Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JuliusHMarx]

First topic message reminder :

I am not prone to defending the old firm but what do you mean by not close to CL standard? They are probably pretty similar to other pot 4 teams.

They clearly aren't capable of competing in it, furthermore if they were genuinely Champions League standard they wouldn't have to rely on Russian league expulsion to get in automatically and wouldn't have such a dismal qualifying record against Malmo, Copenhagen, Midtylland etc.

Teams that are CL standard actually appear in it, rather than once every five years. Evidently they are there to make up numbers.
Getting third position is the aspiration and that looks a step too far for Rangers at least and likely Celtic

Fancy editing this one before I go forth and rip the utter Poopie apart point by point?

Not at all. Celtic and Rangers are proving categorically why they are pot 4. They have been terrible.
Unless they do their part in improving the SPL and thus increasing revenue so they can compete at this level they are only ever going to be able to do ok in Europa and Conference, it's clear as day they aren't up to the CL under the status quo.
Not really sure how you can "rip that apart"
Celtic and Rangers are partially responsible for how bad the quality of the domestic League is, but do nothing to improve it. It's self fulfilling and any reasonable OF fan would admit they aren't good enough for the Champions League and unless things change domestically, they never will.
That's pretty reasonable isn't it?

Yes, it comes down to money, but if your teams can't be arsed to improve the product, then expect this every year until your coefficient denudes to the point where automatic qualification doesn't occur.

Rangers and Celtic aren't good enough. It's just a fact.

Ok points
1. Russian expulsion, they were already going to be ahead of Russia in the coefficient. Rangers pretty much over the past 4 seasons dragged the Scottish coefficient from 23rd to 8th FACT
2. Rangers have faced Danish opposition twice since their resurgence, comfortably beating Midtylland in the Europa league qualifying and taking 4/6 points off Brondby in the group stage last season. I can’t and won’t speak about how the other half of the OF have performed.
3. I know this will be painful for you to grasp but the Scottish league is the 8th best league in Europe and in terms of finance is there punching above it’s weight.
4. Rangers were ranked 33rd at the end of last season, at the point of the CL group stage draw they were ranked 29th, had that ranking been used in the CL draw they would have been in POT 3, but for a Ramsay penalty they would have been in pot 1

Saying they can’t compete is utter Love sacks, there is a mile of difference between saying they’ve performed poorly compared to last season and saying they can’t compete. If they ship the same amount of goals in the next 3 games and 0 points then you’d be moving toward a semblance of a point but we’re not there yet are we.

5. Civic.

[JuliusHMarx]

Any privately owned company should be allowed to choose who they wish to appear at their venue. They shouldn't be forced by outsiders to have acts they don't want. It's not cancelling anyone to say "We don't want you at our venue, but you are free to perform elsewhere", it's just right-wing hysteria that interprets it that way.

[Duty281]

Any privately owned company should be allowed to choose who they wish to appear at their venue. They shouldn't be forced by outsiders to have acts they don't want. It's not cancelling anyone to say "We don't want you at our venue, but you are free to perform elsewhere", it's just right-wing hysteria that interprets it that way.

So a privately owned company could turn away someone from their venue because they're black, or disabled, or queer, and that would be copacetic with you?

Would also add such hysteria as you describe isn't limited to the right. The left were up in arms when the BBC suspended Lineker.

[super_realist]

Any privately owned company should be allowed to choose who they wish to appear at their venue. They shouldn't be forced by outsiders to have acts they don't want. It's not cancelling anyone to say "We don't want you at our venue, but you are free to perform elsewhere", it's just right-wing hysteria that interprets it that way.

It isn't about the act. It is about privately held beliefs. 
This venue had Lineghan booked so they DID want him, then some moronic activist informed them about his trans views, which are perfectly reasonable (and legal) and they cancelled him even though trans jokes weren't part of his repertoire. 
That is a PREPOSTEROUS thought police  position to cancel someone for. That is Mac level reasoning and actually has parallels with the recent banking issues which they climbed down on. 

It's nothing to do with right wing hysteria , not least because views on trans are apolitical (see how Rosie Duffield and JK Rowling have been treated for beliefs and they're lefties), it's to do with venues caving in to complete nonsense like Stonewall and ESG. Many venues actually even give comedians lists of things they aren't allowed to tell jokes about these days. It's pathetic. 

