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

I'm going to make the prediction here and now.

GB News will hire Starkey in the coming days for a history-style patriotic program each week, perhaps a Saturday.

Far from being left behind, I think we're witnessing the resurrection of Starkey.

Slowly but surely, Starkey is appearing more and more on TV or significant YouTube channels, often to significantly favourable reaction.

What a bizarre conclusion!

Many British people are turned off by BBC programming, but it says nothing about the market potential either.

It's the same principle. You cannot dismiss the existence of a market based on the product of the extant bodies.

Let me give my own perspective, then. Perhaps that will give some sort of clarification.

I agree with the anti-Woke agenda; I think the Woke agenda is a terminal cancer that renders asunder any concept of culture we have worked hard to create.

That said, I don't always believe that GB News does an effective job at catering to people of my persuasion.

Sometimes yes. Always? No.

I have my criticisms.

I'm not a loyal dog of GB News.

But I acknowledge both the existence of the market as well as the existence of the possibility of a channel that can cater to that market.

To dismiss the existence of that market is to deny reality - often in favour of one's own political persuasion.

Would you say David Irving is a victim of cancel culture? Or that he simply expressed awful views that migrated him to the edges of public discourse? Like if your rhetoric is ****, media organisations may simply not associate with as a result.

I'd be inclined to liken those who are obsessed with attacking transgender people to the types who argue for conversion therapy etc. It's a different type of toxic but very much so dangerous.

Not really, it's a separate issue to Holocaust deniers and I gave an example that is more similar. You don't seem to view the targeting of transgender people as bigoted or nasty or "serious". I do. It's not akin to Holocaust denial but conversion therapy isn't either. But it's serious nonetheless.

Also, you're a tad obsessed, you brought transgender people up. My original point is awful people have regularly been not invited back on for decades. It's not remotely new.

Except the thing is, it wasn't an isolated comment from Starkey. He's had multiple controversies over racist comments for the last decade, his latest was merely the final straw rather than the isolated incident you attempt to portray it as.

Also your logic is that somebody should be platformed until it's reached a point they're in court over their statements? Not all awful comments are gonna end up in court but this doesn't mean such idiots should be given carte blanche.

The same principle applies to Nick Griffin. He was exposed precisely because of his Question Time appearance. It was far more edifying for the public to see this man on screen, rather than having him no-platformed (and there were protests at the time arguing he should not have had a platform).

In the end, the no platform route would have achieved nothing, whereas exposure on platform proved to be a far more effective and terminal remedy.

Now, I'm not comparing Nick Griffin to David Starkey.

I'm merely zooming out to make the broader point that no platforming / censorship might sound good in practice, but it very often has precisely the opposite outcome.

And good on GB News and LBC for reinstating Starkey on their platforms. Hopefully more follow suit soon.

I don't think you can seriously classify Nick Griffin in the same category as Anne Widdecombe and David Starkey.

At that point, I think all sense of perspective is lost.

Incomplete, perhaps intentionally?

During the London Riots, Starkey made the observation that "the whites have become black". Behind that slogan was meaning, which he later went on to explain what he meant: namely, that black "gangsta" culture had been appropriated by young white youth - including other features of behavior and cultural norms, and the glorification of rap that speaks highly of violence. That's all he meant. True, when you see the shock slogan, you can throw toys out of the proverbial pram. When you see the context, you can agree or disagree - but you have to admit that it may have a kernel of truth.

Second, when referring to David Lammy as "white" if you didn't see him, he was - again - referring to how successful black people have integrated into British culture; and that these fine examples are the opposite of what you see at the bottom of the social heap (see above).

What's curious is that the likes of Diane Abbott can spout overtly anti-white racism and nobody on the Left says a word. When it's a creature of the right, then we see the above kind of cancellation (for what it's worth, I wouldn't want Diane Abbott cancelled for her views either).