Manx Radio

[Declan]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

What are you talking about? 

Haven't you listen to the full show?

This is the crux of my objection to Stu's antics. He gave one side a hard time. Then people ring in to disagree with the first bunch and they don't get the same treatment.

[Mr Newbie]

5 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I'm sure you don't mean to, but if you think about it you're being really insulting to Stu by implying not just that he's a bit of a racist, but that he's too old and decrepit to change his views as well.  

You missed the bit about probably needing gentle education rather than being fixed in his views or a racist. I have been very clear all along to say that I think he has been a victim here of a staged and orchestrated campaign by people to whip up publicity for their protest. And that he was a very easy target to seek out. And in fact I’m sure he’d be more offended by the Alan Partridge references to be honest. 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Mr Newbie

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, P.K. said:

I'm no fan of Stacey Dooley, can't stand her voice, but she was recently criticised in exactly the same way for holding a black child.

Yep   I could be more specific, and name the Minister, but it was just unbelievable.  Millions poured into various really beneficial projects with tangible tesults and the Minister worries about a picture which, if I remember rightly, was taken by the rep of local kids they were helping in other ways - I think she was teaching them informally.  But  that wouldn't do would it?

[HeliX]

Surprises me a little bit to see that Spectator columnist struggling to understand white privilege. Assuming they're not doing it disingenuously. 

[P.K.]

2 hours ago, Declan said:

It's cheating. The public aren't allowed to be prepared before ringing Manx Radio, it gives them an unfair advantage over the staff.

What a facile argument.

Reading out an overlong (in my opinion) prepared statement with lots of numbers in it is not a debate. After all, it's not like Stu could discuss anything about the issues in what was just a load of verbiage data dump. They basically hijacked Stu's show to push their agenda.

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, Declan said:

Haven't you listen to the full show?

This is the crux of my objection to Stu's antics. He gave one side a hard time. Then people ring in to disagree with the first bunch and they don't get the same treatment.

Yes, I have and to be honest  it sounded like he was relieved.  There were no antics that I heard,   but please do provide a link. 

[peter pan]

1 minute ago, HeliX said:

Surprises me a little bit to see that Spectator columnist struggling to understand white privilege. Assuming they're not doing it disingenuously. 

(They most definitely are being facetious) 

[P.K.]

11 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

I'm sure you don't mean to, but if you think about it you're being really insulting to Stu by implying not just that he's a bit of a racist, but that he's too old and decrepit to change his views as well.  

A few pages back you accused me of not understanding institutionalised racism.

That went well, didn't it...?

I think you're being just a bit too judgemental...

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, HeliX said:

As I said, I don't necessarily think he should be fired, but I do think comments like "I've had no more privilege in my life than you have", defending the phrase "all lives matter" used in the context of replying to "black lives matter", and using statistics on black on black crime to discredit black lives matter is not acceptable on a publicly funded broadcaster.

I'm a member of the public and I found it perfectly acceptable.

What I don't find acceptable is people always on the lookout for a pissing contest...

[Max Power]

39 minutes ago, peter pan said:

The spectator is a right of centre-right wing publication which posts "mostly factual" content, and it isn't up for white people to make the determination if something is or isn't racist.  If a black person says "What you said was racist" then it's not up for you, as the white person, to make that call.  The same as if a black person went up to a white person and did a horrible Scottish accent, and the white person said that was offensive/racist/whatever it may be, the black person wouldn't be in the position to tell them why it isn't.  

So being racist isn't definitive then? If a black person says its racist, it's racist and no defence? 

It's very unlikely that a Scotsman would be offended by a terrible Scottish accent done by anyone of any race really, that domain seems to be mainly the preserve of the terminally offended.

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, Max Power said:

So being racist isn't definitive then? If a black person says its racist, it's racist and no defence? 

It's very unlikely that a Scotsman would be offended by a terrible Scottish accent done by anyone of any race really, that domain seems to be mainly the preserve of the terminally offended.

Whilst I don't agree with the wording of the post you quoted, there are obviously flaws with taking a white person's word on whether something is racist over a black person's word.

Obviously a singular person claiming it's racism doesn't necessarily make it so, but if there are several black people saying something is offensive to black people I'm likely to listen.

[peter pan]

1 minute ago, Max Power said:

So being racist isn't definitive then? If a black person says its racist, it's racist and no defence? 

It's very unlikely that a Scotsman would be offended by a terrible Scottish accent done by anyone of any race really, that domain seems to be mainly the preserve of the terminally offended.

That's a good straw man, but no, that's not what I said.  You can explain why you felt what you said wasn't racist, but arguing against someone when you've offended their protected characteristic isn't the best way to go about business, especially on a public platform.  It happening in the dark of night is no excuse.  And, in particular, referring to a person as "blacker than black" is blatantly racist, even if they were your friend in 1997.  The fact that Stu can't even use the "I'm not racist, I've got a black friend" excuse because his last black friend was back in Manchester in 1997 would suggest he needs to go and meet more people and get some diversity within his circle, something I think a lot of you on here could benefit from.  

[Max Power]

1 hour ago, HeliX said:

Wasn't one result of this that Manx Radio are intending to host a show specifically dedicated to discussing race issues?

I'll tune into that, I can't see it being much of a debate though?

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, Max Power said:

I'll tune into that, I can't see it being much of a debate though?

I rather hope it is. It's important.

[Declan]

15 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Yes, I have and to be honest  it sounded like he was relieved.  There were no antics that I heard,   but please do provide a link. 

How about 1:55 when Stu acknowledges he should have challenged the caller who repeatedly used the word "coloured" but didn't like to "because he was on a bit of a roll".

Don't you see the double standards - Peter's "on a roll"; Jordon's having a diatribe?

It's a taxpayer funded radio if you're going to take an aggressive line with group of people you have to take it with their opponents. Or you go for a different type of show where you facilitate people to share their experiences in a non-confrontational way.