Reggie Yates - Bigot

basil6345789 · Post by **basil6345789** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:01 pm

What on earth is he playing at? I quite like some of the stuff he's presented but after all the positive discrimination and favours he's enjoyed, he goes and does this! What a prat.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:06 pm

Are you going to post his apology?

basil6345789 · Post by **basil6345789** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:07 pm

They only apologise when they think they're beaten.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:09 pm

Is it telepathy night ?

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:10 pm

What a non-surprise.

basil6345789 · Post by **basil6345789** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:11 pm

He says he's stood down = he's been sacked

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:11 pm

He made a comment about fat Jewish managers in the music industry.

As a result he's stepped down from totp and issued the customary apology.

basil6345789 · Post by **basil6345789** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:13 pm

Exactly.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:14 pm

Reckon basil and Psotto are the same poster and depending on what drugs he's on at the time decides what profile he posts with

basil6345789 · Post by **basil6345789** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:16 pm

I'll have to research this Psotto but no, we are not the same.

Wile E Coyote · Post by **Wile E Coyote** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:17 pm

Yates, like that nonentity attention seeking pal of his Fearne Cotton, were desperate to take anything on offer to keep their flaccid profiles in the public eye. Hes a talentless ****, good riddance.

Leisure · Post by **Leisure** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:17 pm

Who is Reggie Yates? Can be play on the wing?

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:32 pm

He's stepped down to take up a role in the shadow cabinet

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:35 pm

Is the OP just assuming he's benefited from positive discrimination because he's black, or is there some actual evidence? And if there isn't evidence then isn't the OP's assumption racist?

TurfyMoore · Post by **TurfyMoore** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:09 am

Commenting about fat people?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:55 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Is the OP just assuming he's benefited from positive discrimination because he's black, or is there some actual evidence? And if there isn't evidence then isn't the OP's assumption racist?

The BBC practice all kinds of "positive discrimination" policies.

MACCA · Post by **MACCA** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:40 am

Sounds like an advertisement for a turn and a local pub....

Buffalo Soldier

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:47 am

Woah, hang on, there's nowt wrong with Fearne Cotton.
"Flaccid" ? I think not.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:56 am

Rowls wrote:The BBC practice all kinds of "positive discrimination" policies.

So every BBC employee from a minority background is definitely a beneficiary of them?

Stalbansclaret · Post by **Stalbansclaret** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:38 am

Fearne Cotton ? Nowt wrong ? .... I’m with the coyote on that one. Talentless, gushing, faux-enthusiastic, desperate-to-be-“cool” non-personality.

Funkydrummer · Post by **Funkydrummer** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:40 am

He's only come out with this because he didn't manage to get on I'm a celebrity . . . . !

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:30 pm

Greenmile wrote:So every BBC employee from a minority background is definitely a beneficiary of them?

You're not very good at comprehension are you.

Anyone with intelligence will see that's not what I've said.

And I'm certainly not bothered to explain my opinion on the subject. You couldn't or wouldn't understand it properly and I don't care for your simplistic and tendentious thinking.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:35 pm

No idea whether he has been the beneficiary of positive discrimination or not (you lot can argue the toss either way if you want but neither side has a shred of evidence) but he's undoubtedly been a very silly boy and quite correctly stood down (more likely been pushed).

Not sure what the random swipes at both Fearne Cotton or the shadow cabinet are for...

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:37 pm

Rowls wrote:You're not very good at comprehension are you.

Anyone with intelligence will see that's not what I've said.

And I'm certainly not bothered to explain my opinion on the subject. You couldn't or wouldn't understand it properly and I don't care for your simplistic and tendentious thinking.

So what were you saying, then Rowls? Given the comment you were replying to it seemed like a fairly clear inference to me.

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:52 pm

You’d have thought a self confessed liberal media luvvie like Reggie would think twice before voicing (the slightly bizzare) liberal left casual anti semitism and lazy stereotypes that surface in these circles of so called tolerance .

Yates is so lightweight it’s vaguely hilarious when he does these “tough “ documentaries and tries to blend in ,generally being as seamless,unobtrusive and welcome as a turd in a christening font

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:02 pm

Pretty typical of BBC getting a bit too lazy with their programming in recent years.

Get someone who used to be popular with viewers - a recognisable face - and host a series of programmes in which he has absolutely no experience or connection

Reminds me of the scene when Alan Partridge is trying to save his career and pitching ideas to the BBC programme commissioner - "youth hosteling with Chris Eubank" !!

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:07 pm

Always puzzled me how someone with no discernable talent , such as Yates , has become so ubiquitous on the BBC.

HiroshimaClaret · Post by **HiroshimaClaret** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:08 pm

Who on God`s green Earth is Reggie Yates?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:09 pm

Bacchus wrote:So what were you saying, then Rowls? Given the comment you were replying to it seemed like a fairly clear inference to me.

Nope. What Greenmile posted was a million miles from anything I said. You'd have to post exactly what you thought my "inference" was in order for me to tell you if you're wrong or otherwise. But greenmile's stupid question bares so little to what I posted that it isn't worth replying to. So if you think there was any inference in my post then you're wrong too.

I doubt I can be bothered to explain it to you because it doesn't sound to me that you're genuinely interested in hearing my opinion. But if you are then ask again without tagging the question to another poster's silly response.

