Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "BBC News" channel.

  1. He's right wing, and Ben admitted he got ruined after the interview.
    1
  2. You're paid to be a puppet.
    1
  3.  @randysmith1723  He actually did talk about the following tweets, which directly contradicted Ben's excuse. Did you even watch the interview?
    1
  4.  @randysmith1723  I comprehend both the video and what you are saying, which is how I know you are wrong. Glossing over Ben's comments on Palestinians where he is proven a liar is cute, but doesn't really change much. If Ben is incapable of answering a question and giving his opinions then why do an interview? Andrew Neil doesn't even believe in climate change. He's a Conservative. The comment on abortion is not HIS opinion, it's a Devil's advocate stance designed to give Ben something to respond to. This is even explained IN THE INTERVIEW. I don't need to cite an interview because you're more than capable of looking for yourself.
    1
  5.  @randysmith1723  Why would questions need to start that way? Again, it's explained in THIS INTERVIEW that these are not Neil's own opinions. You just sound like you need your hand held to answer a basic question. Ben failed, lost, and even admitted as such on Twitter and in later interviews. Climate change is one of Neil's many Conservative views. He is also the Chairman of The Spectator, a right leaning magazine which has even been a step ladder to the Conservative party. Former editors include Boris Johnson, Nigel Lawson and more. Andrew is also pro-Afghan war, pro-Iraq war and openly stated he is in favour of a "radical right industrial policy." He has been a card carrying Conservative for decades. As for examples of his critically interviewing prominent figures on the left, maybe try looking literally at all, given he interviewed: Jeremy Corbyn Tony Blair Lucy Powell Jo Swinson Hilary Benn John Healey Andy McDonald Nick Thomas-Symonds Jenny Chapman Alastair Campbell Sir Ed Davey Barry Gardiner I would keep going, but this is getting very embarrassing for you.
    1
  6.  @randysmith1723  Because, again, Andrew Neil is playing Devil's advocate, he does all of his interviews this way. They are not his own opinions, they are designed to give Ben something to respond to, which is, again, explained in the interview. So the fact that he not only holds Conservative positions, but also that he heads up a right-wing magazine and that he is openly a member of the Conservative party isn't relevant to how these are not his own views? Andrew Neil always asks questions this way, this is nothing new. A good journalist is able to get to the heart of the issue, and Ben openly admitting to holding views that he tried to skirt around is great journalism. You can call them old tweets all day long, but when they match Ben's current opinions it doesn't actually matter how old they are. They are also relevant because they directly contradict his book, which was the main topic of the interview. If he had changed his opinions then he was free to state that in the interview, but instead he lied about context or tried to dismiss them without addressing them. It wasn't an anonymous YouTuber though, it was Ben's OWN YOUTUBE CHANNEL and was discussing a video that's STILL THERE! This was nothing to do with his followers, this was the official YouTube channel of Ben Shapiro using language to attack and insult. Again, Ben lied, and you swallowed it like a good boy. Maybe go actually watch his other interviews and stop moving the goalposts.
    1
  7.  @randysmith1723  Actually they weren't from other YouTubers. The issue is not reading comprehension, I just know you're wrong. Here is the video being referenced on Ben's own channel: https://youtu.be/QtuqmThPE5c It's not the only one either, several of his videos use the same verbiage. Obviously you haven't watched his other videos as Andrew Neil does this all the time. Maybe it just looks different because the person answering questions is far less competent. You are making assumptions about Andrew Neil based on the fact he came prepared with hard questions. It's actually pathetic. He doesn't need to make a trophy of Ben Shapiro, he's an irrelevant talking head. He's had far more meaningful dialogues with political leaders. It wasn't a hack job, you're just a brainwashed fool who can't see passed your own biases for long enough to actually understand what is being said here.
    1
  8. It's not a debate. Not only did the interviewer do his homework, but Ben LIED about said homework, claiming that a video that is still on his channel was not there. He even read Ben's book for this interview and quoted it multiple times. Sorry you think that the man who has interviewed multiple political party leaders over a couple of decades, and actually brings very well researched and difficult to answer questions to their door is not fit to interview a charlatan like Ben.
    1
  9. It really isn't. Ben had plenty of opportunity to respond to the questions, but failed to do so an the answers to many of them make him look bad. That's not "Gottya Journalism" by any means. The journalist is also a prominent right-wing Conservative, so calling him a Leftist and a Liberal was just as ridiculous when Ben said it as when you say it.
    1
  10. Every lockdown we've done has sharply reversed the steep climbing infection numbers. So yes, 2 weeks to flatten the curve, then when we had another surge we needed another 2 weeks. It's not "2 weeks to stop covid forever" but 2 weeks to reduce the current number of infections per day to a reasonable level that hospitals can manage.
