Nigel Farage meets Douglas Murray looks at the BLM problem, trans, wokeism, |BBC

[Crimson Dynamo]

MKQmgP61LUI

Some excellent analysis all around his new book

Douglas Kear Murray (born 16 July 1979) is a British conservative author and political commentator.He founded the Centre for Social Cohesion in 2007, which became part of the Henry Jackson Society, where he was Associate Director from 2011 to 2018. He is also an associate editor of the British political and cultural magazine The Spectator.

Murray has written columns for publications such as Standpoint and The Wall Street Journal. He is the author of Neoconservatism: Why We Need It (2005), Bloody Sunday: Truths, Lies and the Saville Inquiry (2011) about the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (2017), and The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity (2019).

[arista]

Yes Douglas a Great Writer

[Tom4784]

Two entitled white guys meet up to talk about issues they don't know jack **** about in order to minimise issues that will never affect them.

[Oliver_W]

entitled white guys meet up to talk about issues they don't know jack **** about in order to minimise issues that will never affect them.
SD&N in a nutshell :hehe:

[Crimson Dynamo]

2 important famous men

Let's not pretend guys...

Lol

[Marsh.]

Famous? Oh well....

[Crimson Dynamo]

Yes

[Liam-]

Horrible little racists

[Crimson Dynamo]

Horrible little racists

Name calling is playground

[Marsh.]

Danni Dyer is famous, let's ask her for a comment too.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Watch the video , make a comment on the contents, let's judge what you say

[joeysteele]

Famous? Oh well....

Exactly Marsh.

They're maybe famous,in my view that is not necessarily a positive.

[Swan]

Horrible little racists

If you watched the video, they're actually saying how proud they are of how far Britain as come as far as race is concerned, and happy we're nothing like the US in that way.

Like Douglas Murray said in that interview, he grew up around people of many different ethnic backgrounds, and it's just a 'who cares' kinda attitude, people are people. And you know what, that's completely how it is for most people who grow up, and live in mixed/diverse communities and cities. They're just not arsed and get on with their own business.

It's got the point now where by being white, your racist by default. It's just such a strange way of thinking. And even more irony, most people i see angered by 'white privilege' are white 'privileged' people themselves.

[Ammi]

..I’m not going to click and watch just because there are certain things and sites etc that I’m not going to play the click game with anymore, or at least atm...never say never etc, etc...so I have very little comment/contribution etc...I do think though that political opinions and politically related opinions are such a seesaw atm of opposite ends, more so than I’ve seen before, I mean ...and I think there are a lot of modern day reasons for that with the referendum vote and social media rise and the political game in general...(..as I see it personally...)...being quite a bit of a personal career thing, rather than a desire for change for a country etc and just so many reasons, there are always so many layers to these things....anyways, the left sometimes seems to veer more left and the right seems to veer more right on that seesaw of opposite ends...and very little in that centre balance...or at least, very little being vocal, it might be...I think the middle also though is a lady called Irony, which applies to both ...(...which I guess is why the opposites are getting further and further/seem to be...)...because ironic can apply to both at different times and on different things etc...an equally ironic lady in the centre which left and right pick up like a stone to throw at each other from time to time...(...which ironically means regularly, probably...)...

...anyways, I was less familiar with Douglas Murray than Nigel Farage...so just looking at The Strange Death of Europe, for instance...and one review written about it and about him/his views...

‘His pessimism about multiculturalism is so well constructed and written it is almost uplifting.’


...which is surely and ironically a contradiction ...he is pessimistic about multiculturalism and yet people are people and who cares, etc he’s fine with that since his childhood...anyways, I just found that interesting...(..and yes very ironic with him..)...because I was less familiar with him, so that shone out immediately when I looked at who he was etc...

[user104658]

I watched the video. Any aspects of it that are thought provoking (and don't get me wrong, they are there) are unfortunately over-shadowed by the fact that both men are sat there being blinkered arseholes and ignoring nuance completely in the other direction. Just more culture war nonsense. Farage descends into outright baiting by the end.

[Nicky91]

I watched the video. Any aspects of it that are thought provoking (and don't get me wrong, they are there) are unfortunately over-shadowed by the fact that both men are sat there being blinkered arseholes and ignoring nuance completely in the other direction. Just more culture war nonsense. Farage descends into outright baiting by the end.

his whole career consists out of trolling and baiting so no surprise there

[Crimson Dynamo]

DOuglas has written an excellent article in the Telegraph today:

It’s in the UK’s national interest for Trump to triumph

Is there anyone in the world who cannot list Donald Trump’s flaws? They seem so manifest and so multiple
that even thinking of doing so evokes thoughts of barrels, shooting and fish. His unwillingness to ever miss
an opportunity to boast. His career-long devotion to exaggeration. His desire to talk up everything about
himself and talk down everything about anyone else. This and much more can all be held against him and regularly is.

He is also one of the most successful figures in US history. In his career before the presidency he made a fortune,
lost a fortune, made a fortune again, then ran for president and – having never held political office –
gained the presidency on his first try. You don’t need to admire him, let alone love him, to notice that
there is something uncommon about him. And uncommon people – especially uncommonly successful people –
generally have something worth teaching.

Opinion polls suggest that the British people have never warmed to Trump and find his vulgarity as well as
what news about him filters through to be reason enough to dismiss him. But taking this view deprives us of
something. Not least an ability to learn what it is about Trump that makes him appealing to a significant proportion
of the American public and what has made aspects of his time in office a success. Listing Trump’s virtues may be
harder than listing his flaws, but still they are there and worth highlighting.

Take Trump abroad. The revelations about him – not least in John Bolton’s recent memoir – can be hair-raising without a doubt.
The President’s lack of awareness about major aspects of foreign policy. His ignorance of basic things (such as – apparently –
this country being a nuclear power) are enough to instil in the foreign policy establishment a desire to have a lie down.
And yet those same foreign policy establishments have been shown to be wrong time and again.
Whether it is intelligence failures over WMDs, or a total lack of foresight over nearly any major
event (such as the so-called Arab Spring) we have of late had a foreign policy establishment that can hardly point
to a single success. What is more, among most candidates for the US presidency, it seemed to have become
a prerequisite for office to appeal to the American public on the basis that you’d be keener than any of your
opponents to send American troops into battle. Any battle.

