Congratulations Stu Peters

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I think you need to write your posts with a little more care.

Indeed, SWC has now been called out on three different posts in this thread and each time denies it.  The last on the connection between taking the knee and improvement in performance in football was possibly open to interpretation, but like you I interpreted it that they were implying a connection. 

Not often we agree TVOR!😉

I also agree with the view that their posts are trying to goad Stu into a defensive  response. 

[victorian dad]

4 hours ago, Declan said:

Learning about people’s lives that are different to your own is important to better understand the world we live in but especially for those making or scrutinising policy. I sometimes wonder if benefits policy is made by Civil Servants who went straight into the service at 18 and have never had to sign on. And the bus service run by people who’ve always had a car or lived in a town or a 9 to 5 job. 
 

I agree 100%, well said.

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, Max Power said:

Those were indeed phrases which appeared as BLM came to prominence after the George Floyd killing. Many supporters were chanting to this effect. I didn't say that the BLM website contained those phrases, only that some of their supporters endorsed them. I also said that causes get hijacked by their supporters.  

So  the BLM movement and everyone who supports it are somehow responsible for every word that everyone else who supports or claims to support it comes out with.   And yet Stu Peters isn't responsible for words he actually says out loud himself on air, because apparently he's been tricked into it and you can't expect a broadcaster with several decades experience not to be bamboozled so easily.

There's a certain asymmetry there.  Some people have to take responsibility for everything, others are never responsible for anything. 

[Stu Peters]

41 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

So  the BLM movement and everyone who supports it are somehow responsible for every word that everyone else who supports or claims to support it comes out with.   And yet Stu Peters isn't responsible for words he actually says out loud himself on air, because apparently he's been tricked into it and you can't expect a broadcaster with several decades experience not to be bamboozled so easily.

There's a certain asymmetry there.  Some people have to take responsibility for everything, others are never responsible for anything. 

No Roger, I WAS responsible for what I said on air - every broadcaster has to stay within the licence terms etc. But what people keep forgetting is that after a three week investigation by the Communications Commission (who I imagine would love to have censured me given the fuss and the time they had to take deliberating) I was cleared of the allegations of racism.

Another fascinating fact for SWC - to whom learning is everything - is that I could still be on air now if I wanted to be. I wasn't fired, asked to leave, sent on gardening leave or suspended (again) I left entirely of my own volition to pursue an election victory and announced that intention on June 25th in the last hour of my last show.

[P.K.]

11 hours ago, Someone Who Cares said:

"Personally I applaud when I see people trying to unite their fellow members of society against racism by taking the knee.  The unity it has generated in the English football team has been a joy to behold.  The results on the pitch have improved too, "

I find it strange that there is so much animosity directed towards Stu. Rather than speculating on how a "shock jock" might perform in the HoK I think folks should wait to see how Mr Stu Peters MHK performs in the HoK. Then at least your criticism will be performance based which will clearly be a big step forward.

I thought that the "entrapment" farrago by the BLM, trying to up their profile irrespective of the damage it might cause, would rumble around during the election. It is odd how many folks fail to understand what "no case to answer" actually means...

I personally don't believe in pointless symbolism. I go to church but I never go up for communion because I know a bit of wafer and a swig of cheap, nasty, watered-down wine is never going to make me a better christian! But I understand why the Ingerland football team take the knee. Some of their teamies are subjected to ugly, brainless, racial abuse on what seems to be a depressingly regular basis. So good for them for sending out a clear, unambiguous message about their team cohesion. However I don't have these issues to contend with so it's unlikely I will ever 'take a knee' so to speak. Especially as you get older it becomes harder and harder to get back up again.

I support a worthy cause like BLM. However I have nothing but contempt for those who tried to kipper Stu. The cause is worthy of my support. They are not and never will be...

[Declan]

12 minutes ago, P.K. said:

I find it strange that there is so much animosity directed towards Stu. Rather than speculating on how a "shock jock" might perform in the HoK I think folks should wait to see how Mr Stu Peters MHK performs in the HoK. Then at least your criticism will be performance based which will clearly be a big step forward.

 

That would be a fair point, if the Shock Jock character wasn't the one in Stu's campaign videos and Orwellian manifesto. Is it even a character - its how he posts on here? Anyway, he might find a way to keep his campaign promises and be what I'd consider an effective MHK, but that's his opportunity. 

[P.K.]

10 minutes ago, Declan said:

That would be a fair point, if the Shock Jock character wasn't the one in Stu's campaign videos and Orwellian manifesto. Is it even a character - its how he posts on here? Anyway, he might find a way to keep his campaign promises and be what I'd consider an effective MHK, but that's his opportunity. 

I alluded to this re your "persona" nonsense which I must get back to when I have time.

"Orwellian manifesto" indeed. You really have got it in for him haven't you...?

[Lost Login]

7 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

 But what people keep forgetting is that after a three week investigation by the Communications Commission (who I imagine would love to have censured me given the fuss and the time they had to take deliberating) I was cleared of the allegations of racism.

