Manx Radio

[TheTeapot]

5 minutes ago, woolley said:

Not that massive. Storm in a Teapot. Give it a few weeks though.

Some people would go mental for a day or two, it'll cause a lot of froth of fb/twitter. They could probably ride it out, but you've got to wonder whether they'd want to. I've rarely listened to his show so don't know, is he worth it?

[pongo]

The use of the term "all lives matter" is clearly problematic because its meaning today goes way beyond the literal.

But I'd want to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that some don't realise that it has become the rallying cry of those who seek to dismiss prejudice and inequality.

[woolley]

20 minutes ago, pongo said:

The use of the term "all lives matter" is clearly problematic because its meaning today goes way beyond the literal.

That's subjective. In the eye of the beholder, particularly the "woke". Juan Turner used the term online. Should he be subject to opprobrium?

[HeliX]

2 minutes ago, woolley said:

That's subjective. In the eye of the beholder, particularly the "woke". Juan Turner used the term online. Should he be subject to opprobrium?

Probably, and not just for that.

[woolley]

5 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Probably, and not just for that.

Well, you're certainly right on that!

[Out of the blue]

32 minutes ago, John Wright said:

But he’s not actually employed by MR. He’s a subbie/freelancer

Do MR subbies work on quazi zero hour contracts, or a fixed length/specied number of shows arrangement? If fixed length, MR would have to prove a breach or pay him off.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

I'd be surprised if they can get away with binning him.  It's clear they would be binning him specifically because of this non issue.  

Get the lawyers ready Stu.

[pongo]

1 hour ago, woolley said:

That's subjective. In the eye of the beholder, particularly the "woke". Juan Turner used the term online. Should he be subject to opprobrium?

I accept the possibility that some people perhaps do not understand that the specific expression "all lives matter" has today become a way of dismissing people's concerns about racial prejudice and inequality. That it is typically used as a retort.

But I believe that most people who say it do so quite specifically because it has become a way of dismissing people's concerns about racial prejudice and inequality.

[woolley]

43 minutes ago, pongo said:

I accept the possibility that some people perhaps do not understand that the specific expression "all lives matter" has today become a way of dismissing people's concerns about racial prejudice and inequality. That it is typically used as a retort.

But I believe that most people who say it do so quite specifically because it has become a way of dismissing people's concerns about racial prejudice and inequality.

Well, in context, I am 100% confident that Stu Peters would not have been using it in that way.

[NoTail]

This whole thing has got out of proportion.  

I have no doubt that prejudice against black people in the USA is a serious and horrible problem.  It is also an issue in the UK but more subtle.

Stu readily agreed to this , he was quite clearly referring to the Island.  Do we have a serious problem here? Stu does not think we do, and I agree with him.  We have a number of minorities here, black, chinese, Polish, German, Jews all come to mind,. They are accepted as part of our community. Do we have a prejudice problem here? Certainly my own mother hates black people,  my grandmother hated black people and Catholics. As Stu said all minorities get some stick. 

At first my impression was that the protest was against black prejudice here. I now understand it was held in support of the American campaign. Although I doubt anyone in the international world will take any notice of our little island protest I do agree with it.

[Chef Raekwon]

7 hours ago, woolley said:

Well, in context, I am 100% confident that Stu Peters would not have been using it in that way.

I agree with this, which is why I think a proper debate around the subject is a much better way of handling it than by sacking Stu and having a witch hunt.

I think "all lives matter" has generally been used in good faith by most, but I think it's important that people understand why it's use can be unhelpful in the context of BLM too.

Like so many things it would be good if both sides could be a bit more understanding of each other.  To generalise a bit, one side needs to stop accusing everyone who challenges aspects of BLM as racist (that's not to say that some of the challenges to it aren't racist btw).  The other side needs to stop dismissing people supporting BLM as "woke lefties" and "snowflakes" and the like.

[Declan]

8 hours ago, woolley said:

Well, in context, I am 100% confident that Stu Peters would not have been using it in that way.

He did in his MF post.

[KERED]

On 6/9/2020 at 9:45 AM, Shake me up Judy said:

I'm sure there are quite a few people who've got it in for Stu. I'm surprised he's lasted as long at Manx Radio as he has. He upset the Creamery when he ran his cafe didn't he ?

I don't have it in  for him, but I have never been a fan of Mr Peters. I am not surprised that a complaint has (apparently) been made about him. In fact I am surprised that it didn’t happen sooner.

I did not hear his comments, so I can’t say whether or not I think they were racist.

However – I agree with other posters who have said that he is not the right person to host a phone-in show. He does not seem to have the ability to play “Devil’s Advocate” which is to remain impartial and to put forward opposing views, even when they differ from one’s own. He destroyed Talking Heads for me with his bigoted and opinionated views. Contributors who disagreed with him were given a hard time, whilst those who agreed, were  awarded a cheery “I like the cut of your jib, young feller!”  Some, who had the temerity to question his authority were told to “wind yer neck in!”

 Towards the end, I found the best parts of the show were when Frank from Ramsey kept winding him up, until getting himself banned.

If he is allowed back on air on the Island’s National Broadcaster, I hope it will be just as a regular presenter, and not “unleashed”.

 BTW - Is the Communications Commission investigating this, or not?

[woolley]

2 hours ago, Declan said:

He did in his MF post.

How so?

[Declan]

1 hour ago, KERED said:

 

However – I agree with other posters who have said that he is not the right person to host a phone-in show. He does not seem to have the ability to play “Devil’s Advocate” which is to remain impartial and to put forward opposing views, even when they differ from one’s own. He destroyed Talking Heads for me with his bigoted and opinionated views. Contributors who disagreed with him were given a hard time, whilst those who agreed, were  awarded a cheery “I like the cut of your jib, young feller!”  Some, who had the temerity to question his authority were told to “wind yer neck in!”

 

That's where my objection to the program comes from. People are reading the transcript of one call and saying he did nothing wrong. But a transcript cannot show him scoffing at the anti-racist callers, interrupting and it only includes one call not the whole show where he was  "playing devil's advocate" towards anti-racist callers and having a good laugh with those that disagreed with them. He didn't challenge one callers use of the word coloured and when questioned on it said it was because "he might kick off".

You can't play devil's advocate to only one side of a debate - on a state-funded broadcaster.