Lawrence Fox

Casdon

lemsip

on gb news now is news hour with anne diamond and stephen dixon. have a look

Why, are they interviewing the GB News chief executive? I just heard him on BBC News on the radio saying exactly what we have said on this thread about the comments made by Fox being completely unacceptable (his words).

Well, I should hope he would say they weren't acceptable.
Why wouldn't he?
When I last looked the channel had perfectly normal people airing a selection of perfectly normal pov. From both sides of the political spectrum.
More variety than seen on the the other channels, by and large.

Jo Brand says “why not use battery acid instead of milkshake and throw it on Nigel Farage” - Ofcom look into this and do nothing.

Its the double standards here - why do those on the left of politics get away with things and those on the right are demonised.

Thank you, everyone, for this fair-minded discussion.
The whole affair, to me, shows that GB News is a thoroughly unpleasant channel, not worthy of respect or viewing.

Pragmatist

Jo Brand says “why not use battery acid instead of milkshake and throw it on Nigel Farage” - Ofcom look into this and do nothing.

Its the double standards here - why do those on the left of politics get away with things and those on the right are demonised.

I’m sorry to have to repeat this, but your comment is irrelevant Pragmatist.

You are prejudging what the Ofcom outcome will be for Fox and Wootton, because I don’t see how you can claim that there are double standards otherwise?

A third presenter has been suspended, apparently. The news is just breaking, but it seems to be connected to the Fox incident. Apparently he criticised bosses and said they were afraid of 'the woke mob'.

Given that this is a channel that says it represents 'free speech', this makes me wonder if there is something else going on. Or maybe the channel is just growing up a bit and realising that it can't just ignore laws and public sensibilities, however 'anti-woke' it wants to be.

Doodledog

*Yes, DD, - I agree... I just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't impressed with Evan's attitude.*

At the risk of dragging this out (particularly when we agree ) we shouldn't have to make that clear. Whenever something bad happens to a woman it seems as though we (not getting at you in particular) have to say 'not all men are like that', talk about our lovely husbands and sons, and look for possible reasons why the woman might have deserved it. Or worse, in some circumstances to suggest that she might be lying.

There is nothing wrong with having a separate conversation about women being unfair to men, or calling them to account if they make unacceptable comments, but they should be separate conversations, IMO.

... point taken.

I was on the defensive!

If I were discussing this, in abstract, I would be making the same point.

I've just read that Evans also twitters-on about men in a derogatory manner including, apparently, their 'shag-rating'. I assume it's true as it can be verified in print but I have no intention of trawling through the tweets of the twitterati community to find out. It's not unusual for women to indulge in misandry, I've heard it, so quite prepared to believe she did. I don't know if it's bravado or a genuine hatred of men - or even wanting to appear like 'one of the lads'... "look guys, I'm well into this sexual innuendo malarkey" - whatever, and it's equally nasty. But it still doesn't let Fox off the hook!

In the past, when I was a Twit member of the Twitter fraternity, I read some pretty nasty stuff, from both men and women (but mostly men) so quit the site.

Misogynist males denigrating women by reminding them - in various guises - about their ultimate sexual power over them... either by threatening them with assault, or telling them they're not worth assaulting, is as old as the hills. The fact that women are joining in with this vilification - this 'locker-room banter' in an effort to even the score (or for whatever reason) is very depressing. The 'cure' for misogyny is not misandry. The only answer is emotional intelligence.

Anniebach

His apology could not have been extended to keep his job .

Your right, the apology stands on it's own merit, and not necessarily as a weasel way to keep his job.
I doubt given the upset it has caused, it would be enough to save his tv appearances, anyway.

He’s an arrogant, entitled, opinionated misogynist. Nothing he says or does interests me.

Doodledog

Why does that put a different complexion on things?

If AE's tweets are unacceptable (I have no idea, but that doesn't matter to the case) then she should be judged on that. There is, however, a huge difference between personal tweets and an appearance on a TV channel as a presenter. Her tweets should not be used to excuse an entirely unacceptable and sexist tirade from someone who is being paid to debate something in public. Again, if AE moved the debate onto different territory she should have been called on that and asked to stick to the point - her 'shaggability' should not have come into it.