Trump reversed all of that, promising to prevent America being dragged into quagmires around the world.
Of course there are consequences to America’s withdrawal. But Trump was not wrong when he berated the
foreign policy failures of his predecessors and rivals. Had Hillary Clinton achieved the Oval Office, it is almost
certain that she would have got her country into one or more conflicts in the Middle East among other places.

The person who actually won the 2016 race has done no such thing. He has not only stuck to his promise
not to get America into any more wars, he has done things that his predecessors would never have done
without getting America into endless such conflicts.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/tyFFMm80D85tqKEpuowZThjdNCg=/0x0:2125x3000/1200x800/filters:focal(812x421:1152x761)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/49863529/539418518.0.jpg

Cast your mind back to January when American forces killed General Qasem Soleimani.
The moment the killing of Iran’s foremost general was announced, the entire foreign policy
commentariat went into overdrive. “Is this our era’s Franz Ferdinand moment?” they asked.
And that was just the less excitable ones. There seemed a general belief – once again –
that Trump was going to get us all killed. And yet – once again – he didn’t. American forces
took out Iran’s leading general, a man who had overseen the deaths of countless numbers of
British and American troops, not to mention Iraqi and other civilians in the area, and Iran took it.
Not least because they seemed to fear that they were dealing with a madman.

It is the same with the other notable foreign policy strides of his presidency. Whether it is the still
under-heralded but utterly historic Israel-UAE peace deal. Or his unexpected efforts to address the
problem of North Korea. Time and again Trump has done bold, brash and often nail-biting things in
the foreign arena. But he has come through them. Like all presidents he could have done more in
other places. But in the areas that Trump has applied himself to, he has made quite extraordinary
achievements. And the fact that he is unpredictable and perhaps even a little crazy (an impression
we must hope that he works at cultivating) can be a great virtue in the international arena.

Likewise when it comes to the only major challenger to America’s global economic and military
dominance, Trump has been able to do things that none of his opponents would ever have
dreamed of doing. His re-building of the American military has not been done in order to use it
against third-rate despots and tinpot terrorist groups (who have demonstrated an uncanny ability
to play America to a draw in recent conflicts). Rather he has built it up in order to demonstrate to
China that American military dominance will not be allowed to dwindle away. He knows that if you
have military dominance, an awful lot of other games can also come into play.

Is there another candidate (in 2016 or now in 2020) who knows better than Trump the game
that is now in motion with Beijing? If there is then is there any other who would have been willing
to slap tariffs on the country, bring back jobs from China and much more in the way that Trump has
done? Long before the coronavirus hit, Trump had warmed up the American people to understand the
threat that China posed to them. Not as a military power but as an economic rival. An economic rival
whose actions were directly affecting the wage-packets of American workers. No European leader has
managed to do anything like that. And America’s desire to play the Chinese at their own game is a
major global play that is highly unlikely to survive the Trump presidency.

And then there are the issues that are of more immediate relevance to the UK. Most important of
which is the US-UK trade deal currently under negotiation. It seems unlikely that this deal will be
completed before the presidential election. Not for any lack of will on either side, but simply because
of the time it takes for the details of such agreements to be ironed out. The excellent trade teams on
both sides of these discussions want to arrive at a deal and given the opportunity they will do. The
good will in Washington and from the team around Trump is not to be ignored. Compare that with the
“back of the queue” that Trump’s predecessor said a post-Brexit Britain would be sent to.

On these issues and more, there are successes that this administration has achieved which are
worth reflecting on. Of course some will judge that these do not outweigh the negatives. Others
will accuse me of seeking to use a low tool for high purposes. But there are only two people on the
ballot this November. And the one most frequently presented as the most unstable and unpredictable
may yet prove to be the one who will give this country and the wider world the period of greater success and calm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/28/uks-national-interest-trump-triumph/

[Nicky91]

''Cast your mind back to January when American forces killed General Qasem Soleimani.''

yes Trump still needs to pay for that murder, Iranian government still want their justice

[Crimson Dynamo]

''Cast your mind back to January when American forces killed General Qasem Soleimani.''

yes Trump still needs to pay for that murder, Iranian government still want their justice

i am afraid there is no such thing as justice in Iran

[user104658]

And uncommon people – especially uncommonly successful people – generally have something worth teaching.

Pffffff. Uncommonly successful people are usually either utterly ruthless, slithering con-men, or a combination of the two. Trump is a ruthless con-man. That's what he has to teach us.

The rest of that opinion piece hinges on the premise that there's anything more to it than that.

A disillusioned population of dumb people and a narcissistic liar who was willing and able to take advantage of that. It's not a complicated or fascinating story, nor is it a mystery.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Pffffff. Uncommonly successful people are usually either utterly ruthless, slithering con-men, or a combination of the two. Trump is a ruthless con-man. That's what he has to teach us.

The rest of that opinion piece hinges on the premise that there's anything more to it than that.

A disillusioned population of dumb people and a narcissistic liar who was willing and able to take advantage of that. It's not a complicated or fascinating story, nor is it a mystery.


"A disillusioned population of dumb people"

when you start down this road TS you have lost the argument

[user104658]

"A disillusioned population of dumb people"

when you start down this road TS you have lost the argument

Only if you're making dumbness partisan; I'm not saying the reds are dumb and the blues are clever. Most people are dumb and easily lead, and the disillusionment isn't even really arguable... he fought a platform of anti-establishment and getting away from career politicians.

I'm not even trying to win an argument or convince anyone of anything. I know that calling people dumb doesn't win anyone over but I have no interest in winning anyone over to anything at all :joker:. Pointing out that the average person is dumb as a bag of spanners is just an observation.

[Nicky91]

"A disillusioned population of dumb people"

when you start down this road TS you have lost the argument

well if you vote for trump you aren't very smart either, especially now everyone can see he has massively flopped in handling the coronacrisis completely wrong

also abolishing of ObamaCare was a bad move from Trump for middle-class people

[Oliver_W]

If you watched the video, they're actually saying how proud they are of how far Britain as come as far as race is concerned, and happy we're nothing like the US in that way.

Like Douglas Murray said in that interview, he grew up around people of many different ethnic backgrounds, and it's just a 'who cares' kinda attitude, people are people. And you know what, that's completely how it is for most people who grow up, and live in mixed/diverse communities and cities. They're just not arsed and get on with their own business.
.

