Manx Radio

[gettafa]

3 minutes ago, piebaps said:

But, Jordan and the others wouldn't have rang at all about BLM only for Stu's personal post on here where he chooses to use his own name. 

He makes it clear that his views are his own, but they chose to ring up his workplace to bait him about it. A PM on here would've been the most appropriate way forward for meaningful discussion or even engaging in the thread debate. The way they went ahead was despicable IMHO and they've definitely lost my support.

Good post. Had the comments been made by poster known only as 'beermat' or 'cheeky monkey' or whatever, the post would have been dismissed.

Jordan et al could/should have engaged on the forum?

But no, the rabble got together to get the gammon roasted and lose his livelihood. And two fucks would they have not given if indeed Stu Peters lost his job. Would they now.

[VinnieK]

Maybe I'm being unfair, but I don't understand how the charge of what happened being an "ambush" really changes anything, even if we accept that is what happened. 

Suppose it was an "ambush" by people who don't usually listen to the show.  Does that really matter? If a presenter of a phone-in show comments publicly on a prominent issue during a time when the debate surrounding that issue is at its most heated, it's not exactly surprising when people phone in to challenge him. Nor would it be especially unusual or sinister if those people happen to know each other and had arranged to listen or phone in to the show beforehand—people group together around common experiences, viewpoints, and interests.

In other words, being "ambushed" (if that is what happened) doesn't absolve him of his failure to anticipate what might happen as a result of his comment here (either before or after he made it) or the lack of preparation for that eventuality.  After all, it's hard to not be aware of the level of scrutiny that comments made by public figures can receive these days, and it's not as if the controversy surrounding some kind of comments (e.g. "all lives matter") or the thinking behind phrases and ideas like "white privilege" are big secrets he couldn't have brushed up on before or immediately after he waded into the debate and made himself a potential target for opprobrium. Moreover, surely such preparation and awareness is all the more important if a presenter is going to go along the kind of "Snowflakes beware!" image actively cultivated by his promo material.

In my view Stu didn't handle the show well and did leave himself open to charges of insensitivity. As John points out, there's a fair bit MR could have done to prevent something like this happening, but a fair bit of responsibility also rests on Stu's shoulders for failing to appreciate that his comment might have provoked an on-air response. 

And lets not forget, the comment Stu made that sparked all this off wasn't just some innocuous little observation. He starts off by strongly implying that the IOM Black Lives Matter protest is nothing but "a virtue signalling snowstorm", then bungs in some statistics about white-on-black vs. black-on-black and black-on-white crimes (ignoring the fact that a core theme of the protests are opposition to institutional/structural racism), and then ends with "all lives matter" (which has been a source of controversy since Black Lives Matter started). Stu is of course as free to make those comments as anyone, but in doing so, and in such a confrontational tone, he may as well have openly invited people to phone in and give him grief.

Edited July 9, 2020 by VinnieK

[Max Power]

Stu was a near victim of the 'cancel culture' which has been sweeping the world. An obvious tactic of all of these groups such as 'Me Too', BLM and the recent Trans Militants. There have been some very high profile victims who have been portrayed as the devil for just expressing an opinion which disagreed with the particular group's own. The media, being essentially populated by left wing types, just 'cancels' them and the remainder are just too terrified to stand up to the tide of indignation for fear of being cancelled themselves!  

[Declan]

5 minutes ago, VinnieK said:

Stu is of course as free to make those comments as anyone, but in doing so, and in such a confrontational tone, he may as well have openly invited people to phone in and give him grief.

Also, it's not unreasonable for someone to read provocative comments under his name - see he presents a show billed as "live, loud and unleashed" and call up, not realising that the show actually wants David Quirk to ring up and reminisce about how coke ring pulls used to be detachable.

[Roger Mexico]

14 minutes ago, Declan said:

not realising that the show actually wants David Quirk to ring up and reminisce about how coke ring pulls used to be detachable.

That's the 'unleashed' bit.

