Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Channel 4 News" channel.

  1. 4
  2. 4
  3. 4
  4. 4
  5. 4
  6. 4
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. And it’s so gladdening to my heart that this is what people want to talk about, FINALLY! Andrew Marr excused himself from even discussing that topic, with a hand wave, saying, “They’ve always done it like that.” But he gets his residual pay,ents for his books and documentaries from the BBC, so that’s not hard to understand. Especially when you consider that anyone who takes a more lucrative job at another outlet still relies on their, “network,” of contacts for those big interviews that draw the punters. The whole topic of corrupt appointments has been subject to Omertà within the BBC because they don’t want to rock their leaky boat. But, a system that no one would bat an eye at in the early 1930’s, The State appointing State Radio Management, which was made even a necessity during the war, already looked outdated by the 1960’s and unfit for purpose by the end of the 80’s. Now it’s just an invasion by stealth, dismantling its values, public trust and its future viability by putting more and more Tories at the top, whilst using those positions to fish around for Tories among their presenters who might be stupid enough to allow themselves to be persuaded to shill for the government, like Fiona Bruce. And that’s not her first offence either, shilling for Johnson’s wife beating dad. I’ve literally watched her agog, on Question Time, stating the government’s arguments for them, because the Tory MP on the panel was refusing to. If anyone should be like a royal, taking their political biases to their graves with them, it’s political and news presenters. But Andrew Neil was never even questioned for starting his own right wing news outlet! The hypocrisy is palpable and shocking. Damn, I could site example after example, but it would be too long for a YouTube comment and it would leave all decent people feeling sicker than they already do.
    3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44.  @TFx2TV  : Why so defensive? I think anyone who bothers to read our discourse will note for themselves the defensive, antagonistic and, at one point, devious tone of your, “argument,” but, since you’re having such difficulty following it, I’ll make real simple for you. There was nothing in my words from which you could infer ANYTHING about what I find, “sexual.” That much will be obvious to that person with too much free time on their hands who bothers to follow this discussion. They will simply see you wriggling on a hook of your own making, going for some low blow, to divert attention from the weakness of your position. My point: There is no benefit from using cultural stereotypes as an educational tool, UNLESS that education is focussed on the issue of the sexual stereotypes being put to use. Which, in this case, it is clearly not. It is, however, an attempt to, “normalise,” it. His word, not mine. My question would be, “Normalise what?” To which he would probably answer, “Difference?” I could then poke so many holes in the use of this particular medium that I doubtless wouldn’t get much more than angry obfuscation in return, if he was anything like you. Perhaps you’d prefer a question or two? Maybe consider what you’re babbling about, instead of locking on to the least relevant part of the argument, “little Timmy,” about whom you seem so passionate? What is the benefit of having a drag artist as a teacher? Why use one at all? For the same reason they would hire a clown? These are not healthy depictions of femininity. What is the point of using a grotesque when the mere fact of his grotesqueness is not even under discussion during the class. Do you honestly believe it doesn’t raise any questions in the minds of these kids? Inform their opinions about women? You seem to be denying that drag artists do show an unhealthy obsession about makeup, shoes and jewellery? Even though that is part of the point of them. Otherwise it’s just a cross dresser, selling himself as a drag artist, under false pretences.
    2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2