I don't know who Douglas Murray is, but he's right - people who bang on about race and racism sound like they spend most of their time on the internet, and never really speak to real people. Obviously there are racists out there, but they're rare. Virtually no-one cares what colour skin someone's got.

[The Slim Reaper]

Farage has been a known nazi sympathiser since his school days, so let's not pretend that his supporters feel any differently.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Probably the most sucessful politcal figure of the last 10 years

[arista]

Farage has been a known nazi sympathiser since his school days, so let's not pretend that his supporters feel any differently.


Rubbish

[The Slim Reaper]

Rubbish

Do I need to bring up the letter again? He was known for supporting fascism and hitler.

[Nicky91]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-fascist-nazi-song-gas-them-all-ukip-brexit-schoolfriend-dulwich-college-a7185236.html

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/letter-resurfaces-from-nigel-farages-schooldays-warning-of-racist-and-fascist-tendencies/11/06/

[Oliver_W]

Farage has been a known nazi sympathiser since his school days, so let's not pretend that his supporters feel any differently.

Or he was in his school days. Is there anything nazi-like from his time as a grown up?

[user104658]

Farage has been a known nazi sympathiser since his school days, so let's not pretend that his supporters feel any differently.

Watch from 6.00 to 6.50 for an amusing brief misunderstanding where Farage thinks Murray is defending the George Floyd incident and tips his hand. In brief, Marray says (incorrectly to be honest, but anyway) that "no one defends what that officer did" and he means that in the sense of no one should/can and they don't, but Farage seemingly takes it to mean that it's unfair that no one defends it and that someone should, until he earnestly asks "would you defend it?" and gets a shocked reaction from the other guy.

He quite blatantly wanted the guy to say that people should be defending the officers in that situation but are "too scared to do that" - not realising that even this nob thinks that incident was indefensible. Heh.

[The Slim Reaper]

Could lead to quite an awkward conversation for anyone supporting Farage, if they had a Jewish friend.

[user104658]

To be fair I don't agree with judging people on crap they said as a teenager; I know someone who is an asylum lawyer at a non-profit who loved a racist joke or 20 at school. Teenagers come out with all sorts of absolute nonsense that they're horrified by as adults.

That said, there are plenty of indications at the very least that Farage hasn't changed his spots much since those days, given the stuff that he's STILL coming out with.

[The Slim Reaper]

Or he was in his school days. Is there anything nazi-like from his time as a grown up?

Apart from his continued anti-immigrant rhetoric? His use of nazi imagery?

If you are a reformed Nazi, you don't keep most of the opinions you held, but dress them up for polite society.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Apart from his continued anti-immigrant rhetoric? His use of nazi imagery?

If you are a reformed Nazi, you don't keep most of the opinions you held, but dress them up for polite society.

:joker:

slim its not going to work no matter how hard you try. DO you have any idea how much work Nigel has done with war vets and going to visit war graves?

what tosh

[Oliver_W]

Apart from his continued anti-immigrant rhetoric? His use of nazi imagery?

If you are a reformed Nazi, you don't keep most of the opinions you held, but dress them up for polite society.

What nazi imagery?

Hasn't he been calling for an Australian style system rather than being outright anti-immigrant? Either way, you can be against uncontrolled immigration and nazis :shrug:

[The Slim Reaper]

:joker:

slim its not going to work no matter how hard you try. DO you have any idea how much work Nigel has done with war vets and going to visit war graves?

what tosh

Do you know that the rise of nazism was built on the backs of WW1 vets? As though the military isn't automatically skewed in that direction.

I don't mind having these conversations with you, but I'd appreciate it if you tried to educate yourself first.

[The Slim Reaper]

What nazi imagery?

Hasn't he been calling for an Australian style system rather than being outright anti-immigrant? Either way, you can be against uncontrolled immigration and nazis :shrug:


As an example

https://i.insider.com/5ad5a49f146e7122008b4b8b?width=900&format=jpeg&auto=webp

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClEOMk-XEAABwBF?format=jpg&name=small

[Nicky91]

:joker:

slim its not going to work no matter how hard you try. DO you have any idea how much work Nigel has done with war vets and going to visit war graves?

what tosh

:suspect:

any proof of this?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Do you know that the rise of nazism was built on the backs of WW1 vets? As though the military isn't automatically skewed in that direction.

I don't mind having these conversations with you, but I'd appreciate it if you tried to educate yourself first.

SO Nigels interest in our war effort against the Nazis, his support for our war charities who look after our war veterans and his interest in how Britain defeated the Nazis (he lived a stone's throw away from a base as a child) is why he is a NAZI?

:hehe:

er no

[Nicky91]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nigel-farage/nigel-farage-reacts-to-trumps-ban-on-transgender/

and while we are at it, also on topic since Trans was in discussion too, this is what Farage said about that back in 2017

[Nicky91]

SO Nigels interest in our war effort against the Nazis, his support for our war charities who look after our war veterans and his interest in how Britain defeated the Nazis (he lived a stone's throw away from a base as a child) is why he is a NAZI?

:hehe:

er no

not on their own though

not that i can judge about this since the dutch army surrendered after few days and royals fled to britain :joker:

[Crimson Dynamo]

not on their own though

not that i can judge about this since the dutch army surrendered after few days and royals fled to britain :joker:

:joker:

[Oliver_W]

As an example

https://i.insider.com/5ad5a49f146e7122008b4b8b?width=900&format=jpeg&auto=webp

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClEOMk-XEAABwBF?format=jpg&name=small



:joker:

How many archived propaganda videos did people have to trawl through to find one that matched a poster he made?

There's only so many ways a big line of people can be portrayed, so it's probably a coincidence.

[The Slim Reaper]

Let's not go down the path of saying "I'm right and you're wrong, google it peasant!" I'm sure you can show your workings ;)

Visiting war graves proves nothing. Corbyn visited war graves, and of course he was known as the great British patriot.

[Nicky91]

that brexit party too, lots of problematic people in it

Ann Widdecombe, Piers Corbyn, those elitist Grant Sisters (Alice, Beatrice)

they all fit in well with Farage, and also most of those have been caught on either racism, transphobia, homophobia, elitism

[Crimson Dynamo]

Farage's grandfather, Harry Farage, was a private who fought and was wounded in the First World War.

[Glenn.]