[Mr Newbie]

55 minutes ago, VinnieK said:

And lets not forget, the comment Stu made that sparked all this off wasn't just some innocuous little observation. He starts off by strongly implying that the IOM Black Lives Matter protest is nothing but "a virtue signalling snowstorm",
 

That’s my view as well. The problem with this movement is that people aren’t allowed to express an alternative opinion. If we all thought the same the world would be a very boring place. I’ve also been following the JK Rowling thing on Twitter and the shit storm caused by pointing out the obvious to a load of trannies that just because you cut your dick off doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re a woman with the same life experiences she’s had. They might not like to hear that view. But it’s a view that some people have. Sometimes in life we have to hear things we don’t like or agree with. But people shouldn't be sacked for expressing what they actually think about a subject. The West is getting like North Korea at the moment in terms of what you’re supposed to be thinking. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Mr Newbie

[John Wright]

6 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

That’s my view as well. The problem with this movement is that people aren’t allowed to express an alternative opinion. If we all thought the same the world would be a very boring place. I’ve also been following the JK Rowling thing on Twitter and the shit storm caused by pointing out the obvious to a load of trannies that just because you cut your dick off doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re a woman. They might not like to hear that view. But it’s a view that some people have. Sometimes in life we have to hear things we don’t like or agree with. But people shouldn't be sacked for expressing what they actually think about a subject. The West is getting like North Korea at the moment in terms of what you’re supposed to be thinking. 

You’ve missed the point of the issue, spectacularly.

[Declan]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

You’ve missed the point of the issue, spectacularly.

What is the point Rowling is trying to make, then? Because it does sound like she's denying a sex-change makes you a woman.

[Mr Newbie]

16 minutes ago, Declan said:

What is the point Rowling is trying to make, then? Because it does sound like she's denying a sex-change makes you a woman.

That largely is the point beneath all the noise and hubris. And it’s not dissimilar to claims of white privilege as she seems to be claiming real woman’s privilege in their eyes which might make them feel inferior. But the issue is people should be free to express what they believe not what they think other people want to hear or find acceptable. It is all getting a little bit crazy. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Mr Newbie

[Shake me up Judy]

28 minutes ago, Declan said:

What is the point Rowling is trying to make, then? Because it does sound like she's denying a sex-change makes you a woman.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that argument either. A sex-change doesn't make a bloke a woman. He may wish it to - but that doesn't make it a fact. He may wish to become a table or a chair. Self-identification is no recommendation.

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

I think he was probably prepared to go ahead without one rather than insisted.

TBH this is the strongest bit of mitigation for Stu, that his employers rather left him out to dry, without production support, without (perhaps) proper sensitivity training, and billed as "Live, Loud and Unleashed".

Actually, it's much more serious than that.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it again; this screw-up should be seen in a much wider context in the way the Controller of Programming and Content and presumably his boss and other directors of MR have bounced themselves into something for which they were not prepared, had zero experience of or the capacity to handle.

It will be interesting to see what the Rajar listening numbers turn out to be (even allowing for a possible % increase due to COVID) for the second qtr. MR are particularly lucky that neither Energy or 3FM see the 65-and-over listeners as a target market. If they did, then MR would be well and truly screwed. 

Why on earth they thought the old programming and content needed fixing is beyond me. 

[Mr Newbie]

12 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that argument either. A sex-change doesn't make a bloke a woman. He may wish it to - but that doesn't make it a fact. He may wish to become a table or a chair. Self-identification is no recommendation.

It’s more the point on the privilege aspect to me really. BLM is saying well you’re privileged for being born white so you can’t express a view on that, and the transgender community saying to Rowling well your privileged for being born a woman so you can’t express a view on that either. Well of course you can express a view as everyone’s life experience is different even if their colour is the same or their gender is the same. The same virtue signing bullshit is repetitive and boring and not getting either movement anywhere. 

[quilp]

Not my own words. But Hitchens was spot-on...

[P.K.]

5 hours ago, Declan said:

That's still not an ambush. They rang phone-in show.7

I'll be honest, that Stu has played the victim by perpetuating this ridiculous argument coupled with the lack of evidence that he realises he made mistakes has hardened attitude towards him. I thought he was an insensitive product of his times and that resulted in his thoughtless conduct . But now it looks like he doesn't care. And if you don't care when your racially insensitive words have hurt people, what's that make you?

So he wasn't suspended from his job due to a complaint that the Comms Commission ruled was unfounded?

Well I never.....

[Declan]

17 minutes ago, quilp said:

long photo quote.

 

 

Who are you quoting there?

Edited July 9, 2020 by Declan