Major faux pas for FM104

Larbre34

This sounds like it went as well as the time Jeremy Vine on BBC R2 decided to have a tourettes sufferer and advocate on during a live segment.

Pelvis Parsley

I don't know what we're shouting about.

>>insert Anchorman meme here<<

Count Hairyfoot

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I think this is missing the point altogether. Imagine growing up and learning that you were mocked on national radio because of some disability you have, and grown adults were laughing at you.

That would feel a bit shit.

Not sure about you, but I'd probably feel happier if I knew my mum kicked up a big stink about it, at the time.

Let the woman do her job.

One of her jobs as the parent is choosing the radio station in the car in the morning. One of her jobs is choosing a show that she's comfortable with. One of her jobs is making the choice to allow her child to interact with a show that she's familiar with. If you go to the circus and the clowns throw custard pies at the crowd and you think it's hilarious watching the other kids get hit, you can't complain if you bring your kid the following week and he gets a pie in the face.

The guys apologized already. If she's not happy with that then tough and hopefully the BAI tell her the same. The kid was never going to learn about this in the future as everyone else would have already forgotten about it. Who were the kids on last week? Who was the kid the day before? Nobody knows except the parents as the reality is no-one else cares about these sort of segments.

FM104s biggest worry should be that in a radio forum there's a multipage thread where nobody can say they ever heard the show.

Count Hairyfoot

Count Hairyfoot wrote: »

The kid was never going to learn about this in the future as everyone else would have already forgotten about it.

Nah, I don't really buy that. Neighbours, relatives, acquaintances would have known about it, and the kid would eventually find out. If you were on the radio as a child, someone would eventually let you know.

The guys apologized already. If she's not happy with that then tough and hopefully the BAI tell her the same.

Did they? I know the radio station apologised, I wasn't aware the guys did, and nobody has admitted doing anything wrong. The station apologised for not being able to hear the message, or some rubbish like that.

People would have a lot more respect for them if they just admitted they fcuked up, and said sorry. Grand, move on. Nobody is calling for them to lose their jobs or anything drastic like that, just do the decent thing.

Count Hairyfoot

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Nah, I don't really buy that. Neighbours, relatives, acquaintances would have known about it, and the kid would eventually find out. If you were on the radio as a child, someone would eventually let you know.

Did they? I know the radio station apologised, I wasn't aware the guys did, and nobody has admitted doing anything wrong. The station apologised for not being able to hear the message, or some rubbish like that.

People would have a lot more respect for them if they just admitted they fcuked up, and said sorry. Grand, move on. Nobody is calling for them to lose their jobs or anything drastic like that, just do the decent thing.

Oh come on - this wasn't the Zapruder film. In normal circumstances neighbors, friends, acquaintances would only have known if the mother told them and even then would have forgotten about it immediately and got on with their own lives. The kids 15 minutes were up as soon as the show ended - the only reason anyone on here knows about it is the fuss the mother made.

And yes the was a story in the Journal where she said one if the presenters called her to apologize. She also said that from now on she'll listen to Spin so if nothing else it shows she has universal terrible taste in radio.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Nah, I don't really buy that. Neighbours, relatives, acquaintances would have known about it, and the kid would eventually find out. If you were on the radio as a child, someone would eventually let you know.

Did they? I know the radio station apologised, I wasn't aware the guys did, and nobody has admitted doing anything wrong. The station apologised for not being able to hear the message, or some rubbish like that.

People would have a lot more respect for them if they just admitted they fcuked up, and said sorry. Grand, move on. Nobody is calling for them to lose their jobs or anything drastic like that, just do the decent thing.

You say all of that having not heard the audio recording.

Why apologise if this is purely a perception issue- the mother, being conscious of her child’s disability has interpreted what appears to be a simple off the cuff remark about the recording quality of the message and most likely directed at the producers of the show, and has personalised this as a direct attack on her 4 year old. It’s asking people to really stretch their imaginations to side with this woman- I’m waiting with interest on the BAI response to this but I believe they will likely class it as a misunderstanding at best and advise the station to appraise the recordings a bit better in future taking the young age of the contributors into account.

The show itself sounds ghastly and you’ll never find me tuning into that radio station but if the station is being forced to apologise for “mocking the child” when they didn’t, I don’t think that’s fair.