‘The BLM ‘problem’

I’ll give the video a miss thanks

[Crimson Dynamo]

889971797386514434

Nigel pulling "the old double bluff" :joker:

crafty :worry:

[Oliver_W]

‘The BLM ‘problem’

I’ll give the video a miss thanks

I think it's a problem that an important cause has been hijacked by a movement which constantly riots and leaves a trail of destruction :shrug:

[Crimson Dynamo]

I think it's a problem that an important cause has been hijacked by a movement which constantly riots and leaves a trail of destruction :shrug:

Yes he makes the point that all social justice movements start off with good intension and then get enveloped in personal gain, corruption and getting way, way off course

[Niamh.]

Reopened this after deleting a pile of posts, can you all please stick to the topic and not each other, thanks

[Marsh.]

I don't know who Douglas Murray is, but he's right - people who bang on about race and racism sound like they spend most of their time on the internet, and never really speak to real people. Obviously there are racists out there, but they're rare. Virtually no-one cares what colour skin someone's got.

And comments like that sound like they were made by someone who doesn't speak to real people when they speak on behalf of minorities and try to correct them about THEIR experiences of racism that are not and will never be yours.

[Tom4784]

I think it's a problem that an important cause has been hijacked by a movement which constantly riots and leaves a trail of destruction :shrug:

Or, you've allowed yourself to believe that's the case to undermine a cause you don't really like.

[Oliver_W]

Or, you've allowed yourself to believe that's the case to undermine a cause you don't really like.

I don't like any cause which consistently destroys so much. Why would anyone like such a movement - because they agree with their name?

[Glenn.]

Imagine thinking buildings are more important than people

[Swan]

Imagine thinking buildings are more important than people

Everyone knows buildings are nowhere near as important as people. But there is a debate to be had as far as the 'are the protests being handled and demonstrated correctly'. It just paints a bad picture when local businesses, cars, and other property is needlessly be destroyed.

What if an innocent person got trapped in one of the burning buildings for example?

I think most people who ask the question, know a human life matters more than a building, but is it really necessary to burn down a local shop? What does that achieve?

[Cherie]

If it’s your place of work and your arse is parked on the dole because the building has burned down, that building is quite important...no?

[Oliver_W]

Imagine thinking buildings are more important than people

Imagine thinking that "their methods are wrong" equates to "their beliefs are wrong."

[Glenn.]

If it’s your place of work and your arse is parked on the dole because the building has burned down, that building is quite important...no?

I’d have thought the building would have insurance? Buildings can get repaired. Bullets to the head can’t

[thesheriff443]

I’d have thought the building would have insurance? Buildings can get repaired. Bullets to the head can’t

You should let them burn your home down because obviously it’s a great cause and will achieve an end to racism.

[Oliver_W]

I’d have thought the building would have insurance? Buildings can get repaired. Bullets to the head can’t

They're two separate things, anyone who does either is just scum. Destroying people's livelihoods won't repair a bullet to the head any more than simply being insured will erase the hardship that the riots bring to business owners.

The owners of the B & L Office Furniture, Scott Carpenter and his mother Linda, told Townhall they had been in business for over 40 years and were extremely disheartened to see the store being torched.

"I don't know what's next, what do we do next, other than clean up and I have some loose ends with some customers that we have going on," Scott said, adding "we can't leave our customers hanging...but I feel sadden because this is done."

Linda said they'll try to keep working.

"It's not justifiable," Scott said. "We have insurance, yeah, but the insurance isn't there so somebody can destroy your things...we pay for it. It causes insurance rates to go up. It's basically theft. Whoever did this stole from us."

Scott's warning to business owners who still have stores standing to "be ready" for Tuesday night and told the rioters that burning down random businesses isn't helping. When Scott was talking with a local news crew, Linda came up crying in shock from the damage to the store.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2020/08/25/kenosha-business-owners-and-residents-speak-out-after-rioters-destroy-buildings-in-another-night-of-chaos-n2575006

[Glenn.]

You should let them burn your home down because obviously it’s a great cause and will achieve an end to racism.

As per usual sheriff with your ridiculous examples.

[thesheriff443]

As per usual sheriff with your ridiculous examples.

No, if your happy with an office to be burned down you should be happy for your home to be burned down you will be doing your bit.

Yes it sounds ridiculous because you are being ridiculous thinking it’s ok to burn some one else’s property and livelihood down.

[Glenn.]

No, if your happy with an office to be burned down you should be happy for your home to be burned down you will be doing your bit.

Yes it sounds ridiculous because you are being ridiculous thinking it’s ok to burn some one else’s property and livelihood down.

Ok

[Crimson Dynamo]

No, if your happy with an office to be burned down you should be happy for your home to be burned down you will be doing your bit.

Yes it sounds ridiculous because you are being ridiculous thinking it’s ok to burn some one else’s property and livelihood down.

Good post

[Kizzy]

Farage is the British face of facism, there is not one quality he possesses that I would consider 'British' he and his kindare a bastardisation of right wing conservative values. It's this that's being vomited up as an example of patriotism.

If anyone can name one positive example of British culture that he extols, just one thing that he advocates that does not involve denigrating or subjugating others I will change my mind.

There you go.. challenge for someone, what exactly is farage view of patriotism, how does it manifest? Is it anything like brits are, contrary to popular belief im very proud of the British people..I just don't see any of the will and the fortitude we have celebrated in his words, just how to keep others out or down.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Farage is the British face of facism

No kzzy

He just isn't

[Oliver_W]

I neither like nor dislike Farage but it's bonkers to definitively say hes a fascist based on his being an idiot teen and making a poster with a big long line of people.

[Kizzy]

No kzzy

He just isn't

That doesn't disprove my argument.

[thesheriff443]

That doesn't disprove my argument.

It’s an opinion not an argument.

[bots]

I don't like farage, i never have, but he voices opinions that are very popular amongst millions of Britains. His political views are not fascist and people don't help their cause by labelling people something they are not. The best way to defeat Farage is to argue against his views without resorting to insults

[Ammi]

....hmmm....but that’s what Populism is, surely...it follows views and attaches itself to them so obviously that’s what it’s going to voice...and it’s a disingenuous voice, only spoken for its own gain and it’s own ambition..it’s not based on a belief system or any desire for change etc... it’s in it for the money, honey...and also to create a divisive voice in a nation, so it can count its income while watching that divide through its ivory window...’arguing against’ just feeds it further and is exactly what is hoped for ....ignoring, ignoring is the only way...but that will never happen because of the nature of the beast of Populism....