There was a time when Stonewall was a worthwhile organisation and it did good, but it is an  absolutely asinine grift now. Look at how they've convinced the likes of Sturgeon to surrender their career on the alter of trans group think and many a Labour MP is too scared to say what a woman is in their view,  they tie themselves in knots to appease these idiots.

[JuliusHMarx]

Any privately owned company should be allowed to choose who they wish to appear at their venue. They shouldn't be forced by outsiders to have acts they don't want. It's not cancelling anyone to say "We don't want you at our venue, but you are free to perform elsewhere", it's just right-wing hysteria that interprets it that way.

So a privately owned company could turn away someone from their venue because they're black, or disabled, or queer, and that would be copacetic with you?

Would also add such hysteria as you describe isn't limited to the right. The left were up in arms when the BBC suspended Lineker.

Surely it's obvious that we're discussing people's beliefs not whether they are black etc. I didn't realise it was necessary to explicitly state that.

Could you point out where in my post I denied that left wing hysteria does not exist?

[JuliusHMarx]

Any privately owned company should be allowed to choose who they wish to appear at their venue. They shouldn't be forced by outsiders to have acts they don't want. It's not cancelling anyone to say "We don't want you at our venue, but you are free to perform elsewhere", it's just right-wing hysteria that interprets it that way.

It isn't about the act. It is about privately held beliefs. 
This venue had Lineghan booked so they DID want him, then some moronic activist informed them about his trans views, which are perfectly reasonable (and legal) and they cancelled him even though trans jokes weren't part of his repertoire. 
That is a PREPOSTEROUS thought police  position to cancel someone for. That is Mac level reasoning and actually has parallels with the recent banking issues which they climbed down on. 

It's nothing to do with right wing hysteria , not least because views on trans are apolitical (see how Rosie Duffield and JK Rowling have been treated for beliefs and they're lefties), it's to do with venues caving in to complete nonsense like Stonewall and ESG. Many venues actually even give comedians lists of things they aren't allowed to tell jokes about these days. It's pathetic. 

There was a time when Stonewall was a worthwhile organisation and it did good, but it is an  absolutely asinine grift now. Look at how they've convinced the likes of Sturgeon to surrender their career on the alter of trans group think and many a Labour MP is too scared to say what a woman is in their view,  they tie themselves in knots to appease these idiots.

The problem with hysteria is that the hysterical people don't realise they are being hysterical.
You'd like to impose your views on people who run their own businesses and force them to do your bidding because you think you're the reasonable one.
I'd rather people who ran their own businesses made whatever choices they wish within the law. If they make ones I don't like, I don't have to do business with them (i.e. I'd cancel them, shock horror). If they make enough wrong ones they'll go out of business.

[super_realist]

Any privately owned company should be allowed to choose who they wish to appear at their venue. They shouldn't be forced by outsiders to have acts they don't want. It's not cancelling anyone to say "We don't want you at our venue, but you are free to perform elsewhere", it's just right-wing hysteria that interprets it that way.

It isn't about the act. It is about privately held beliefs. 
This venue had Lineghan booked so they DID want him, then some moronic activist informed them about his trans views, which are perfectly reasonable (and legal) and they cancelled him even though trans jokes weren't part of his repertoire. 
That is a PREPOSTEROUS thought police  position to cancel someone for. That is Mac level reasoning and actually has parallels with the recent banking issues which they climbed down on. 

It's nothing to do with right wing hysteria , not least because views on trans are apolitical (see how Rosie Duffield and JK Rowling have been treated for beliefs and they're lefties), it's to do with venues caving in to complete nonsense like Stonewall and ESG. Many venues actually even give comedians lists of things they aren't allowed to tell jokes about these days. It's pathetic. 

There was a time when Stonewall was a worthwhile organisation and it did good, but it is an  absolutely asinine grift now. Look at how they've convinced the likes of Sturgeon to surrender their career on the alter of trans group think and many a Labour MP is too scared to say what a woman is in their view,  they tie themselves in knots to appease these idiots.

The problem with hysteria is that the hysterical people don't realise they are being hysterical.
You'd like to impose your views on people who run their own businesses and force them to do your bidding because you think you're the reasonable one.
I'd rather people who ran their own businesses made whatever choices they wish within the law. If they make ones I don't like, I don't have to do business with them (i.e. I'd cancel them, shock horror). If they make enough wrong ones they'll go out of business.