HBC08

Leilak wrote: »

hopefully they are both sacked over this disgraceful behaviour

You heard it yes?

Keyzer

This is a complete non-story.

Two lads stupidly took the piss out of a kid, they apologised, end of story. Any one calling for them to be sacked needs to take a look at themselves.

Calhoun

If they have done no wrong release the audio on it, it's hard to say either way if you haven't heard it but if they don't release then it is fairly suspect.

cdeb

Deleted User wrote: »

You say all of that having not heard the audio recording.

I think this point is so important it's worth clarifying. Tyrant - have you actually heard what was said on the show?

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

If they have done no wrong release the audio on it, it's hard to say either way if you haven't heard it but if they don't release then it is fairly suspect.

Not necessarily. Withholding it could also be because they don’t wish any further distress to the parent of the contributor who perceives that the station was at fault in some way- that too makes logical and common sense to me- withholding the recording doesn’t at all imply guilt.

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

Not necessarily. Withholding it could also be because they don’t wish any further distress to the parent of the contributor who perceives that the station was at fault in some way- that too makes logical and common sense to me- withholding the recording doesn’t at all imply guilt.

They have been asked by the parent to release it. They can logically end the speculation by releasing it.

As they are not then they look guilty and hence the BAI complaint and the speculation.

cdeb

Just because the parent asks, doesn't mean the radio station would be right to release the recording.

The BAI complaint will evaluate whether they've anything to answer for, not the public. And I presume the BAI have the recording.

Calhoun

Well if they don't release it, how can we keep asking have people heard it ?

If there shouldn't be a BAI case because they have nothing to answer for release it.

If it's a grand conspiracy from the woke brigade to take down two guys who made an innocent mistake they are playing right into their hands.

cdeb

It's reasonable to ask people who have strong views on the matter in this thread - such as Tyrant - if they've heard the clip, because otherwise they're speculating based on rumour really.

Your last two points aren't full sentences and I'm not entirely sure what you mean - are you suggesting that we can't decide if there should be a BAI investigation without hearing the clip? That doesn't necessarily add up. A complaint has been made to the BAI (by the kid's mother). What would releasing the clip add to the BAI case at this stage?

If the BAI reject the complaint, then it would appear that certain people have been completely over-reacting by calling on the guys to be sacked. (Shock as people over-react on the internet). If the BAI uphold the complaint, then due process will presumably be observed, though that doesn't legitimise those who have been speculating without actually hearing what was said.

Keyzer

Keyzer wrote: »

This is a complete non-story.

Two lads stupidly took the piss out of a kid, they apologised, end of story. Any one calling for them to be sacked needs to take a look at themselves.

[Literally nobody in this forum]

There are more posts here railing against outrage, than there is actual outrage.

cdeb

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

[Literally nobody in this forum].

Literally exactly what LeilaK posted actually.

Faugheen also

cdeb

cdeb wrote: »

Literally exactly what LeilaK posted actually.

Faugheen also

Faugheen was joking, he said they shouldn't be sacked over this, but because they're shite.

I don't know who LeilaK is or what are her opinions, you might have that one alright.

It's way OTT to suggest sacking them, clearly.

cdeb

Ok - and my apologies to Faugheen.

The other question I had for you from a few posts back - have you actually heard the clip in question?

archfi

Calhoun wrote: »

Cancelled no but at least a complaint to the BAI and a public admonishing.

If found that they have anything to be admonished about.

cdeb

cdeb wrote: »

Ok - and my apologies to Faugheen.

The other question I had for you from a few posts back - have you actually heard the clip in question?

No, I'm basing my view on the fact that they have attempted a pretty weak apology, and that the mother's summary of events hasn't been contested by anyone.

Calhoun

cdeb wrote: »

It's reasonable to ask people who have strong views on the matter in this thread - such as Tyrant - if they've heard the clip, because otherwise they're speculating based on rumour really.

Your last two points aren't full sentences and I'm not entirely sure what you mean - are you suggesting that we can't decide if there should be a BAI investigation without hearing the clip? That doesn't necessarily add up. A complaint has been made to the BAI (by the kid's mother). What would releasing the clip add to the BAI case at this stage?