[Cherie]

I’d have thought the building would have insurance? Buildings can get repaired. Bullets to the head can’t

You are missing the point, insurance will rebuild the building, in the meantime, any business it housed could go bust and create endless human misery

[bots]

Farage voices mainstream views, they are only considered divisive by those who are equally "divisive" but politically polar opposite

[Ammi]

...that’s so not true though, bots...I mean, it just isn’t...’lies and betrayal’, post Brexit was very much levelled at him and screamed at him by the swing voter/the undecided and in the middle, type voter who had voted Leave because of his lies...because he lied about the funding for their NHS....he let those voters down completely and attached himself to things like NHS and how Brexit would mean such a difference...and his response to his lies...?...well, politicians lie, that’s what they do, not sure why you're all pickin’ on me/Parliament would be empty if you removed all of the liars...I mean, really..?...He used the NHS as a leverage in his lies...that’s not voicing ‘mainstream’ it’s voicing self fulfilment, whatever the divide and impact on a nation he apparently loves....he loves nothing so much as he loves Nigel...

[joeysteele]

Farage is the British face of facism, there is not one quality he possesses that I would consider 'British' he and his kindare a bastardisation of right wing conservative values. It's this that's being vomited up as an example of patriotism.

If anyone can name one positive example of British culture that he extols, just one thing that he advocates that does not involve denigrating or subjugating others I will change my mind.

There you go.. challenge for someone, what exactly is farage view of patriotism, how does it manifest? Is it anything like brits are, contrary to popular belief im very proud of the British people..I just don't see any of the will and the fortitude we have celebrated in his words, just how to keep others out or down.


I agree he is very close to being so.

I find totally distasteful his ugly language of other human beings.
Plus his twisting of issues to present as truth, his distorted prejudices and more extreme divisive rhetoric.

I give him credit on one thing only, he has never wavered on the EU or his views on it.
He was correct along with others that it needed massive reform.
It did and it does.
However that's where I stop as to anything he's stood for.

I didn't agree we should leave the EU, I believe you sort problems out from within not running away.

His awful divisive, intolerance, smug coldness and extreme prejudices at times which shows itself.
I think do take him to a nearer fascist element..

I'd fear greatly a man with his erratic prejudices ever having power.

It plays to an audience he has.
Those who like twisting others statements and who maybe hold some of the same prejudices he has.

I cannot bear Farage, I think he's been the most divisively dangerous politician in the last decade or more.

Thankfully he's never won power himself or for any party he's led either.
The saddest thing for me is, that in part, his divisiveness has been taken up by the present Con party.
Who are now intolerant of those of their own ranks who dare speak out against them publicly.

So overall on your post Kizzy, I agree with you.

Until something politically happens that creates a more consensus in politics, then unfortunately this kind of populist divisive attitude is just going to gain more momentum.
People like Farage, the instigators of that too.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Nmbd60apsfQ

[Kizzy]

It’s an opinion not an argument.

It may be but there was no substance to that opinion. When I gave my opinion I asked if there was any counter opinion that would change my mind.

I wasn't expecting much tbh but 'no he isn't' to me isn't much of an opinion as there's nothing to back it.

[Kizzy]

I agree he is very close to being so.

I find totally distasteful his ugly language of other human beings.
Plus his twisting of issues to present as truth, his distorted prejudices and more extreme divisive rhetoric.

I give him credit on one thing only, he has never wavered on the EU or his views on it.
He was correct along with others that it needed massive reform.
It did and it does.
However that's where I stop as to anything he's stood for.

I didn't agree we should leave the EU, I believe you sort problems out from within not running away.

His awful divisive, intolerance, smug coldness and extreme prejudices at times which shows itself.
I think do take him to a nearer fascist element..

I'd fear greatly a man with his erratic prejudices ever having power.

It plays to an audience he has.
Those who like twisting others statements and who maybe hold some of the same prejudices he has.

I cannot bear Farage, I think he's been the most divisively dangerous politician in the last decade or more.

Thankfully he's never won power himself or for any party he's led either.
The saddest thing for me is, that in part, his divisiveness has been taken up by the present Con party.
Who are now intolerant of those of their own ranks who dare speak out against them publicly.

So overall on your post Kizzy, I agree with you.

Until something politically happens that creates a more consensus in politics, then unfortunately this kind of populist divisive attitude is just going to gain more momentum.
People like Farage, the instigators of that too.

Thanks Joey, I agree with a need to reform however the issues were magnified to make other options appear more attractive. He is without doubt a great speaker, but he's a better rabble rouser, that's what playing to the fears of Britons did.
Has he carried on his campaign for specific funds for the NHS? No.. Has he offered up any joined up solution to the refugee crisis between the UK and EU? ...No.

Nothing he does has any positive outcome for anyone bar advancing what appears to me to be a far right alignment.

[Oliver_W]

It may be but there was no substance to that opinion. When I gave my opinion I asked if there was any counter opinion that would change my mind.

I wasn't expecting much tbh but 'no he isn't' to me isn't much of an opinion as there's nothing to back it.

You didn't provide any substance to back up your opinion though :shrug: all you said is "yes he is."

What makes him fascist, in your opinion?

[Kizzy]

You didn't provide any substance to back up your opinion though :shrug: all you said is "yes he is."

What makes him fascist, in your opinion?

If you read my post you'll see I suggest he's taken right wing values but only those that repress or suppress.

For me that what has/ will promote fascism.

[Tom4784]

Everyone knows buildings are nowhere near as important as people. But there is a debate to be had as far as the 'are the protests being handled and demonstrated correctly'. It just paints a bad picture when local businesses, cars, and other property is needlessly be destroyed.

What if an innocent person got trapped in one of the burning buildings for example?

I think most people who ask the question, know a human life matters more than a building, but is it really necessary to burn down a local shop? What does that achieve?

Your problem lies with the right wing agitators that are sabotaging protests to undermine them. If you allow yourself to believe that the protests are violent riots then you're being taken in by Right Wing sabotage to make you think that way.

[Tom4784]

Farage voices ***** views, if his views are truly mainstream then that just means the UK is full of *****.

[Kizzy]

MKQmgP61LUI

Some excellent analysis all around his new book

Douglas Kear Murray (born 16 July 1979) is a British conservative author and political commentator.He founded the Centre for Social Cohesion in 2007, which became part of the Henry Jackson Society, where he was Associate Director from 2011 to 2018. He is also an associate editor of the British political and cultural magazine The Spectator.