I'm not enforcing anything. These venues are running scared of the trans lobby, they're making decisions on what "gender ideology" wants, not what they want.  That's it. It's like cancelling someone for the football team they support. 

They didn't care about Lineghans views before the trans lobby got involved. Would you support a venue cancelling a ginger persons show, or a fat persons show or someone they considered too old?

[JuliusHMarx]

Firstly, you're assuming they were aware of his views when they hired him. Secondly, they are making a decision based on i) whether they themselves wish to do business with that person and ii) whether doing business with that person will hurt their own business.
Which part of that do you object to? Do you have experience of running an entertainment venue as well as being one of the top geoscientists in the country?

If they had 'cancelled' someone they found out to be a holocaust denier or a member of the Klan would you still be so hysterical about it? Or is it only certain activists such as the 'trans lobby' that gets you so up in arms?

[superflyweight]

Any privately owned company should be allowed to choose who they wish to appear at their venue. They shouldn't be forced by outsiders to have acts they don't want. It's not cancelling anyone to say "We don't want you at our venue, but you are free to perform elsewhere", it's just right-wing hysteria that interprets it that way.

It isn't about the act. It is about privately held beliefs. 
This venue had Lineghan booked so they DID want him, then some moronic activist informed them about his trans views, which are perfectly reasonable (and legal) and they cancelled him even though trans jokes weren't part of his repertoire. 
That is a PREPOSTEROUS thought police  position to cancel someone for. That is Mac level reasoning and actually has parallels with the recent banking issues which they climbed down on. 

It's nothing to do with right wing hysteria , not least because views on trans are apolitical (see how Rosie Duffield and JK Rowling have been treated for beliefs and they're lefties), it's to do with venues caving in to complete nonsense like Stonewall and ESG. Many venues actually even give comedians lists of things they aren't allowed to tell jokes about these days. It's pathetic. 

There was a time when Stonewall was a worthwhile organisation and it did good, but it is an  absolutely asinine grift now. Look at how they've convinced the likes of Sturgeon to surrender their career on the alter of trans group think and many a Labour MP is too scared to say what a woman is in their view,  they tie themselves in knots to appease these idiots.

I think some of what Linehan has said and written over the past few years goes a bit beyond 'reasonable' gender critical opinion and he seems to have gone down a bit of a rabbit hole of hate.  There's a sensible conversation to be had around gender identity, but Linehan isn't going to be part of that.  

I don't think his show should have been cancelled (same goes for the Jerry Sadowtiz show last year - who the f*ck goes to a Jerry Sadowitz show and expects not to be offended?), but that doesn't mean that the venue doesn't have a right to cancel it.

[super_realist]

Perhaps give some examples rather than just assert it. Those mental trans activists always make such claims but never can give any examples. Can you?

I'm stating that the reasons the venue are giving for cancelling are absurd and down to appeasing activists. So what if Lineghan has different views, if he isn't airing them as part of his act, how can they justify it? They wouldn't cancel a Muslim comedian for their views on homosexuals for fear of being called Islamophobic but it's fair game to ban Lineghan. We are back on consistency and hypocrisy again.

[JuliusHMarx]

Perhaps give some examples rather than just assert it. Those mental trans activists always make such claims but never can give any examples. Can you?

I'm stating that the reasons the venue are giving for cancelling are absurd and down to appeasing activists. So what if Lineghan has different views, if he isn't airing them as part of his act, how can they justify it? They wouldn't cancel a Muslim comedian for their views on homosexuals for fear of being called Islamophobic but it's fair game to ban Lineghan. We are back on consistency and hypocrisy again.

Perhaps give some examples rather than just assert it.

[super_realist]

Firstly, you're assuming they were aware of his views when they hired him. Secondly, they are making a decision based on i) whether they themselves wish to do business with that person and ii) whether doing business with that person will hurt their own business.
Which part of that do you object to? Do you have experience of running an entertainment venue as well as being one of the top geoscientists in the country?

If they had 'cancelled' someone they found out to be a holocaust denier or a member of the Klan would you still be so hysterical about it? Or is it only certain activists such as the 'trans lobby' that gets you so up in arms?

Nice conflation with protected characteristics and personal legally held opinion. 

If they cared about Lineghans personal views of their acts, they would research BEFORE signing a contract with them, rather than pretend to care once trans activists nutters campaigned on behalf of people who largely wouldn't care.