If the BAI reject the complaint, then it would appear that certain people have been completely over-reacting by calling on the guys to be sacked. (Shock as people over-react on the internet). If the BAI uphold the complaint, then due process will presumably be observed, though that doesn't legitimise those who have been speculating without actually hearing what was said.

Sorry was on a phone, i meant to say that there were those on the thread who think they don't even have a case to answer with from the BAI and if that's the case i meant release it and show it.

This is the internet, you can see people on this thread completely over-reacting in the opposite direction because of the mothers political beliefs. I assume we have no bigots here and if there was any bigotry we would want them to be held accountable but also exonerated if there is none.

cdeb

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, I'm basing my view on the fact that they have attempted a pretty weak apology, and that the mother's summary of events hasn't been contested by anyone.

OK - but apologies are two a penny these days, and their value has diminished a lot in the social media age. I don't think you're outraged, but you are prejudging FM104 here, and that's all part of the overall machine that pressures people to apologise for anything.

The mother's events haven't been contested, true. They haven't been verified either. In fact, no-one on here heard the segment at all it seems.

Count Hairyfoot has, however, raised the point as to whether this is a regular segment where kids ring in and slagging ensues. I don't think that question has been answered yet. If it is the case then (a) it sounds like a pretty stupid segment and I'm not sure who'd let their kids ring in and (b) this kid's disability has nothing to do with it; any kid would have been treated similarly.

The problem I have with your posts is that you've started off saying "I don't know the context and it's very difficult to glean that -- even from Twitter -- without listening to the broadcast" (entirely reasonable) to "Imagine growing up and learning that you were mocked on national radio because of some disability you have, and grown adults were laughing at you. That would feel a bit ****" (ridiculous and unhelpful speculation)

Calhoun wrote: »

Sorry was on a phone, i meant to say that there were those on the thread who think they don't even have a case to answer with from the BAI and if that's the case i meant release it and show it.

OK - but again, the BAI will decide if there's a case to be answered, not the people on this thread.

Another issue with releasing the audio is the potential for it to be slightly edited, circulated on social media and generally misrepreseted. Once it's online, it's near impossible to get rid of it, and if there is anything in the complaint, that would probably be worse for the kid concerned.

listermint

So basically no one heard the segment at all.

The two apologised and the mother keeps rolling on the story for days.


What is it she wants now , specifically.....

I'm lost.

Calhoun

cdeb wrote: »

OK - but again, the BAI will decide if there's a case to be answered, not the people on this thread.

Another issue with releasing the audio is the potential for it to be slightly edited, circulated on social media and generally misrepreseted. Once it's online, it's near impossible to get rid of it, and if there is anything in the complaint, that would probably be worse for the kid concerned.

Indeed i am not arguing that the BAI are the ones to answer the case. There is still public opinion and if FM104 feel they can weather the storm of negative PR then let them on.

I assuming having the original audio would not be protection enough for them ? Why would somebody want to alter it? How would it damage the four year old having it online considering it was already broadcast on air?

VW 1

If anyone heard the show yesterday morning, instead of the usual segment, they skipped it and dedicated the segment to an explanation and apology.

Anyone who listens to it regularly (a school run must for my little ones) you will know they often interject over the audio while it is playing (they aren't interacting with the kids, only speaking over the audio and often the comment is a "joke for the parent") and always make a point of telling the kids not to shout from the back with a phone on speaker, but to talk into the phone directly.

Their explanation was that they found the child hard to hear, and made a comment on the child in question needing to speak up or some other comment. Obviously had no knowledge of the child's additional needs and remarked how unintended it was to cause hurt or distress, that they'd never do that as both of them are dad's to young kids.

Hard to hear the apology and not think it was genuine, impossible for them to know it was a kid with additional needs, and the mother needs to accept the apology and move on tbh. Point made, lesson learned, apology offered, end of saga.

cdeb

Calhoun wrote: »

There is still public opinion and if FM104 feel they can weather the storm of negative PR then let them on.

Can the public not base its opinion on the BAI verdict?

Calhoun wrote: »

Why would somebody want to alter it?

Have you seen the crap people do on the internet? It could be turned into a meme mocking his speech for example.

Calhoun wrote: »

How would it damage the four year old having it online considering it was already broadcast on air?

It can surely only do more harm to have it up there forever than the current situation where it's lost and forgotten about?