    1
  11.  @ibexdnb2879  in your dreams sunshine
    1
  12.  @davidsegal2236  Me and the rest of the sentient world.
    1
  13. Ben refuses to answer questions in an INTERVIEW and you call that a win. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  14. Which part? When he lied about the videos on his own Youtube channel? When he didn't recognise quotes from his own book? How about when he failed to actually denounce his own comments? What about attacking the interviewer to avoid questions? At what point did Ben "win" this interview?
    1
  15. He isn't presenting his own opinions, he is presenting a countering opinion to Ben Shapiro. It's a common technique used to test the weight of an idea or argument called "playing Devil's advocate" where, similar to the Devil's advocate in the Vatican who tests the veracity of miracles, you argue against the argument presented as strongly as possible. This does not however mean that you hold those views.
    1
  16.  @michaelsanders7484  He's well known for doing all of his interview this way for years. Anyone could just see him interview a dozen different people and throw all sorts of questions from a spectrum of views at them. I would also say that the personal views of interviewers, especially on the BBC, are generally to be considered as neutral as possible when doing their work. Lastly, I suppose it doesn't actually matter if they are his views or not, this isn't a debate so his personal bias, or lack there of, doesn't change the weight or veracity of the questions. In short, he's both well known for doing this, and even if he wasn't it doesn't suddenly change the questions. There is also a cultural element here, where in the UK reports are...reporters, not personalities.
    1
  17.  @michaelsanders7484  He also looked him up right after this interview and I think realised his mistake quite quickly. He sent out a tweet saying he god "DESTROYED" by Neil shortly after this. Props to him for coming clean, but this was obviously not a good look lol.
    1
  18. He isn't, he just isn't soft-balling him. He is asking Ben to support his statements. Instead ben folds and attacks the interviewer rather than taking the chance to support his own argument.
    1
  19. He literally apologised for his conduct in this interview.
    1
  20. Andrew Neil isn't a liberal. Ben fell apart because his own comments from his own book fail to line up with his own actions. The fact that Andrew Neil was able to prove that, and made Ben fall apart as a result, is why he's such a good interviewer. It has nothing to do with personal political leanings.
    1
  21. Agreed. Ben obviously wasn't prepared.
    1
  22. Because they can't handle difficult interviews?
    1
  23. Gives us all something to laugh about.
    1
  24. The interviewer is right-wing.
    1
  25.  @Leprechaunmonkey101  And expect a podium in all of your interviews so you can dodge questions.
    1
  26. You really don't know anything about Andrew Neil do you.
    1
  27. Those are counterpoints? Pretty sure he moves on once Ben somewhat attempts to answer the question. It is an interview, he has more questions.
    1
  28. ​ @shughy1  Difficult interviews are for both sides when it comes to Andrew Neil, such as when he spoke to the Labour campaign coordinator Lucy Powell. Most of the time they are experienced politicians and can bat away questions without sounding too idiotic, by Ben crumbles like a cheap biscuit. He's also more than aware of his own beliefs, he was not however aware of how extreme GB News would be when he went there. Good for him to see that they were a bunch of nutters.
    1
  29.  @shughy1  You're just right wing, that's why you think that.
    1
  30. World class to say the least.
    1
  31.  @roken441  Nothing to joke about. They are one of the largest, if not the largest news network on the planet for a reason.
    1
  32. This isn't a debate, it's an interview. The only low IQ ones are people who fail to understand that.
    1
  33. You seem confused. The PM resigning over a scandal is proof the system works. Your side on the other hand can have literally hundreds of scandals against them and they refuse to even acknowledge anything happened. Multiple US reps and senators, as well as Trump himself, tried to overturn the election. But sure, lets focus on something that in US politics wouldn't even be a footnote, considering multiple US congressional members have been accused of either committing or hiding sexual abuse of some kind.
    1
  34. Oh look, a new account. These bots are getting easier to spot Ben.
    1
  35. On what planet?
    1
  36. He's the chair of a Conservative leaning magazine. Famously Conservative in the UK. Ben can't handle the heat.
    1
  37. The questions can be annoying, but that doesn't make them hard to answer. For example, you own question: "I don't dislike Jodie as the 13th Doctor due to her gender, but simply because I believe there are other people, men or women, who would be better for the job. I wasn't a big fan of Patrick Troughton or Paul McGann either, but that's nothing to do with anything other than what I believed the character was capable of, and how it was handled by them, and by extension is currently being played out by Jodie. I mean I'm not saying it's possible, but could you imagine Tilda Swinton as the Doctor." You get the point. In this same way Ben could answer these questions, however he can't because his answers would either reveal him to be a horrific hypocrite, or would make huge segments of his own audience hate him. The tweets are valid because they are a direct example of Ben coarsening the public discourse...which was exactly what he wrote a book about. It's also not other people's YouTube video titles. The titles came from both his own channel, and the Daily Wire channel, which he owns and is chief-editor of. The BBC are said to be bias by both the left and right wing. This is usually a good sign that they are neither. In fact you would struggle to find any actual significant political leanings in either direction, Ofcom have found time and time again.