[JuliusHMarx]

Firstly, you're assuming they were aware of his views when they hired him. Secondly, they are making a decision based on i) whether they themselves wish to do business with that person and ii) whether doing business with that person will hurt their own business.
Which part of that do you object to? Do you have experience of running an entertainment venue as well as being one of the top geoscientists in the country?

If they had 'cancelled' someone they found out to be a holocaust denier or a member of the Klan would you still be so hysterical about it? Or is it only certain activists such as the 'trans lobby' that gets you so up in arms?

Nice conflation with protected characteristics and personal legally held opinion. 

If they cared about Lineghans personal views of their acts, they would research BEFORE signing a contract with them, rather than pretend to care once trans activists nutters campaigned on behalf of people who largely wouldn't care.

Nice way to avoid answering my questions.

[superflyweight]

Perhaps give some examples rather than just assert it. Those mental trans activists always make such claims but never can give any examples. Can you?

I'm stating that the reasons the venue are giving for cancelling are absurd and down to appeasing activists. So what if Lineghan has different views, if he isn't airing them as part of his act, how can they justify it? They wouldn't cancel a Muslim comedian for their views on homosexuals for fear of being called Islamophobic but it's fair game to ban Lineghan. We are back on consistency and hypocrisy again.

Rather than engaging properly with the issue (which I think he did to an extent at first), he seems to prefer to spend his time linking trans to paedophilia (in the same way that people used to link homosexuality to paedophilia) and making fun of pictures of trans women on social media. He's essentially no better than a comedian in the '80's mimicking a gay man by mincing across the stage.

It's the venue's choice - and I suspect that any Muslim (and also a believer of any other religions) being openly homophobic would probably find themselves in the same situation, even if it's not part of their act.

[super_realist]

I can't find any examples of Muslim comedians being cancelled, can you? Also I asked first and you haven't provided any examples of comments that be construed as hateful from Linehan.

I genuinely don't think the venues care about held beliefs, they are scared of the vocal,  moronic trans activists. The whole trans issue is really blown out of all proportion and is fast becoming a crazy parody.

[JuliusHMarx]

I can't find any examples of Muslim comedians being cancelled, can you? Also I asked first and you haven't provided any examples of comments that be construed as hateful from Linehan.

For equivalence it would need to be Muslim comedians who have publicly commented on e.g. homosexuality. I haven't researched that, have you?
Do you know for certain that the owners of the venue that cancelled Linehan's show would not cancel a Muslim comedian that was vocally anti-gay?
I did see that the religious right-wing are 'cancelling' Muslim comedians in India.

You asked 'fly not me. but let's take this example from wiki -
"In January 2019, Linehan expressed concern over the news that Mermaids, a charitable advocacy organisation for transgender children and teenagers, was to receive a £500,000 lottery grant to open clinics around the United Kingdom. He posted to the blogging website Mumsnet encouraging its users to lobby the National Lottery Community Fund to reverse its decision"

Surely you wouldn't approve of the National Lottery Community Fund caving in to a bunch of activists would you?

[superflyweight]

I can't find any examples of Muslim comedians being cancelled, can you? Also I asked first and you haven't provided any examples of comments that be construed as hateful from Linehan.

I genuinely don't think the venues care about held beliefs, they are scared of the vocal,  moronic trans activists. The whole trans issue is really blown out of all proportion and is fast becoming a crazy parody.

I've not looked but I'm guessing that a Muslim comedian is probably not going to be a religious fundamentalist and is probably not reciting passages from the Koran.

In terms of hate, I think regularly posting deliberately ugly pictures of yourself under posts from trans women to mock their appearance could be construed as hate. I'm not overly precious if someone was to do it to me, but I imagine for someone who is trans and who may be filled with doubt and anxiety about their appearance and who is probably posting the picture for validation from others, it must be a pretty horrible experience. As I previously said, it's no better than making fun of a camp gay person.

[McLaren]

Super

If you want to get even more dough from your oil overlords I suggest you recruit some of the "trans lobby" for your company. Because even the current fossil fuel lobbyist aren't anywhere near as powerful as you seem to think the trans lobby is.


But on a more general point than whether glinner (his online moniker) should perform at a club or not have you considered that this is just what changing societal attitudes look like? I am not quite old enough to remember or have understood what it was like when being gay become more widely accepted but I'm curious if you had a similar reaction then as you are to the trans debate now?