Murray has written columns for publications such as Standpoint and The Wall Street Journal. He is the author of Neoconservatism: Why We Need It (2005), Bloody Sunday: Truths, Lies and the Saville Inquiry (2011) about the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (2017), and The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity (2019).

Just watched this, his neoconservative lens is very narrow and to attempt to examine all these events through it is a joke.

Look at his take on equality, women have equality now so why are some still propping up barricades?

End of conversation... because in theory there may be equality but in practice? This has been the ongoing issue, he conveniently sidelines that.

[Oliver_W]

End of conversation... because in theory there may be equality but in practice?

In what ways, do you think?

[Tom4784]

Two morons that lack the empathy to discuss issues that don't directly affect them properly.

[Kizzy]

In what ways, do you think?

Google 'glass ceiling'.

[Oliver_W]

Google 'glass ceiling'.

Okay, I'm actually with you on that one - women being denied promotions and/or jobs because of their sex is probably almost as responsible for what is inaccurately labelled as the "pay gap" as women working different jobs and hours to men.

[user104658]

Okay, I'm actually with you on that one - women being denied promotions and/or jobs because of their sex is probably almost as responsible for what is inaccurately labelled as the "pay gap" as women working different jobs and hours to men.

The problem is that legal equality and social equality are not really the same thing. In Britain we have legal equality - absolutely - but there are still major issues when it comes to social equality and how people are treated, and this leads to a lot of functional inequality even where it legally should not. There are anti-discrimination laws but deliberate discrimination can be very hard to prove when it's low-level and systemic rather than in-your-face. There are social issues that aren't at the employer level so can't be tackled via that route. e.g. there's a lot of research that shows that people (both men and women) are more agreeable with men and more easily swayed by men, where they will argue with and second-guess a female (even a professional) and take them less seriously no matter their ability level. The practical effect of that in a business context is that a male employee will appear, on paper, to be more productive, thus will be assumed to be more capable, thus will secure promotion more easily etc. etc.

The question is how do we solve it. You can't legislate against opinion and bias... you can't, fully, legally enforce against social discrimination.

So yeah... it's extremely over-simplistic to look at the legal situation and say "problem solved, everyone IS equal now". There are some huge hurdles in the way - hurdles that are sociologically inevitable because we're only a generation or two removed from legal white male dominance - that mean functional inequality in the UK is still VERY real.

[Oliver_W]

The problem is that legal equality and social equality are not really the same thing. In Britain we have legal equality - absolutely - but there are still major issues when it comes to social equality and how people are treated, and this leads to a lot of functional inequality even where it legally should not. There are anti-discrimination laws but deliberate discrimination can be very hard to prove when it's low-level and systemic rather than in-your-face. There are social issues that aren't at the employer level so can't be tackled via that route. e.g. there's a lot of research that shows that people (both men and women) are more agreeable with men and more easily swayed by men, where they will argue with and second-guess a female (even a professional) and take them less seriously no matter their ability level. The practical effect of that in a business context is that a male employee will appear, on paper, to be more productive, thus will be assumed to be more capable, thus will secure promotion more easily etc. etc.

The question is how do we solve it. You can't legislate against opinion and bias... you can't, fully, legally enforce against social discrimination.

So yeah... it's extremely over-simplistic to look at the legal situation and say "problem solved, everyone IS equal now". There are some huge hurdles in the way - hurdles that are sociologically inevitable because we're only a generation or two removed from legal white male dominance - that mean functional inequality in the UK is still VERY real.

Absolutely, even at my most tongue-in-cheek moments I've never denied there's a "hiring gap" and "promotions gap", and they're things which should be focused on rather than fighting against a "pay gap", which paints the picture of men and women being paid differently for the exact same job.

As for solving it? It might be something which has to "die out", sadly - as you say, it's virtually impossible to legislate these things away, but fair hiring practises and changing attitudes as times march on might just make it go away over time.

[Kizzy]

There may be instances where they are paid different for the same job, look at the BBC where female 'anchors' are paid considerably less than males.
Look at traditional new right sociological perspectives they still expect women to stay home and churn out babies, as we remain firmly conservative in our politics that won't be challenged.

[Oliver_W]

There may be instances where they are paid different for the same job, look at the BBC where female 'anchors' are paid considerably less than males.
The world of showbiz ain't the real world. Instances like that obviously aren't based on their sex, but how much airtime they have, and how many viewers their shows get.

[Oliver_W]

Look at traditional new right sociological perspectives they still expect women to stay home and churn out babies, as we remain firmly conservative in our politics that won't be challenged.

Forgot to add, maybe this could be helped by equality in parental leave?

[user104658]

There may be instances where they are paid different for the same job, look at the BBC where female 'anchors' are paid considerably less than males.
Look at traditional new right sociological perspectives they still expect women to stay home and churn out babies, as we remain firmly conservative in our politics that won't be challenged.

Only in instances where it isn't actually the "same" job, these are unique positions with negotiated contracts, not salaried positions. If you're talking about a salaried position where there is more than one person in the same position, the salary will be exactly the same. That's where it becomes a matter of social inequality rather than legal... because...

The world of showbiz ain't the real world. Instances like that obviously aren't based on their sex, but how much airtime they have, and how many viewers their shows get.

...this is correct, but the answer isn't just "so that's just how it be" - you have to at some point start asking the question... WHY are male anchors a bigger draw, WHY do they command larger salaries, WHY do they draw more viewers. The wider questions that have less to do with the people doing the hiring, and more to do with the mindset of the viewing public. Same as in a sales role. The male salesperson often performs better on paper and gets the promotion - but why? It's usually not down to ability or how much work they're putting in, but simply down to the fact that people in general (both male and female) find males more authorotative and take them more seriously in their sales pitch. But again the question is why, and how do we start to address that going forward, because in the interests of fairness we DO need to. And that's where it IS about the past, and why the past has to be acknowledged as still affecting the present. Western capitalism is partiarchal at its core... putting legal equality in place and saying "so now it's an even playing field :) " really misses the mark by a mile. It's an even playing field in terms of legal rights, but the whole stadium was built by men and plays to what are classically male strengths.

[user104658]

Forgot to add, maybe this could be helped by equality in parental leave?