    1
  38.  @picamike  It's not the questioning that has given me conclusions about Ben in this interview. Answering the questions is actually very easy, as I showed you, but Ben likes to weasel out of them or give wildly insufficient answers. Just look at his answers on Trump and imagine if he put this much effort into every question rather than attacking the interviewer. It's not to push a narrative, it's to create an opposing stance for Ben to answer questions to. Ben is a political figure who wrote a political book, a book specifically on the downfall of Judeo-Christian values and reason, and the demise of modern society via hedonism and materials, while also laying quite heavily into political discourse. In that context all of the questions asked actually hit very close to the topics in the book. Comparing this to a fantasy novelist is juvenile. They are on Ben's channel though, which is why he stated it that way, Ben lied. They are also on his news network, the Daily Wire. Question Time chooses their panel based on representatives from major political parties. Almost all of the political parties were against Brexit. Meanwhile Andrew Neil has been used as an example of the BBC being too far to the right. Their coverage of Jeremy Corbyn was seen as an attack and a series of hit pieces by many. There are plenty of examples of people on the left being upset with the BBC. Objectively, you are wrong. But I'm not shocked that someone who still thinks Brexit was a good idea would also think the BBC is too left-wing. Then you end on a sweeping generalisation, as if right-wingers have never tried to silence people they disagree with. Ben was literally trying to belittle the interviewer in this video, and you've overlooked it.
    1
  39.  @picamike  Andrew wasn't the one being questioned, and Ben avoided questions so hard he left the interview. I'm not doing anything remotely close to what Andrew did. Your stance on Brexit is bad and you should feel bad. I could also go into the numerous reasons, such as the $350M for the NHS lie, and more. That's just not the format of Questiontime. They give equal representation to political parties. Neither the Conservative or Labour parties were in favour of it. The comparison to JK is juvenile, not her comments. Again, Ben was asked questions that related to his book. Sweeping statements about free speech, when in reality the sort of speech they mean is usually hate speech. You also play into the US narrative of free speech not being guaranteed, which is just silly. I also pointed out Ben flat out lied about some things, which he did. He lied both about the videos on his own and the Daily Wire YouTube channels, and about his tweets, which were very quickly corrected. It took him 3 times to answer a question on new abortion laws, an answer which was "science, life begins at conception" which is the laziest answer he could have given, all so he could squeeze in more time to attack the interviewer. He refused to answer as to his opinion on how people describe him in their YouTube video titles, instead just saying that "people can describe me however they please" which says nothing of his actual feeling on the matter. Skipped questions on his comments on Obama's state of the union which he called fascist, calling it "bad and wrong" and failed to explain his comments at all. He tried to deflect on the idea that some Jews are not real Jews religiously when asked about his comments on Jews voting for Obama. This would only make sense if he believes that the only real Jews are Zionists, meaning even actual religious Jews should be ignored if they support Obama or are not Zionists, which btw is a fascist stance to hold. Attacks the interviewer again, saying he is trying to make a quick buck (which as a Brit you know is utterly ridiculous). When asked about the contradictions between Judeo-Christian culture and his actions he attacks the interviewer again, not even feigning an answer. I'm really not sure where you conclusion even comes from, other than the idea that you agree wholeheartedly with every word out of his mouth. It's the only thing that would make sense.
    1
  40.  @picamike  1. The lie was that we would have more money, and the insinuation was that said money would go to the NHS. Neither of those things turned out to be true. That is not an opinion, that is objectively true. The money going to the EU was more than made up for in trade agreements, which we now don't have. But sure, pick on the vaccines, and not the rising poverty rates, high inflation stats or general lack of investment in an economy literally built around people investing in it. 2. That's why courts exist. The examples you gave went to court who weighed in on the definition. The police horse remarks for example were 15 years ago. Freedom of hate speech discourages discussion as it marginalises and threatens people. And no, limiting hate speech is not the wrong side of history, and never will be. Germany limited Nazi speech after WWII, do you think that was on the wrong side of history? Or do you think Nazis are the way forwards? Maybe your friends issue is that they're racists and sexists. 3. The questions aren't leading, they are counterpoints to Ben's stances. This is not bias, this is creating a 2-sided discussion out of an interview format. If Ben isn't challenged on his views how can we actually see the full breadth of them? And no, my criticism was more about Ben openly lying or evading questions because telling the truth would make him look bad. And no, I don't want to speak to a racist Brexiteer that believes any fascist nonsense shoved in his face, despite all facts and logic to the contrary. Having you write our your nonsense is far more useful.