Also I still don't get why you think consistency makes a point of view valid or not. It might be desirable or fair, but it doesn't change the truth of the matter. Homophobic comedians should be deplatformed as well but how does whether they actually are or not change whether or not a club can choose to host glinner, for commercial or philosophical reasons? I hate to say it because it has become almost cliched at this point, but you seem mired in whataboutery.

[navyblueshorts]

Any privately owned company should be allowed to choose who they wish to appear at their venue. They shouldn't be forced by outsiders to have acts they don't want. It's not cancelling anyone to say "We don't want you at our venue, but you are free to perform elsewhere", it's just right-wing hysteria that interprets it that way.

True, but if they'd proactively thought that way, he'd never have been booked in the first place, would he? They're kow-towing to the usual offended (typically, always on behalf of someone else) brigade.

[navyblueshorts]

Firstly, you're assuming they were aware of his views when they hired him....

Maybe they weren't, but they certainly should have been in the current environment.

[JuliusHMarx]

Any privately owned company should be allowed to choose who they wish to appear at their venue. They shouldn't be forced by outsiders to have acts they don't want. It's not cancelling anyone to say "We don't want you at our venue, but you are free to perform elsewhere", it's just right-wing hysteria that interprets it that way.

True, but if they'd proactively thought that way, he'd never have been booked in the first place, would he? They're kow-towing to the usual offended (typically, always on behalf of someone else) brigade.

Or maybe think didn't really check him out beforehand and then when they found out he's a bit of a d1ck, decided they didn't want him - is that not a possibility?
And if by kow-towing you mean they made a decision that was in their best business interests, maybe they did that as well. Would you rather they made a decision that damaged their business?

[navyblueshorts]

I can't find any examples of Muslim comedians being cancelled, can you? Also I asked first and you haven't provided any examples of comments that be construed as hateful from Linehan.

For equivalence it would need to be Muslim comedians who have publicly commented on e.g. homosexuality. I haven't researched that, have you?
Do you know for certain that the owners of the venue that cancelled Linehan's show would not cancel a Muslim comedian that was vocally anti-gay?
I did see that the religious right-wing are 'cancelling' Muslim comedians in India.

You asked 'fly not me. but let's take this example from wiki -
"In January 2019, Linehan expressed concern over the news that Mermaids, a charitable advocacy organisation for transgender children and teenagers, was to receive a £500,000 lottery grant to open clinics around the United Kingdom. He posted to the blogging website Mumsnet encouraging its users to lobby the National Lottery Community Fund to reverse its decision"

Surely you wouldn't approve of the National Lottery Community Fund caving in to a bunch of activists would you?

Did they, in fact, reverse the funding decision?

[JuliusHMarx]

I can't find any examples of Muslim comedians being cancelled, can you? Also I asked first and you haven't provided any examples of comments that be construed as hateful from Linehan.

For equivalence it would need to be Muslim comedians who have publicly commented on e.g. homosexuality. I haven't researched that, have you?
Do you know for certain that the owners of the venue that cancelled Linehan's show would not cancel a Muslim comedian that was vocally anti-gay?
I did see that the religious right-wing are 'cancelling' Muslim comedians in India.

You asked 'fly not me. but let's take this example from wiki -
"In January 2019, Linehan expressed concern over the news that Mermaids, a charitable advocacy organisation for transgender children and teenagers, was to receive a £500,000 lottery grant to open clinics around the United Kingdom. He posted to the blogging website Mumsnet encouraging its users to lobby the National Lottery Community Fund to reverse its decision"

Surely you wouldn't approve of the National Lottery Community Fund caving in to a bunch of activists would you?

Did they, in fact, reverse the funding decision?

No idea. Would you agree that anyone who complained to the National Lottery Community Fund is part of the usual offended (typically, always on behalf of someone else) brigade?

[navyblueshorts]

Any privately owned company should be allowed to choose who they wish to appear at their venue. They shouldn't be forced by outsiders to have acts they don't want. It's not cancelling anyone to say "We don't want you at our venue, but you are free to perform elsewhere", it's just right-wing hysteria that interprets it that way.

True, but if they'd proactively thought that way, he'd never have been booked in the first place, would he? They're kow-towing to the usual offended (typically, always on behalf of someone else) brigade.