Evidence from nations that offer it suggest that it does help, somewhat, but not entirely. Women are still more likely to go part time (or stop work entirely) than men, outwith official parental leave. It's still seen as "higher risk" because they might decide not to come back at all or take a career break of several years.

[Oliver_W]

Evidence from nations that offer it suggest that it does help, somewhat, but not entirely. Women are still more likely to go part time (or stop work entirely) than men, outwith official parental leave.

Well sure, but that's just plain ole biology :joker: Whatever else we can change, we can't change (general) preferences and inclinations each sex has.

[Kizzy]

The world of showbiz ain't the real world. Instances like that obviously aren't based on their sex, but how much airtime they have, and how many viewers their shows get.

How do you know that the shows that have female presenters and greater viewing figures arent being paid less than male fronted shows with less viewers?

[Kizzy]

Forgot to add, maybe this could be helped by equality in parental leave?

There is paternity leave it may not be for as long mainly due to the fact there is no physical recovery involved.

[Oliver_W]

How do you know that the shows that have female presenters and greater viewing figures arent being paid less than male fronted shows with less viewers?
Because they're getting paid more, basically.

If you think a woman presenter isn't being paid enough, see if her average figures and airtime matches with a male counterpart who gets paid more.

[Kizzy]

Evidence from nations that offer it suggest that it does help, somewhat, but not entirely. Women are still more likely to go part time (or stop work entirely) than men, outwith official parental leave. It's still seen as "higher risk" because they might decide not to come back at all or take a career break of several years.

Does this not tie in with the glass ceiling though, if in a couple one has to leave work to be a care giver it has traditionally been the woman as she earns less?

This is slowly changing, and there are more stay at home dads now. There is still a taboo around career women who put off having kids too, your post seems to hint that women are seen as unreliable in the workforce. It's attitudes like this that need to change.

[Kizzy]

Because they're getting paid more, basically.

If you think a woman presenter isn't being paid enough, see if her average figures and airtime matches with a male counterpart who gets paid more.

How do you know this is happening, you appear to be stating a fact where is the evidence?

[Oliver_W]

How do you know this is happening, you appear to be stating a fact where is the evidence?

The proof is in the pudding - they're getting paid more, which means they must be "performing" better.

Something which would need evidence is the contrary view - why do you think women aren't being paid as much if they're "performing" as well or better?

[Kizzy]

Only in instances where it isn't actually the "same" job, these are unique positions with negotiated contracts, not salaried positions. If you're talking about a salaried position where there is more than one person in the same position, the salary will be exactly the same. That's where it becomes a matter of social inequality rather than legal... because...



...this is correct, but the answer isn't just "so that's just how it be" - you have to at some point start asking the question... WHY are male anchors a bigger draw, WHY do they command larger salaries, WHY do they draw more viewers. The wider questions that have less to do with the people doing the hiring, and more to do with the mindset of the viewing public. Same as in a sales role. The male salesperson often performs better on paper and gets the promotion - but why? It's usually not down to ability or how much work they're putting in, but simply down to the fact that people in general (both male and female) find males more authorotative and take them more seriously in their sales pitch. But again the question is why, and how do we start to address that going forward, because in the interests of fairness we DO need to. And that's where it IS about the past, and why the past has to be acknowledged as still affecting the present. Western capitalism is partiarchal at its core... putting legal equality in place and saying "so now it's an even playing field :) " really misses the mark by a mile. It's an even playing field in terms of legal rights, but the whole stadium was built by men and plays to what are classically male strengths.

You can still negotiate a salary over time.. the challenge brought by the female presenters was that proportionately the salaries were away off in respect of popularity and viewing figures.

There was also a challenge by older female presenters who has been sidelined due to their age regardless of popularity of viewer numbers. This would not happen to older male presenters.

I also think the analogy of the bullying salesman is outmoded and yet your point that men who exhibit an 'authorotative' air is seen as displaying a strength...For me that perpetuates patriarchy.

[Kizzy]

The proof is in the pudding - they're getting paid more, which means they must be "performing" better.

Something which would need evidence is the contrary view - why do you think women aren't being paid as much if they're "performing" as well or better?

Not necessarily. ..the evidence is in the challenge from the female presenters...as I said proportionally to figures and popularity the salaries are miles apart.

[Oliver_W]

Not necessarily. ..the evidence is in the challenge from the female presenters...as I said proportionally to figures and popularity the salaries are miles apart.

"Well they would say that, wouldn't they"

Care to name one? If we have a name, it'd be easy enough to compare salaries against her counterpart.

[bots]

there wont be proper equality until people think of others as being equal and that's just not fundamental to human nature, we all have our basic preferences, whatever they may be, we will always prefer one person over another and it will never change. You can put legal safeguards in place, but that basic premise will never change

[Kizzy]

there wont be proper equality until people think of others as being equal and that's just not fundamental to human nature, we all have our basic preferences, whatever they may be, we will always prefer one person over another and it will never change. You can put legal safeguards in place, but that basic premise will never change

So you don't think there is any rhyme or reason for positions of seniority going to males other than someone liked them more?

[bots]

So you don't think there is any rhyme or reason for positions of seniority going to males other than someone liked them more?

i think there will perhaps always be that element. I think back to the time of Angela Rippon and Anna Ford where they took newsreading by storm and were enormously successful, and I'm sure their salaries matched their status as they were wildly popular with the public

[Tom4784]

Popularity didn't equate to equal wages back when they revealed the wages of BBC's top talent a while back, I think it would be silly to think that things would have been better years ago when no one was paying attention to such issues.

[Kizzy]

i think there will perhaps always be that element. I think back to the time of Angela Rippon and Anna Ford where they took newsreading by storm and were enormously successful, and I'm sure their salaries matched their status as they were wildly popular with the public

Their salaries don't match their male counterparts.. That's my point.
Look at similar presenters, Gary Lineker and Gabby Logan or Jeremy Vine and Jo Whiley they are miles apart.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-48839428

[Kizzy]

The conversation has veered off here somewhat... Let's get back to the opinion as decreed from the perspective of white male privilege provided in the OP.

[Oliver_W]

Their salaries don't match their male counterparts.. That's my point.
Look at similar presenters, Gary Lineker and Gabby Logan or Jeremy Vine and Jo Whiley they are miles apart.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/entertainment-arts-48839428

Well right away it's easy to see the difference between them - Linekar is on Match of the Day, which is on all the time, and the World Cup, which is huge. He does SPOTY with Logan, who otherwise does bits and bobs along with the Commonwealth Games.