    1
  41.  @picamike  So we're just not talking about Brexit losing money for Britain, courts being the deciding factors in hate speech laws and Ben being a lying fascist and going straight to you being a snowflake. Alright then, I'm game. Not really me not debating further and more you creating red herrings, but here we are. "Yup, I'm a fascist despite wanting freedom of speech and openly inviting discussion whilst you wish to limit it." It depends on the speech. Do I think that open debate is a good thing? Absolutely. Do I think that people should be allowed to say that immigrants are all terrorists and rapists, or that we should turn Afghanistan into a glass wasteland, or that people should be allowed to make up racist chants about there being "no black on the Union Jack" or any of the other racist nonsense I've seen growing up in the UK? No. I even had a friends who lived and grew up in the UK, but because his parents were from a brown country when he tried to open a takeaway in Manchester he was verbally berated and ended up with a brick through his window. I personally think that isn't protected, yet I'm sure you have a take on that. There is a very clear line here, and you are perfectly willing to cross it and claim it's a debate about free speech. "I'm clearly racist for wanting to limit illegal immigration, despite it being you know... illegal." The debate isn't about limiting illegal immigration, it's about limiting employment, family and asylum immigration, which are all legal. Trying to shift the narrative in an obvious attempt to make yourself palatable to the general public doesn't change much. Your whole legal/illegal argument is also infantile. Hate speech is illegal, so why are you supporting illegal speech? It's illegal don't you know, yet you support it anyway. See how quickly that line of reasoning falls apart? "I must also be racist for believing in my own country and supporting a Australian style immigration system where people would apply to enter the country and we could choose who to accept based on their skill, or would that just make me a Brexiteer?" The UK and Australia accept similar numbers of immigrants per year. In fact Australia accepts almost double as many as us per capita. So sure, lets use an Australian model to get immigrants. Oh look, nobody wants to come here because Australia has a wealth of resources that require skills to obtain and exceptionally high wages, and we have an investment economy that doesn't need physical people to manage the vast majority of it. Whoops. "As much as you hated Ben for "attacking Andrew", you've done quite a bit of name calling yourself." Yeah, I don't care. I'm not here for some top tier debate. If I were I certainly wouldn't be having it with someone that doesn't know the difference between facts and fiction. Even then, debates like that only serve a third part. Ben is a debate-phile, he really gets off on debating people to prove how right he is...to an audience. In a closed system he doesn't debate people because he needs an audience to think he's making sense, even when he isn't. Idolising the debate styles of people like Ben is to your own detriment. Thanks for the quote though, because being able to see you when you think you've really got something is actually precious. Like, did you really think signing off on that would be some kind of slam dunk? It's actually ridiculous to see.
    1
  42. 1. It's an interview, not a debate. 2. The statements Andrew Neil makes in this interview are not his own opinions. They are devil's advocate critiques to given Ben the opportunity to respond to the hardest opinions against him. 3. If you think Trump had good ideas then great, why didn't Ben just say that? He was trying to carefully politically distance himself from Trump in many ways without being too specific as that would hurt his following. Andrew Neil can target weaknesses like that directly, forcing dullards like you to answer on his behalf. 4. The BBC doesn't make money off ads. While they try to keep their viewer numbers up, they are not out to make a quick buck. This video isn't even monitised. 5. Andrew Neil is, and always has been, a Conservative in the UK. Sure, he's not an extremist, but again, the questions being asked here are not his opinions, they are critical questions designed to push Ben into corners. The funny part is you saying he did no research after he: Read Ben's book and quoted it multiple times. Used comments from his book in contrast to the rest of his comments and social media presence to draw a contrast between what Ben says and his actual actions. Showed that said contrasts were so strong that Ben was forced to ignore the questions and attack Andrew Neil instead. Ben even apoligised for this interview.
    1
  43. You're right, you don't understand. Even Ben said he lost here.
    1
  44. He lied in this very interview.
    1
  45.  @johnbradson2657  So you think Ben actively lying in this exact interview is proof that he tells the truth.....
    1
  46. Your ignorance of Ben lying doesn't make it go away. He lied directly about his own YouTube channel for starters.
    1
  47.  @johnbradson2657  Apparently you're lost. Meanwhile: https://youtu.be/6RDZw_xSvDg https://youtu.be/QtuqmThPE5c https://youtu.be/258VfiGUh1c But keep acting like Ben had a point when he lied.
    1
  48. Your opinion is wrong, even Ben said that he failed to prepare for this interview and got dumpstered.
    1
  49.  @mikesmith1353  Of course it can be wrong, which you are, objectively.
    1
  50.  @mikesmith1353  Ben openly stating that he got rolled in this interview is an objective fact.
    1