What's sound about him? I've no doubt a lot of people like him because there's no shortage of arseholes knocking about.
He's a nice normal racist attention seeker.I don’t know him intimately. Just seen a couple of interviews and he seems a nice normal lad. A lot of what he is saying resonates with people. He must have been mad to think marrying Billy Piper was a wise move however.
He's a nice normal racist attention seeker.
Why would I give a balanced reply when I actively dislike the guy for very obvious reasons?Very balanced reply.
Why would I give a balanced reply when I actively dislike the guy for very obvious reasons?
Just read a couple of interviews and he seems like a bit of a dick.I don’t know him intimately. Just seen a couple of interviews and he seems a nice normal lad. A lot of what he is saying resonates with people. He must have been mad to think marrying Billy Piper was a wise move however.
I'm fighting for fuck all. I'm sat trying to concentrate on my work but, it being Friday morning and close to breakfast time, I'm repeatedly drawn to bluemoon.Again, this is complete and utter nonsense, and a completely disingenous argument. Edited songs are played every single day of the week on the radio to remove offensive language and have been for 50 years.
The reason I keep repeating that line by the way, is because it's important people remember what it is they're fighting for. You're fighting to hear a homophobic slur, it's got fuck all to do with artistic integrity or keeping the song intact, otherwise you'd be campaigning to hear all swearwords and offensive language that's edited out of music on BBC radio every day.
The point I was trying to make was that it isn't inconceivable for the original version of the song to be banned I can see that Radio 1 using the edited version could lead to pressure for all radio station to use it, for spotify and amazon music to only use the edited version. This scenario wouldn't be the end of days as far as Christmas songs go but I can see where it might lead.
Fair enough. I'm not disagreeing with your point there. We are debating and I concede to this post.This is absolute nonsense.
Sorry but it is. BBC radio censors thousands of songs on its playlists, and has done for 50 years. Never has any streaming platform or publisher felt the need to remove the original.
Fair enough. I'm not disagreeing with your point there. We are debating and I concede to this post.
As I said, I've watched a couple of thought provoking programmes this week so this story has caught my attention. The only reason I replied to you was that you were repeatedly accusing people of fighting for their right to hear homophobic slurs. That is absolute nonsense as well. If I never heard the song again, I probably wouldn't notice.
I'm not bothered either way about Radio 1's reasoning for the decision. I joined in firstly to challenge you on your post and secondly to discuss the wider issue of censorship in general. A novel from the 90's and a Christmas song from the 80's are miles apart in what they are but they both include language that is homophobic and in the novel's case, racist and sexist. I am merely questioning whether it would be beyond the realms of possibility that say for example, Waterstones could, in the future, censor books because of the language used in them.