Jeremy Vine not only has his daily show, but also Eggheads and Quizmaster, and while his Channel 5 show obviously isn't counted, it still raises his profile and makes his time more valuable. As far as I know Jo Whiley only has her daily show?

[Marsh.]

The proof is in the pudding - they're getting paid more, which means they must be "performing" better.

Something which would need evidence is the contrary view - why do you think women aren't being paid as much if they're "performing" as well or better?

You must be naive to assume that just because 'a' is happening that it is because it's all fair and 'b' is happening.

[Oliver_W]

You must be naive to assume that just because 'a' is happening that it is because it's all fair and 'b' is happening.

Then there must be something to show I'm wrong, there must be some women being paid less than men despite having the same amount of experience, screen or radio time, "fame level", and viewing/listening figures?

[Marsh.]

Then there must be something to show I'm wrong, there must be some women being paid less than men despite having the same amount of experience, screen or radio time, "fame level", and viewing/listening figures?

No dear. You made the statement, the onus is on you to back it up, not on me to prove you wrong.

The fact you think it a mere coincidence that women earn less and must therefore be "less experienced or qualified" is naive in the extreme.

[Oliver_W]

No dear. You made the statement, the onus is on you to back it up, not on me to prove you wrong.

The fact you think it a mere coincidence that women earn less and must therefore be "less experienced or qualified" is naive in the extreme.

I need to back up the idea that a media figure's pay is based on their fame, viewers, and airtime? Surely a conclusion like that is so self evident that the opposite should need to be backed up.

I'll refer to an earlier post, where Kizzy mentioned pay differences between Gary Linekar and Gabby Logan, and Jeremy Vine and Jo Whiley

Linekar is on Match of the Day, which is on all the time, and the World Cup, which is huge. He does SPOTY with Logan, who otherwise does bits and bobs along with the Commonwealth Games.

Jeremy Vine not only has his daily show, but also Eggheads and Quizmaster, and while his Channel 5 show obviously isn't counted, it still raises his profile and makes his time more valuable. As far as I know Jo Whiley only has her daily show?

I'm not saying anything is a coincidence, I'm wondering if there are any examples of women who meet all the same "criteria" as a male counterpart but get paid less.

[Marsh.]

I need to back up the idea that a media figure's pay is based on their fame, viewers, and airtime?

The claim that this is a criteria applied equally to all is something requiring evidence, yes.

[Oliver_W]

The claim that this is a criteria applied equally to all is something requiring evidence, yes.

How would one prove such a thing?

There's no evidence to assume discrimination is happening, as no-one can show that it is, so the safer assumption is that the criteria is being applied equally.

[Marsh.]

There's no evidence to assume discrimination is happening

The pay disparity itself is proof.

"The men have earned their worth, the women need to work harder" is not... not anything really.

[Oliver_W]

The pay disparity itself is proof.

Where is the disparity among males and females with equal air time, viewers or listeners, and profile?

[Marsh.]

Where is the disparity among males and females with equal air time, viewers or listeners, and profile?

So... you're saying the men have earned their worth and the women haven't?

Because we're not talking about Gary Lineker or Gabby Logan, we're talking about the general trend towards men and women of EQUAL position.

[Oliver_W]

"The men have earned their worth, the women need to work harder" is not... not anything really.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying there's no evidence that women are being paid less for the same work, basically.

[Marsh.]

I'm not saying that, I'm saying there's no evidence that women are being paid less for the same work, basically.

So, therefore the overall trend is a coincidence and men work harder?

[Oliver_W]

So... you're saying the men have earned their worth and the women haven't?

No, I'm asking if there any examples of women being paid less despite doing the same amount for the BBC.

[Marsh.]

No, I'm asking if there any examples of women being paid less despite doing the same amount for the BBC.

Samira Ahmed for starters.

[Oliver_W]

Samira Ahmed for starters.

Who was she being paid less than?

[Marsh.]

Who was she being paid less than?

Jeremy Vine.

£700,000 less.

[Oliver_W]

Jeremy Vine.

£700,000 less.

:joker:

They do not have a similar ... anything. To suggest she'd be paid the same as Jeremy Vine would be actually calling for pay inequality.

[Marsh.]

:joker:

They do not have a similar ... anything. To suggest she'd be paid the same as Jeremy Vine would be actually calling for pay inequality.

Paid the same as Jeremy Vine.... for doing the same job. Yes.

She won her case at court so you're clearly wrong.

[Oliver_W]

Paid the same as Jeremy Vine.... for doing the same job. Yes.

Does she do the same job? Is she onscreen or radio for the same amount of time? Does she pull in the same amount of viewers?

[Marsh.]

Does she do the same job?

Successfully reading an autocue to camera? Yes.

It added that despite the BBC saying the presenter of Points of View "needed to have 'a glint in the eye' and to be cheeky, we had difficulty in understanding what the respondent meant and how that translated into a 'skill' or 'experience' to do a job.
"The attempts at humour came from the script. Jeremy Vine read the script from the autocue. He read it in the tone in which it was written. If it told him to roll his eyes he did. It did not require any particular skill or experience to do that."

The position of the Tribunal is that all the arguments brought by the BBC to justify the difference in pay between Samira Ahmed and Jeremy Vine were insufficient.


The burden of proof fell on the BBC to show that that difference did not amount to sex discrimination. It failed.

[Oliver_W]

Successfully reading an autocue to camera? Yes.

Well courts have been wrong before :joker: But genuinely, good on her for getting a good grift. There's no way some random newsreader is worth the same amount of pay than someone who's on a chatshow in the early morning, radio show early afternoon, and quiz show in the evening. Good on her for mobilising a movement to pad her own wallet:)

[Marsh.]

Well courts have been wrong before :joker: But genuinely, good on her for getting a good grift. There's no way some random newsreader is worth the same amount of pay than someone who's on a chatshow in the early morning, radio show early afternoon, and quiz show in the evening. Good on her for mobilising a movement to pad her own wallet:)

Nobody's talking about their career highlights. The case was about their pay for doing the exact same job on Newswatch/Points of View.

"But he presents a quiz show too" doesn't justify anything.

But, you finally answered my question at least.