GBeebies...

13»

Comments

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Doesn't it worry you that your favourite channel appears to be continually having to 'drop' presenters who misbehave?

    How about having presenters who don't misbehave in the first place?

    I am guessing that you might be addressing these questions to me.

    It doesn't bother me when someone better replaces someone who misbehaves
    How about having presenters who don't misbehave in the first place?
    I agree that it is foolish to employ someone who has a reputation for being a loose cannon
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    To employ one loose cannon may be regarded as a misfortune; to employ two looks like carelessness.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    And to struggle to point to one that's reasonably well fixed...
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    To employ one loose cannon may be regarded as a misfortune; to employ two looks like carelessness.

    Like the current Labour MPs
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    To employ one loose cannon may be regarded as a misfortune; to employ two looks like carelessness.

    Like the current Labour MPs

    Whataboutery.

    Think you'll find most people here quite critical of Labour on any number of fronts.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Maybe GB News should be concentrating on attacking Wes Streeting for taking up the stupidity we're seeing in the US at the moment, attacking the NHS for trying to remove bias in staff appointments through diversity and inclusion programmes, and attacking the excellent staff appointed from non-white ethnicities, and attacking so-called "woke" culture in the health service that seeks to treat all people with respect and dignity regardless of their gender and sexuality.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    To employ one loose cannon may be regarded as a misfortune; to employ two looks like carelessness.

    Like the current Labour MPs

    Whataboutery.

    Think you'll find most people here quite critical of Labour on any number of fronts.

    You have to admit though there is a comparison to be made.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    To employ one loose cannon may be regarded as a misfortune; to employ two looks like carelessness.

    Like the current Labour MPs

    Whataboutery.

    Think you'll find most people here quite critical of Labour on any number of fronts.
    So they should be. So far all we have heard is what they would like to do.
    Maybe GB News should be concentrating on attacking Wes Streeting for taking up the stupidity we're seeing in the US at the moment, attacking the NHS for trying to remove bias in staff appointments through diversity and inclusion programmes, and attacking the excellent staff appointed from non-white ethnicities, and attacking so-called "woke" culture in the health service that seeks to treat all people with respect and dignity regardless of their gender and sexuality.

    That should be automatic. You shouldn't need to employ people on vast salaries to keep an eye on it. All we need is equality
  • SpikeSpike Ecclesiantics & MW Host, Admin Emeritus
    Hugal wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    To employ one loose cannon may be regarded as a misfortune; to employ two looks like carelessness.

    Like the current Labour MPs

    Whataboutery.

    Think you'll find most people here quite critical of Labour on any number of fronts.

    You have to admit though there is a comparison to be made.

    Not really. The selection of parliamentary candidates is completely different from directly appointing an employee
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Spike wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    To employ one loose cannon may be regarded as a misfortune; to employ two looks like carelessness.

    Like the current Labour MPs

    Whataboutery.

    Think you'll find most people here quite critical of Labour on any number of fronts.

    You have to admit though there is a comparison to be made.

    Not really. The selection of parliamentary candidates is completely different from directly appointing an employee

    True but we are talking about sacking public figures first doing bad things not their method of employment.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    To employ one loose cannon may be regarded as a misfortune; to employ two looks like carelessness.

    Like the current Labour MPs

    Whataboutery.

    Think you'll find most people here quite critical of Labour on any number of fronts.
    So they should be. So far all we have heard is what they would like to do.
    Maybe GB News should be concentrating on attacking Wes Streeting for taking up the stupidity we're seeing in the US at the moment, attacking the NHS for trying to remove bias in staff appointments through diversity and inclusion programmes, and attacking the excellent staff appointed from non-white ethnicities, and attacking so-called "woke" culture in the health service that seeks to treat all people with respect and dignity regardless of their gender and sexuality.

    That should be automatic. You shouldn't need to employ people on vast salaries to keep an eye on it. All we need is equality

    When 25% of the public are saying they'd vote for a known racist homophobe it's kind of obvious that some people have those attitudes and take them into the workplace. Plus, you were a police officer, how is it you don't understand that workplaces left unchecked can breed racism, homophobia and misogyny?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Aye, we shouldn't need to employ people to do this (I doubt they're on "vast salaries" any more than NHS admin staff are, despite common belief) because people shouldn't be arseholes, but people unfortunately are arseholes, so we do.
  • Telford wrote: »
    That should be automatic. You shouldn't need to employ people on vast salaries to keep an eye on it. All we need is equality

    When something should be automatic, but is not actually happening, you need people to make sure it happens.

    You might think that it would be "automatic" that people would wear the appropriate safety gear when they're about to do something with the real possibility of danger, but experience tells us that if you don't continually check that they are wearing the necessary safety gear, you'll end up with a lot of people not wearing it.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Telford wrote: »
    That should be automatic. You shouldn't need to employ people on vast salaries to keep an eye on it. All we need is equality

    When something should be automatic, but is not actually happening, you need people to make sure it happens.

    You might think that it would be "automatic" that people would wear the appropriate safety gear when they're about to do something with the real possibility of danger, but experience tells us that if you don't continually check that they are wearing the necessary safety gear, you'll end up with a lot of people not wearing it.

    Or data protection and ICT security. Some people need to be reminded constantly and they still screw it up repeatedly.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    To employ one loose cannon may be regarded as a misfortune; to employ two looks like carelessness.

    Like the current Labour MPs

    Whataboutery.