Or maybe think didn't really check him out beforehand and then when they found out he's a bit of a d1ck, decided they didn't want him - is that not a possibility?
And if by kow-towing you mean they made a decision that was in their best business interests, maybe they did that as well. Would you rather they made a decision that damaged their business?

Agree on that. They quite likely didn't check him out first. Yep, wouldn't expect them to actively damage their own business, but how do they even know continuing to allow him to perform would do that and, more importantly, they're on very dangerous ground IMO re. the right to hold a contrary opinion and express it. Don't know why I care TBH, didn't really like Father Ted that much.

[navyblueshorts]

I can't find any examples of Muslim comedians being cancelled, can you? Also I asked first and you haven't provided any examples of comments that be construed as hateful from Linehan.

For equivalence it would need to be Muslim comedians who have publicly commented on e.g. homosexuality. I haven't researched that, have you?
Do you know for certain that the owners of the venue that cancelled Linehan's show would not cancel a Muslim comedian that was vocally anti-gay?
I did see that the religious right-wing are 'cancelling' Muslim comedians in India.

You asked 'fly not me. but let's take this example from wiki -
"In January 2019, Linehan expressed concern over the news that Mermaids, a charitable advocacy organisation for transgender children and teenagers, was to receive a £500,000 lottery grant to open clinics around the United Kingdom. He posted to the blogging website Mumsnet encouraging its users to lobby the National Lottery Community Fund to reverse its decision"

Surely you wouldn't approve of the National Lottery Community Fund caving in to a bunch of activists would you?

Did they, in fact, reverse the funding decision?

No idea. Would you agree that anyone who complained to the National Lottery Community Fund is part of the usual offended (typically, always on behalf of someone else) brigade?

Diversion alert - that's not what you were focussing on above. You were asking about the NCLF caving in to a bunch of activists, not about such activists being part of the frequently offended Twitterati. I might agree with your most recent conjecture, yes.

However, what happened with that comedian appears to be: booked to perform, someone complains, booking revoked. So, one might think revocation was result of pressure/objections.

The lottery funding example you quote so far appears to be: funds granted, Linehan asks Mumsnet users to lobby for its reversal, and then...??? OK, if they so lobbied and money was withdrawn again, I accept the analogy. If no-one actually lobbied (I imagine this was the case) or Mumsnet users did so and the NLCF stood by their initial funding decision, we aren't really comparing like with like, are we?

I couldn't give a 4X if the professionally offended want to complain all the time. They're allowed to if it gets them off. What bugs me quite a bit, is the apparent willingness of those being pressured to cave in, in response to any campaign that's being shouted about.

[JuliusHMarx]

I was comparing the two 'lobbying' factions as equivalent, rather than the response of the people being lobbied.
What I also find amusing is the people who are clearly offended by the professionally offended.

[JuliusHMarx]

Another gig cancelled.
From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66534454

Mr Linehan's appearance in the comedy showcase was initially kept under wraps with organisers only describing him as a "surprise famous cancelled comedian" on the bill.
But the venue called off the entire show within hours of his identity being confirmed on Tuesday, saying they had not been made aware of the line-up in advance.
"We have made the decision to cancel this show as we are an inclusive venue and this does not align with our overall values," they said in a post on Instagram.
"We work very closely with the LGBT+ community, it is a considerable part of our revenue, we believe hosting this one off show would have a negative effect on future bookings," they later added.

Seems to me the venue are perfectly within their rights to act and say as they did, although I'm not a legal expert. They probably should have demanded to know the performers' names well in advance.

[super_realist]

The point is it's PATHETIC. 
If they are fine with having a "surprised cancelled comedian" why do they take on such a "risk" You really think they didn't know who their own "special cancelled guest" was? Ha ha ha. Blatant deflection. They clearly just reacting to a few crazed trans activists. 
I bet if you asked your average trans person, they wouldnt give a toss. Just like they don't care about JK Rowling who similarly hasn't said anything wrong or transphobic. It's just usually male activists getting upset on behalf of trans people. 

Still haven't heard any examples of his views being anything put of the ordinary.

[super_realist]

Super

If you want to get even more dough from your oil overlords I suggest you recruit some of the "trans lobby" for your company. Because even the current fossil fuel lobbyist aren't anywhere near as powerful as you seem to think the trans lobby is.


