Pedophilia in British media

[Ranjeet01]

9 minutes ago, puzzled said:

YouTube videos about him knowing this kid for a long time have been deleted by YouTube aswell      

Think YouTube released a statement a short while back about they gnna start deleting videos which do not meet their terms and conditions.  

Their all in on it together. 

Youtube is owned by Google and like Facebook and twitter, a lot of these platforms are being pressured by the authorities to conform.

 

[MisterrSingh]

38 minutes ago, puzzled said:

Its obvious that other people in the business already knew all this. Amanda Holdens tweet and then Joan Collins in that interview even says that everyone already knew he was gay but what is the reason for him to come out at this time, she obviously was hinting something here   and then peirce morgan quickly changes the convo. 

 

The tell-tale sign of an appointed gatekeeper of public discourse. Guiding the narrative and traffic of discussion away from "dangerous" areas that might prove to be troublesome for those at the very top. Someone like that gets to that position usually through attendance and membership of lodges...

You can tell we're under lockdown. The mind goes to strange places when all the work of the day is done, lmao.

[genie]

Don't be suprised if alot of videos that exposed these people and things go missing. The so called protecting kids and hate speech is a sham its actually denying free speech and free expression of thought. Cos alot of mild videos with alternative views and thoughts are taken down and channels closed for no reason. There are some nasty racist and pedofiles that deserved their channels closed but those warning people about stuff and videos even featuring crimes by governments and groups they got taken down too. Yet they were important in highlighting the crimes of these people so people could see the truth about what they got up to.

[imhosingh]

Top end of many orgs are filled with deviant types . By deviant I mean immoral folks etc. As my law teacher once said "if you want to break the law, get into a position where you make, enforce or shape the law". So this includes, politicians , judiciary, police, royalty and perception shapers (media etc) and backers of lobby groups (big business / connected folks). Then you indulge in your deviances

[puzzled]

12 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

The tell-tale sign of an appointed gatekeeper of public discourse. Guiding the narrative and traffic of discussion away from "dangerous" areas that might prove to be troublesome for those at the very top. Someone like that gets to that position usually through attendance and membership of lodges...

You can tell we're under lockdown. The mind goes to strange places when all the work of the day is done, lmao.

The higher they seem to be, people like peirce Morgan    the  more controlled they seem to be.   I find him really annoying when he interviews, most the time he disagrees with his guests  and always pushes his opinion   that his opinion and version is right. 

[MisterrSingh]

1 hour ago, puzzled said:

The higher they seem to be, people like peirce Morgan    the  more controlled they seem to be.   I find him really annoying when he interviews, most the time he disagrees with his guests  and always pushes his opinion   that his opinion and version is right. 

There's a system to what they do in these situations on television. It's something I've observed for a while now, and there's a definite structure to it. They have a contentious subject and they invite two people who will argue their respective opposing viewpoints on that particular subject.

There's the reactionary, leftist viewpoint which is usually represented by a journalist from the Guardian or a figure with a fringe Leftist organisation. The other participant is someone who represents what would traditionally be seen as the Right-wing viewpoint, but it's not really Right at all; it's what some would assume to be a fuddy-duddy, traditional perspective of the Little Englander who's stuck in the past, but is actually what we recognise as the classic liberal before the Commies took over the Left.

Morgan may seem like the level-headed, perhaps conservative (small C) voice of reason who speaks on behalf of the average viewer, but even then the so-called debate never transcends the neo-liberal paradigm in which the discussion takes place. Depending on the final outcome of the debate, or the suggested ideological direction these programmes would like the audience at home to gravitate to, Morgan directs the discussion to that place with his brusque interventions and domineering behaviour. The genius of this charade is that it manages to push the average viewer, which is whom these debates actually target, into agreeing with an argument not on its merits or its values, but based on whoever makes the strongest appeals to the pre-existing sentiment of the viewer. Then there's the whole issue of the Overton Window and what's allowed in public discourse, etc., but that's a subject for another day.

[dallysingh101]

17 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

After leaving, he went to do Musicals in the West End

The signs were all there!!

It's like George Michael all over again.

After certain people come out of the lamaari, you ask yourself: How the hell did I not pick up on that earlier?

 

[MisterrSingh]

5 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

It's like George Michael all over again.

After certain people come out of the lamaari, you ask yourself: How the hell did I not pick up on that earlier?

 

The stereotypical portrayal of the effete, limp-wristed gay man has done much to confuse matters, lol, especially when someone who's gay but doesn't display any overt signs suddenly reveals himself to be a friend of Dorothy, which makes me suspect the painfully camp demeanour some gays possess is greatly exaggerated.

[Ranjeet01]

2 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

The stereotypical portrayal of the effete, limp-wristed gay man has done much to confuse matters, lol, especially when someone who's gay but doesn't display any overt signs suddenly reveals himself to be a friend of Dorothy, which makes me suspect the painfully camp demeanour some gays possess is greatly exaggerated.

I think the reality is that unless you know enough gay people, it can be difficult to develop a gaydar.

[dallysingh101]

27 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

The stereotypical portrayal of the effete, limp-wristed gay man has done much to confuse matters, lol, especially when someone who's gay but doesn't display any overt signs suddenly reveals himself to be a friend of Dorothy, which makes me suspect the painfully camp demeanour some gays possess is greatly exaggerated.

There is something about 'pristine looks' with many gay men. Their grooming and dress sense often seems to be strangely impeccable and symmetrical.  They are perfectionists with it. But saying that, there are some rough and ready as hell Panjabi bis/gays(?) who don't have that preening thing going on. Same with some working class goray gays. 

It's weird how some are camp and some aren't remotely. With the camp ones, what's up with the walk and high pitched voice? Is it some biological thing? All that strutting and mincing. And the exaggerated gesticulation?