    Think you'll find most people here quite critical of Labour on any number of fronts.
    So they should be. So far all we have heard is what they would like to do.
    Maybe GB News should be concentrating on attacking Wes Streeting for taking up the stupidity we're seeing in the US at the moment, attacking the NHS for trying to remove bias in staff appointments through diversity and inclusion programmes, and attacking the excellent staff appointed from non-white ethnicities, and attacking so-called "woke" culture in the health service that seeks to treat all people with respect and dignity regardless of their gender and sexuality.

    That should be automatic. You shouldn't need to employ people on vast salaries to keep an eye on it. All we need is equality

    When 25% of the public are saying they'd vote for a known racist homophobe it's kind of obvious that some people have those attitudes and take them into the workplace.
    You can only police what people do, rather than how they think.
    Plus, you were a police officer, how is it you don't understand that workplaces left unchecked can breed racism, homophobia and misogyny?
    It was my job to make sure it wasn't left unchecked. That and everything else I had to do.

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    That should be automatic. You shouldn't need to employ people on vast salaries to keep an eye on it. All we need is equality

    When something should be automatic, but is not actually happening, you need people to make sure it happens.

    You might think that it would be "automatic" that people would wear the appropriate safety gear when they're about to do something with the real possibility of danger, but experience tells us that if you don't continually check that they are wearing the necessary safety gear, you'll end up with a lot of people not wearing it.

    As someone who works in professional kitchens I have to have proper protective wear. From chef’s jackets to goggles and gloves using string cleaning chemicals. I have seen so many people not wearing the correct stuff and getting hurt. People will cut corners
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    That should be automatic. You shouldn't need to employ people on vast salaries to keep an eye on it. All we need is equality

    When something should be automatic, but is not actually happening, you need people to make sure it happens.

    You might think that it would be "automatic" that people would wear the appropriate safety gear when they're about to do something with the real possibility of danger, but experience tells us that if you don't continually check that they are wearing the necessary safety gear, you'll end up with a lot of people not wearing it.

    As someone who works in professional kitchens I have to have proper protective wear. From chef’s jackets to goggles and gloves using string cleaning chemicals. I have seen so many people not wearing the correct stuff and getting hurt. People will cut corners

    And their hands....
  • I feel a "that safety guard was in the way, so I removed it" moment coming on...
  • Telford wrote: »
    That should be automatic. You shouldn't need to employ people on vast salaries to keep an eye on it. All we need is equality

    When something should be automatic, but is not actually happening, you need people to make sure it happens.

    You might think that it would be "automatic" that people would wear the appropriate safety gear when they're about to do something with the real possibility of danger, but experience tells us that if you don't continually check that they are wearing the necessary safety gear, you'll end up with a lot of people not wearing it.

    So? The only problem with people getting hurt while choosing to not use the right safety equipment is how they try to sue all and sundry afterwards, as if it’s not their fault they did something stupid that they’d been told not to do. Health and Safety law should be about preventing employers from ordering or forcing their employees to take stupid risks, not banning people from being lazy or doing stupid things (at their own risk) if they want to.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    It's not the "only problem". Other people have to clean up the mess, sometimes quite literally. And also economically in costs to business while people are off work or being replaced, invalidity benefits, NHS costs and so on and so forth.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    I know there is a specific thread for Birthdays and other anniversaries and significant dates but I did not think that this post would be appropriate in there.

    Yesterday GB News celebrated 11 February 1975 the 50th anniversary of the 'Blessed Margaret' becoming party leader against all odds.
  • SpikeSpike Ecclesiantics & MW Host, Admin Emeritus
    So did most other news outlets. So what?
  • Telford wrote: »
    I know there is a specific thread for Birthdays and other anniversaries and significant dates but I did not think that this post would be appropriate in there.

    Yesterday GB News celebrated 11 February 1975 the 50th anniversary of the 'Blessed Margaret' becoming party leader against all odds.

    A day that will go down in infamy.

    Infamy, infamy, they've all got it infamy!
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Spike wrote: »
    So did most other news outlets. So what?
    The other news outlets don't have their own thread or I would have posted the same on them
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    This thread is in Hell. It's not for general mention of what was on the channel. It's for venting about that part of its output that comes straight from Satan's bottom.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    This thread is in Hell. It's not for general mention of what was on the channel. It's for venting about that part of its output that comes straight from Satan's bottom.

    So in a thread about GB News, you think that the programme content should not be mentioned ?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    This thread is in Hell. It's not for general mention of what was on the channel. It's for venting about that part of its output that comes straight from Satan's bottom.

    So in a thread about GB News, you think that the programme content should not be mentioned ?

    I suppose there's a certain appropriateness to mention of the Apollion of British Industry in Heĺl.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    There is certain irony in GBBees celebrating the iron maiden. She was very keen on the EU. They appear not to be
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Hugal wrote: »
    There is certain irony in GBBees celebrating the iron maiden. She was very keen on the EU. They appear not to be

    Also keen on combatting climate change.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    There is certain irony in GBBees celebrating the iron maiden. She was very keen on the EU. They appear not to be
    Iron Maiden is a rock group.

  • Keep the bad jokes to the bad jokes thread.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    There is certain irony in GBBees celebrating the iron maiden. She was very keen on the EU. They appear not to be
    Iron Maiden is a rock group.
    Keep the bad jokes to the bad jokes thread.
    I totally agree.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    OK she was called both the Iron Lady and the Iron Maiden. The reference to the torture implement was used
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    OK she was called both the Iron Lady and the Iron Maiden. The reference to the torture implement was used
    She was a lady but not a maiden when she was PM
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    OK she was called both the Iron Lady and the Iron Maiden. The reference to the torture implement was used
    She was a lady but not a maiden when she was PM

    You know what I mean
  • Looks like we are wandering off topic. So I'm going to close this for now.

    -- chrisstiles, Hell Host
This discussion has been closed.