But on a more general point than whether glinner (his online moniker) should perform at a club or not have you considered that this is just what changing societal attitudes look like? I am not quite old enough to remember or have understood what it was like when being gay become more widely accepted but I'm curious if you had a similar reaction then as you are to the trans debate now?


Also I still don't get why you think consistency makes a point of view valid or not. It might be desirable or fair, but it doesn't change the truth of the matter. Homophobic comedians should be deplatformed as well but how does whether they actually are or not change whether or not a club can choose to host glinner, for commercial or philosophical reasons? I hate to say it because it has become almost cliched at this point, but you seem mired in whataboutery.

Fortunately it's a grown up industry that doesn't bit into Stonewall ideology, I'm not required to undergo training or use stupid confected pronouns.

You're not very good at giving examples Mac. You just accept he has homophobic views. Can you give any examples ?

I really don't expect much from you Mac given you admit you'll disregard everything a person says on the basis of where they stand on a single issue.

[super_realist]

Why would it be at all a problem to be concerned about a clinic for trans children? Why is that controversial to be concerned. 
Fortunately clinics like the Tavistock have been closed down
Physical development is dependent on going through puberty

[JuliusHMarx]

Thank you. I think we all understand the viewpoint of people like you.

[navyblueshorts]

Just to be really annoying and stir the pot on something else:

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2023-08-14/ocean-of-plastic-and-tents-left-behind-after-boardmasters-festival

Amazing really. Imagine large numbers (majority?) of those attending are all anti-plastic in the oceans, anti-sewage in the seas and very right-on. Then again, maybe it's all people just intent on partying and don't give a damn about anything, or anyone, else.

[super_realist]

Thank you. I think we all understand the viewpoint of people like you.

Ha ha, yes, that's right, anyone who has a different point of view from you is a bigot and extremist right?

If the venue "genuinely" cared about its relationship with the LGTB whatever community (there's no such thing by the way) and I don't believe it does in the slightest then it would never countenance having a "surprise cancelled comedian". Any idiot knows that people who have been "cancelled" at the EIF by ninny venues are cancelled because they haven't bought into Stonewall group think or gender ideology or something along those lines. 
Clearly this is just retrospective arse covering from the venue.
They've probably gained far more publicity from needlessly cancelling Glinner, than any loss of revenue from such a tiny cohort of society objecting for having his show.

[super_realist]

Just to be really annoying and stir the pot on something else:

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2023-08-14/ocean-of-plastic-and-tents-left-behind-after-boardmasters-festival

Amazing really. Imagine large numbers (majority?) of those attending are all anti-plastic in the oceans, anti-sewage in the seas and very right-on. Then again, maybe it's all people just intent on partying and don't give a damn about anything, or anyone, else.

More hypocrisy Navy, but they'll probably blame industry for not inventing biodegradable tents and they take no blame at all. After all, Mac thinks no one should take individual responsibility for this and it has to be society that changes.

[JuliusHMarx]

Thank you. I think we all understand the viewpoint of people like you.

Ha ha, yes, that's right, anyone who has a different point of view from you is a bigot and extremist right?

If the venue "genuinely" cared about its relationship with the LGTB whatever community (there's no such thing by the way) and I don't believe it does in the slightest then it would never countenance having a "surprise cancelled comedian". Any idiot knows that people who have been "cancelled" at the EIF by ninny venues are cancelled because they haven't bought into Stonewall group think or gender ideology or something along those lines. 
Clearly this is just retrospective arse covering from the venue.
They've probably gained far more publicity from needlessly cancelling Glinner, than any loss of revenue from such a tiny cohort of society objecting for having his show.

Not at all, there are other people on this forum who have different viewpoints than me, and I don't think they are bigots or extremist right.

[JAS]

Just to be really annoying and stir the pot on something else:

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2023-08-14/ocean-of-plastic-and-tents-left-behind-after-boardmasters-festival

Amazing really. Imagine large numbers (majority?) of those attending are all anti-plastic in the oceans, anti-sewage in the seas and very right-on. Then again, maybe it's all people just intent on partying and don't give a damn about anything, or anyone, else.

More hypocrisy Navy, but they'll probably blame industry for not inventing biodegradable tents and they take no blame at all. After all, Mac thinks no one should take individual responsibility for this and it has to be society that changes.

