the ratings were the other way around.

(in other words, standard fare from the Paul Staines Guido Fawkes house of muck raking)

https://twitter.com/RTCoxwell/status/1423684185529724940

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117718820#Comment_117718820

How did the rest of the shows get on? Since you never reference them it appears that nobody is watching them....

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117718983#Comment_117718983

Not sure, but I doubt as high as Farage's show.

157,000 per day would translate into 4.7 million views a month - just from one show. When you add in the other stats from Dan Wootton and others, the figure is likely to be much higher than the June figures.

Personally, I think they should sign Piers Morgan and give him a slot around 9pm. Keep Andrew Neil at 8pm, too.

That way, from 7-11pm, they'll attract enormous figures each night.

Anyway in the meantime, it's onwards and upwards for the Farage show.

pjohnson

Piers and Hopkins cant be far away from getting a desperate SOS call alright.