I am neither excusing or attacking her behaviour, as in the context of Fox's attack, I don't see it as relevant. On a thread about male suicide I would see things very differently. I wouldn't see AE's 'shaggability' as relevant then either, but I may well say that her attitude to male suicide was wrong and her comments insensitive.

I just don't think you can have it both ways. If it is wrong for men to see women in terms of shagability publicly, it is wrong for women too. It has to be equal because that is what women have been fighting for. If she is using that term as an irony, one could argue that, as this appears to have been set up in advance, so can Fox. You cannot censor one without the other That is not to say I don't believe that Fox is an out and out misogynist because I think he probably is but I think that the reporting should have also reflected that AE comments publicly about shagability. Good Lord, what has the world come to!
Whilst my personal view is that both women should have been called to account for trying to take over the suicide rate, that is not what this thread is about.
I certainly don't believe AE should be targeted with threats of violence (I don't like that with male or female) but that is yet another thread.

He simply replied in her language but her language is ok and his isn't - double standards as usual

Pragmatist

He simply replied in her language but her language is ok and his isn't - double standards as usual

So why do you think that all the action that has been taken so far is by GB News themselves?

Ofcom will look at whether the comments made by Fox were in line with rules that broadcasters must ensure that material that may cause offence is justified by the context. There was a lot of context here - maybe the regulator will take this into account, lets see, perhaps I am pre-judging the outcome.

Ofcom are pulling the strings here

Interesting how apologists think free speech applies to a tirade of misogynistic invective from a man to a giggling news host who has previous form for being “controversial “
One woman is murdered by a man in the UK every three days.

Pragmatist

He simply replied in her language but her language is ok and his isn't - double standards as usual

So you think that talking about "cucked incels" is OK, whatever the context? Do you have any idea how the phrase is being used?

I agree that nobody can have it both ways. But as I keep saying, the two things are not the same because of the context. What AE said was on Twitter, and cannot be compared to what is said on a TV News channel, which is subject to the rules of OFCOM. Twitter is a cesspit, and all manner of horrible things are said there, but that is because it is unregulated. TV is not.

If the debate had been about 'shaggability' (I know!) then fair enough, but it wasn't. Women should be able to be taken as they come on TV, without their appearance or fanciableness mattering at all. ( I shouldn't have to say it, but so should men!)

Her Twitter comments sound unedifying, but it is not having it both ways to say that they shouldn't follow her to a supposedly professional debate on a regulated TV channel.

If we want Tweets to be comparable to GB News, the alternative is to have GB News unregulated (and other channels would follow suit). Then we would see what people really think, and it would be hideous.

As it stands, GB News is subject to laws that Twitter is not (and this is for the best, IMO) and also subject to public opinion. Nearly 8000 people complained about Fox, so they fell foul of that public opinion, as well as of the OFCOM rules.

Have the apologists actually read what AE said in the interview?

The context of her tweets should save him - lets wait and see what Ofcom say

Doodledog Look up how "cucked incel" (a phrase Fox used) is being used by the alt-right. What Fox did was respond to AE's comment, not with a reasoned argument, but be demeaning her sexuality.

I wonder why he doesn't refer to Kate Hoey or Ann Widdecombe in the same way. He also attacked her feminism directly as part of his culture war.

Can you point out where I can read it growstuff?

Pragmatist

The context of her tweets should save him - lets wait and see what Ofcom say

I certainly hope Ofcom has more sense and self-respect!!!

Find out what she actually said in the interview rather than in any tweets.

Namsnanny

Can you point out where I can read it growstuff?

Just Google it. There's loads.

It's right-wing, misogynist insult used to describe men who empathise with feminism.

growstuff

Doodledog Look up how "cucked incel" (a phrase Fox used) is being used by the alt-right. What Fox did was respond to AE's comment, not with a reasoned argument, but be demeaning her sexuality.

I wonder why he doesn't refer to Kate Hoey or Ann Widdecombe in the same way. He also attacked her feminism directly as part of his culture war.

Was that meant for me? I know - I am not a Fox apologist at all.

And now the insults start