Ha ha you’re obsessed with levelling accusations of hypocrisy at everything you don’t agree with. I’ve been to Boardmasters several times (tho not camping and not recently as the music is mostly Poopie now). Navy’s last sentence probably closest to hitting nail on head, I’d say a significant proportion were indeed just “intent on partying without giving a damn about anything else”

[JAS]

Time for a bit of pot stirring as well…should Saudi teams start to be included in Champions League?? Asking for a friend!!

[JuliusHMarx]

Time for a bit of pot stirring as well…should Saudi teams start to be included in Champions League?? Asking for a friend!!

The Union of European Football Associations Champions League? There's more chance of Australia ever being in the Eurovision Song Contest!

[McLaren]

I'm not saying Lucy Letby is innocent but the publicly available (or at least what has made the news) evidence used to convict her is pretty weak. I would hesitantly conclude it was an incompetently run department with some grievances that got out of hand at worst, based on the available evidence.

[Duty281]

Time for a bit of pot stirring as well…should Saudi teams start to be included in Champions League?? Asking for a friend!!

No, they shouldn't be, but they almost certainly will be in the near future. Either that or the Club World Cup, which is set for expansion, will replace the Champions League.

[Duty281]

I'm not saying Lucy Letby is innocent but the publicly available (or at least what has made the news) evidence used to convict her is pretty weak.  I would hesitantly conclude it was an incompetently run department with some grievances that got out of hand at worst, based on the available evidence.

Good thing you weren't on the jury. She should hang.

[McLaren]

Good thing you weren't on the jury. She should hang.

That would look like a pretty hasty decision when she gets cleared in the next decade or so.

[Duty281]

Good thing you weren't on the jury. She should hang.

That would look like a pretty hasty decision when she gets cleared in the next decade or so.

Why is she going to get cleared? What evidence do you think the jury have overlooked?

Would also add she was found guilty on 14 separate charges, so seeing all of them overturned would be quite something.

[superflyweight]

Good thing you weren't on the jury. She should hang.

That would look like a pretty hasty decision when she gets cleared in the next decade or so.

Why is she going to get cleared? What evidence do you think the jury have overlooked?

Would also add she was found guilty on 14 separate charges, so seeing all of them overturned would be quite something.

I doubt he has a sensible response to this.  Fairly obvious attempt at a wind-up by Mac.

[JAS]

The hospital managers that ordered the consultants who raised concerns to apologise to her should also be in the dock.

[McLaren]

Good thing you weren't on the jury. She should hang.

That would look like a pretty hasty decision when she gets cleared in the next decade or so.

Why is she going to get cleared? What evidence do you think the jury have overlooked?

Would also add she was found guilty on 14 separate charges, so seeing all of them overturned would be quite something.

I doubt he has a sensible response to this.  Fairly obvious attempt at a wind-up by Mac.

As I said, don't think anyone should be convicted of murder based on the apparent evidence available. Maybe more will make the public domain in time.

[Soul Requiem]

You're more than happy for a man to be convicted of r*** based purely on an accusation.

[McLaren]

I said women should be believed. Bit of a stretch to suggest that means I think that would be enough to send someone to jail.

[superflyweight]

Good thing you weren't on the jury. She should hang.

That would look like a pretty hasty decision when she gets cleared in the next decade or so.

Why is she going to get cleared? What evidence do you think the jury have overlooked?

Would also add she was found guilty on 14 separate charges, so seeing all of them overturned would be quite something.

I doubt he has a sensible response to this.  Fairly obvious attempt at a wind-up by Mac.

As I said, don't think anyone should be convicted of murder based on the apparent evidence available. Maybe more will make the public domain in time.

The word 'apparent' doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Basing your opinion on a half arsed scroll through a couple of online newspaper articles is probably not the best approach.

[McLaren]

I've had more than a half arsed following of the case but I take your point.

But not my fault if the court reporting hasn't managed to convey what the better evidence against her was. If what has been reported is all there is against her I would have reasonable doubt.

[navyblueshorts]

Time for a bit of pot stirring as well…should Saudi teams start to be included in Champions League?? Asking for a friend!!

I'd hope not. Saw an article yesterday about the mass murder of migrants crossing into SA from Yemen by SA border guards a couple of days ago. Nice people if true. Still, can always rely on money-hungry sports people to ply their trade funded by SA money, no matter the regime....

[Sponsored content]