I think you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder as my understanding is that the investigation by the Communications Commission was into whether Manx Radio had breached the the Broadcasting Programme Code following 40 complaints in respect of the programme you presented. Of those complaints only 13 were about comments made in the programme. 27 were in effect supportive of the contract.

With regard to the Communications Commission loving to have been able to censure you I am not aware that it is in their power, indeed I believe that they specifically stated that they did not have the power to investigate individuals so it would appear you were not investigated by them rather it was purely Manx Radio and whether they had broken the broadcasting code. In this respect with regard to  race this is the main section I could find in the Code.

"No programme should be transmitted which is intended to stir up racial hatred or, taking into account the circumstances, is likely to do so: where appropriate, schedules should give a fair reflection of the contribution of all races to society. Racist terms should be avoided. Insensitive comments or stereotyped portrayal may cause offence. Their inclusion is acceptable only where it can be justified within the context of the programme. Careful account should be taken of the possible effect upon the racial minority concerned, as well as the population as a whole, and of changes in public attitudes to what is, and is not, acceptable."

Based on that a level of racist comment, racism might be allowed if appropriate to the programme, balanced and not intended to stir up racial hatred. 

I cannot readily find the report at present but it would be useful if you could provide a link so that contributors can read where it specifically cleared you of allegations of racism as I would have thought was outside their remit or are you referring to Manx Radio clearing you of such allegations? 

[quilp]

1 minute ago, Lost Login said:

I think you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder... 

Such delicious irony...

[Declan]

4 minutes ago, P.K. said:

"Orwellian manifesto" indeed. 

Yeah, all the slogans where words gain new meaning. He describes himself as a centrist, we can all do that. "Here I stand, therefore this is a centre." All the buzz phrases.

That's a key point in Orwell's work "War is Peace", "Ignorance is Strength" (1984), "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" (Animal Farm), this essay... https://www.queensu.ca/academia/leuprecht/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.acadleupwww/files/files/Writing Tips/writingOrwell.pdf   "The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another... Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality."

He could now add "woke army, "political correctness", "common sense" and "Orwell’s dystopian future" from Stu's manifesto.

[Lost Login]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

I find it strange that there is so much animosity directed towards Stu. Rather than speculating on how a "shock jock" might perform in the HoK I think folks should wait to see how Mr Stu Peters MHK performs in the HoK. Then at least your criticism will be performance based which will clearly be a big step forward.

SP was not really a "shock jock" though was he and I don't get the impression that is the sort of program that Manx Radio would include in their program. The "shock jock" element basically only seems to have risen its head as a response to complaints  made, with or without foundation. The response being that a "shock jock" can really say what they want. 

In my younger days I used to listen to the likes of Allan Beswick whose late night program did cause controversy. There was also the like of James Whale they were true "shock jocks'" and required a level of judgement as to how far you could go and being able to act as devil's advocate that I have always been considered been beyond SP or most broadcasters in the IoM. 

[Lost Login]

8 minutes ago, quilp said:

Such delicious irony...

Explain. I am not the one thinking somebody is out to get them?

You do understand that the meaning of having a chip on your shoulder is effectively to appear angry because you think you have or are been treated unfairly?

[quilp]

Shut up. 

[Declan]

I think Stu expressed an appreciation for James Whale's style but that it wouldn't be possible on Manx Radio. I discount PK's theory because it was inappropriate that a public broadcaster has partisan's shows. However, if Stu was encouraged to get on and be partisan the client would struggle. But that would make MR equally responsible for what occurred. 

[P.K.]

11 minutes ago, Declan said:

Yeah, all the slogans where words gain new meaning. He describes himself as a centrist, we can all do that. "Here I stand, therefore this is a centre." All the buzz phrases.

That's a key point in Orwell's work "War is Peace", "Ignorance is Strength" (1984), "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others" (Animal Farm), this essay... https://www.queensu.ca/academia/leuprecht/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.acadleupwww/files/files/Writing Tips/writingOrwell.pdf   "The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another... Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality."

He could now add "woke army, "political correctness", "common sense" and "Orwell’s dystopian future" from Stu's manifesto.

All the more reason then to judge on performance because, as you of all people know, words are cheap...

Have to say it's a bit rich all this vitriol coming from someone who voted for JW. I had to laugh to read the word "integrity" in his manifesto. After he showed such contempt for the gravitas of his position anyone with any integrity would have resigned forthwith. Not JW. Sure lots of them are in it for self-aggrandisement and frankly I think he is the worst. He is paid from the public purse to be around at the beck and call of his constituents. He is not paid to go swanning around on every trip he can arrange with the flimsiest of reasons to dress up and ponce about like a latter-day Little Lord Fauntleroy. Then come back and bang in the most pathetic, penny-pinching x's you could imagine.

Time that all travel and expenses had to have proper justification and be signed off by the CM or similar before anyone went anywhere on the public purse.