VW 1

VW 1 wrote: »

If anyone heard the show yesterday morning, instead of the usual segment, they skipped it and dedicated the segment to an explanation and apology.

Anyone who listens to it regularly (a school run must for my little ones) you will know they often interject over the audio while it is playing (they aren't interacting with the kids, only speaking over the audio and often the comment is a "joke for the parent") and always make a point of telling the kids not to shout from the back with a phone on speaker, but to talk into the phone directly.

Their explanation was that they found the child hard to hear, and made a comment on the child in question needing to speak up or some other comment. Obviously had no knowledge of the child's additional needs and remarked how unintended it was to cause hurt or distress, that they'd never do that as both of them are dad's to young kids.

Hard to hear the apology and not think it was genuine, impossible for them to know it was a kid with additional needs, and the mother needs to accept the apology and move on tbh. Point made, lesson learned, apology offered, end of saga.

Yes but the truth is getting in the way of an excuse for total outrage - we can’t let that happen- delete this post, we can’t be having the truth in this thread :P

Calhoun

cdeb wrote: »

Can the public not base its opinion on the BAI verdict?


Have you seen the crap people do on the internet? It could be turned into a meme mocking his speech for example.


It can surely only do more harm to have it up there forever than the current situation where it's lost and forgotten about?

They should but you know they wont, especially in 2021 when the approach is to use online as a mechanism to broadcast inequalities so to speak.

I have seen allot of the crap people do on the internet yes, i wasn't sure what you meant as others have used the mothers political belief as a stick to discredit her without having heard anything. I am not so sure people would turn it into a meme unless they were purposely trying to be provocative but if they did make sure they are dox proof.

If they have nothing to answer for then I still don't see how it could do harm to a child showing them naturally speaking on a radio station. What about all the other kids in the car programs? You can find old versions of the program going back a few years online.

Count Hairyfoot

They're right not to release the audio. There's absolutely no upside for anyone. What will happen is someone will seize on what's probably a 60 second clip and put it online with a caption like "Outrageous - Listen to these DJs mock a disabled child and get away with it" without any additional context.

cdeb

Exactly - both on the downside and the complete lack of an upside.

Calhoun

Who might do it? if its as innocent as it came across then why would it be an issue?

Either way, this wont got away any time soon and like it or not the twitter crowd will make hay with it because of my above questions.

cdeb

Pricks on the internet. There are literally millions of them.

bonzothedog

I have a child with dyspraxia, he's up late most nights , can't get the fecker to sleep!! - suffice to say he is a bit of a mumbler in the mornings - actually so is his sister who doesn't have dyspraxia!

Heart Break Kid

Coming from someone that has visual Dyspraxia, Its not a condition that effects speech.

At its worst, the show might of been making fun of a kid, something it has been doing for nearly 15 years if not more?

They made a light joke about the kid and the mother seems to have forgotten shes been laughing at other kids for years now and is annoyed someone made a comment about her kid of which would have no correlation to the kids condition.

cdeb

cdeb wrote: »

The problem I have with your posts is that you've started off saying "I don't know the context and it's very difficult to glean that -- even from Twitter -- without listening to the broadcast" (entirely reasonable) to "Imagine growing up and learning that you were mocked on national radio because of some disability you have, and grown adults were laughing at you. That would feel a bit ****"

Yeah, I changed my mind when FM104 offered its half-apology, and clearly weren't contesting the mother's version of events. The story had credence then. So obviously that's when I started having an opinion.

It's not a particularly strong opinion, certainly not anger. I'll just leave it at that, I think.

cdeb

It's interesting though that you accused some posters of "replying to arguments that they have invented" when you've effectively invented your own argument based on reasonably little - basically a presumption based on a course of action taken which could mean a number of things.

Still, I presume VW1's post (which actually is very similar to what Count Hairyfoot had been trying to suggest to you earlier) has at least put doubt back in your mind again.

Calhoun

Heart Break Kid wrote: »

Coming from someone that has visual Dyspraxia, Its not a condition that effects speech.

At its worst, the show might of been making fun of a kid, something it has been doing for nearly 15 years if not more?

They made a light joke about the kid and the mother seems to have forgotten shes been laughing at other kids for years now and is annoyed someone made a comment about her kid of which would have no correlation to the kids condition.

