woolley Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 8 minutes ago, P.K. said: As you'll find out when I finish working.... That's dark. Am I going to finish up in a concrete overcoat holding up the super improved revamped prom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holte End Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, woolley said: That's dark. Am I going to finish up in a concrete overcoat holding up the super improved revamped prom? They are only going down 600mm for the foundations, your belly would be sticking out of the concrete surface. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 29 minutes ago, woolley said: @Declan I don't recognise the "nervous" aspect of Stu's laughter, although I appreciate that the description has been used by others. I think "exasperated" is more fitting. It has been built up by the activists as the presenter laughing at the caller's experiences of racism to twist the truth for dramatic effect. If it was me that had been used in such a cynical manner, the last thing I would be doing is apologising. I would be livid. Declan won't let it go though. Like a dog worrying a bone.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 18 minutes ago, Holte End said: They are only going down 600mm for the foundations, your belly would be sticking out of the concrete surface. Funny how you conjure up an idea of what people look like just by reading their posts on here, isn't it? I'm sure we would all be very far from reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 37 minutes ago, woolley said: That's dark. Am I going to finish up in a concrete overcoat holding up the super improved revamped prom? How can it be dark when the end result is laughing at yourself? The thing is, for whatever reason, Declan is desperate for Mr Peters to apologise. Apparently for whatever reason will do. If you listen to the exchange dispassionately it becomes obvious, especially after the CC ruling, that the "laugh" is the only shot they've got. Even then they have to misrepresent it. IMHO the most disgusting aspect of this whole sorry affair is that BEFORE the CC ruling Maguire absolutely pilloried Mr Peters and very publicly as well. It says nothing good about the IOM that he's going to get away with it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 It's not nice, but what can you do? No laws broken. It's free speech innit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 24 minutes ago, woolley said: @Declan I don't recognise the "nervous" aspect of Stu's laughter, although I appreciate that the description has been used by others. I think "exasperated" is more fitting. It has been built up by the activists as the presenter laughing at the caller's experiences of racism to twist the truth for dramatic effect. If it was me that had been used in such a cynical manner, the last thing I would be doing is apologising. I would be livid. Fair enough, it’s difficult to paraphrase views other than your own. Though, I don’t think “exasperated” would have struck that right note in the fictional apology. At what point would your lividness kick in? I imagine after the complaints and the suspension and commission referral. In the moment, in the call, even if you take the ambush view and take into account the prepared script and that he got angry - Jordon was just a difficult caller. Like many others before him. Exasperating maybe but at this point (even in your reading) Stu’s not been used. Do you think a swift apology “for any unintended upset” (rather than the suspension and referral) would have taken the heat out of things more effectively? Did Manx Radio give Stu that option? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 4 minutes ago, Declan said: Do you think a swift apology “for any unintended upset” (rather than the suspension and referral) would have taken the heat out of things more effectively? Did Manx Radio give Stu that option? It's a point. Only Stu and MR will know. My problem with it, apart from rightful indignation, would be that it is admitting wrongdoing, even though unintended. And would it have taken the heat off things as much as the eventual exoneration from the regulator? I doubt it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 Perhaps if Jordan said "sorry I didn't allow you to speak and then continued to stir up a shitstorm and further malign you because I took offence." Only half joking. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 That took weeks, of angry debate, intervention of the likes of Katie Wotist and Toby Young and Stu was in limbo all the time? Is the heat out of things? The POC group remain angry. Personally, my opinion of Manx Radio has never been lower and probably irrecoverably so. I’m not alone in that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Declan said: Personally, my opinion of Manx Radio has never been lower and probably irrecoverably so. I’m not alone in that. I can agree with you on that, but it's nothing to do with this subject or Stu. Just the decline in standards generally, particularly in news and current affairs. Aside from Andy Wint and the Mannin Line, absolutely everything has fallen off a cliff since the changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 24 minutes ago, Declan said: Personally, my opinion of Manx Radio has never been lower and probably irrecoverably so. I’m not alone in that. But, of course, that hasn't coloured your opinion one little bit...? sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 26 minutes ago, Declan said: The POC group remain angry. It's easy to be angry. Or even very angry. Maybe even very, very angry. Just find something to be angry about. It can be anything really. And if it looks a little bit silly being angry about it, just exaggerate it up a notch or two and be very, very, very angry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 13 minutes ago, gettafa said: It's easy to be angry. Or even very angry. Maybe even very, very angry. Just find something to be angry about. It can be anything really. And if it looks a little bit silly being angry about it, just exaggerate it up a notch or two and be very, very, very angry. Then the gullible will even support you.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 On the subject of this laugh... I have not heard the broadcast but in my experience if you laugh during a "confrontation" things go one of two ways... It either helps defuse the situation or more commonly it enrages the other participant as they feel you are laughing at them regardless of what you are really laughing at. With that in mind it was another example of why Stu is perhaps not suited to a radio phone in show with controversial subjects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.