A five second google would contradict what your saying chief. Just a quick sample.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/our-son-charlie-is-five-but-he-cannot-say-his-name-1.3808530

https://www.spectrumspeech.ie/dyspraxia-in-children

cdeb

cdeb wrote: »

It's interesting though that you accused some posters of "replying to arguments that they have invented" when you've effectively invented your own argument based on reasonably little - basically a presumption based on a course of action taken which could mean a number of things.

Still, I presume VW1's post (which actually is very similar to what Count Hairyfoot had been trying to suggest to you earlier) has at least put doubt back in your mind again.

Check…mate! :P

Calhoun

A quick look at the early parts of the thread and i think you see what hes getting at.

It quickly went down a rabbit hole of wokism, people before profit and the suggestion that the mothers account be completely be discredited because she of her political beliefs.

That's what the conversation boils down to now, its a game of politics.

TheLonelyOne

cdeb wrote: »

OK - but apologies are two a penny these days, and their value has diminished a lot in the social media age. I don't think you're outraged, but you are prejudging FM104 here, and that's all part of the overall machine that pressures people to apologise for anything.

Tell me why you think they shouldn't apologise? And I don't mean that feeble excuse they issued. Is it really too hard for two grown men to admit they were wrong.

cdeb

I haven't said they shouldn't apologise. I haven't commented at all on that because I haven't heard the clip; I don't know what was said or what the context was. VW1's post - the only person who seems to have heard the show, albeit not the clip in question - does seem to indicate that they weren't mocking anyone's disabilities and that this is mountain out of a molehill stuff. But I'm happy for the BAI to check into it because that's what it's there for.

Do you think they should apologise? If so, why?

Calhoun

For some reason the mother herself feels there is still something to be answered for, despite VW1's post.

https://twitter.com/KellieSocialist/status/1405194813910274051?s=20

cdeb

And she's perfectly entitled to make her complaint to the BAI.

But you can't side with her purely because of who she is, which is what you seem to be doing

Calhoun

I haven't said I sided with her, but it would seem either she is lying or it's a bigger issues than FM104 are making out.

I am against bigotry and it's why I won't just discount her until I know more. As far too many bigots who are more than happy to gloss over it and say it's not a big deal but still wouldn't be for sharing the evidence that they readily have.

cdeb

You've been given lots of reasons why the audio doesn't have to be made public, and for you to ignore all those and link it instead with bigotry is remarkably, unbelievably crass.

Jerry Attrick

VW 1 wrote: »

Hard to hear the apology and not think it was genuine, impossible for them to know it was a kid with additional needs, and the mother needs to accept the apology and move on tbh.

But if she did that then her 15 minutes in the spotlight would be over and she'd return to well-deserved anonymnity.

Surely you wouldn't want that to happen to her?

Always kick up, never down! Slagging people with additional or special needs is a uniquely pathetic form of kicking down.

Thing is though, not to dress it up in any way, the kind of people that come out with this kind of comment are almost invariably a bit lacking in intelligence themselves (and not just in the EQ [sic] department). Some of the worst people for calling people with special needs 'stupid' (and worse) are other people with special needs. It's a cruel world.

However, if one is outraged and hurt by such behaviour and starts reacting to people that make such comments, you end up, essentially, attacking a different group of people that are lower on the intelligence spectrum. This would be unethical.

So, if we are to be kind to those with learning difficulties (and we should be, it costs nothing) this includes being kind to the DJs too and letting go of the hurt and outrage. Not worth it.

Calhoun

cdeb wrote: »

You've been given lots of reasons why the audio doesn't have to be made public, and for you to ignore all those and link it instead with bigotry is remarkably, unbelievably crass.

Not ignored but reason's i don't believe have any real merit considering the accusations at play.

I don't mean you directly in the bigotry remarks, but there is definitely that in that thread you just sing from the same sheet as them. Its like a cyclical loop of arguing and there is an answer for everything, all we can react to right now is the mother feels aggrieved and doesn't feel the apology cuts it.

Galwayguy35

Unless I read it wrong the station did ring to apologise, sure what more does she want?

Sounds like she is just trying to be on her soapbox for as long as possible before the Twitter mob turn their attention to the next person who they think deserves their wrath.