There was a recent thread about the BBC directly requesting people of "ethnic minorities" to apply for role at the corporation. Promoting or hiring people based on the colour of their skin, sex, religion or sexuality are all illegal and yet the BBC have set themselves targets in all of these factors.

How does the corporation propose to achieve these targets without some kind of discrimination policy? I honestly haven't a clue and don't think it makes any sense to have these targets unless you are prepared to justify some kind of discrimination policy based upon these factors. That's a tricky thing to justify.

Have I made a single statement expressing my opinion on this subject? No.

I've not given you or anyone else a whiff of opinion.

And yet a simple statement of fact -like the one I posted originally in this thread- is enough to set of the like of greenmile as if he's acting as a moral guardian for the internet.

Off he goes like an uzi on a hair trigger asking stupid questions that bare no relation to anything I've said.

If you want an opinion of mine, ask a sensible question.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:27 pm

Wow Rowls - it's a good job you were not bothered enough to explain !!

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:33 pm

TVC15 wrote:Wow Rowls - it's a good job you were not bothered enough to explain !!

Yeah, I know that perhaps I'm obstinate. But look at it my way: I point out something which is a very simple and well-known fact.

The response I get is greenmile essentially saying "so you believe X then?" whereby "X" is a piece of silliness of his own devising.

Following that, I am then invited by bacchus to defend "opinion X" which is the silly inference of greenmile's making and nothing to do with me at all.

And apparently these guys want a sensible response?

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:37 pm

To quote Alan Partridge once more :
"IGNORE HIM"

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:38 pm

Rowls wrote:Yeah, I know that perhaps I'm obstinate. But look at it my way: I point out something which is a very simple and well-known fact.

The response I get is greenmile essentially saying "so you believe X then?" whereby "X" is a piece of silliness of his own devising.

Following that, I am then invited by bacchus to defend "opinion X" which is the silly inference of greenmile's making and nothing to do with me at all.

And apparently these guys want a sensible response?

But why did you link what you posted to a quote asking for evidence that Yates benefitted from positive discrimination?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:42 pm

martin_p wrote:But why did you link what you posted to a quote asking for evidence that Yates benefitted from positive discrimination?

Because, although we don't know (and probably never will) it's a strong possibility that he benefited from such a policy, he fits the profile and we know that the BBC practice such policies.

It seems to me to be pointless to speculate on this though. But it is, of course, stupid for people to suggest it isn't a factor as much as it is silly for greenmile to suggest it applies all the time.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:45 pm

Rowls wrote:Because it's a strong possibility that he benefited from such a policy.

Why?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:46 pm

martin_p wrote:Why?

I've already answered this. I've put it on bold for you this time:

Rowls wrote:Because, although we don't know (and probably never will) it's a strong possibility that he benefited from such a policy, he fits the profile and we know that the BBC practice such policies.

It seems to me to be pointless to speculate on this though. But it is, of course, stupid for people to suggest it isn't a factor as much as it is silly for greenmile to suggest it applies all the time.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:47 pm

Rowls wrote:I've already answered this. I've put it on bold for you this time:

Ok, missed that. What is ‘the profile’?

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:48 pm

martin_p wrote:Ok, missed that. What is ‘the profile’?

I think Rowls means that it's because he's a black chap.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:52 pm

martin_p wrote:Ok, missed that. What is ‘the profile’?

UpTheBeehole wrote:I think Rowls means that it's because he's a black chap.

Well the BBC phrase is "from a black, Asian or non-white ethnic minority background" so being black is definitely included but to me a much better definition is simply "not white".

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:55 pm

Rowls wrote:Well the BBC phrase is "from a black, Asian or non-white ethnic minority background" so being black is definitely included but to me a much better definition is simply "not white".

So you are saying that their is a strong possibility that anyone who works for the BBC who isn’t white has benefitted from positive discrimination policies.

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:05 pm

martin_p wrote:So you are saying that their is a strong possibility that anyone who works for the BBC who isn’t white has benefitted from positive discrimination policies.

Yes I'm saying that and I'm also saying it's pointless trying to second-guess it without any more information. Saying or implying he definitely never benefited from such a policy would be stupid. Saying or implying he definitely did benefit from such a policy would be stupid too.

So why is there a "strong possibility" that he may have benefited - because we know the BBC practice these policies and he fits the profile of the person the policy is designed to aid.

It would appear that you're much more interested in my -unstated- opinion on the matter than I am on yours. Why do you think that is? Are you going to ask a sensible question that would elicit my actual opinion on the BBC's discrimination policies regarding race, gender, sexuality etc?

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:06 pm

HiroshimaClaret wrote:Who on God`s green Earth is Reggie Yates?

Wasn't he the binman in Coronation Street?

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:08 pm

Tall Paul wrote:Wasn't he the binman in Coronation Street?

Yes - that's the one.
Paula's Dad.
Also got a chain of wine lodges

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:10 pm

Rowls wrote:Yes I'm saying that and I'm also saying it's pointless trying to second-guess it without any more information. Saying or implying he definitely never benefited from such a policy would be stupid. Saying or implying he definitely did benefit from such a policy would be stupid too.

So why is there a "strong possibility" that he may have benefited - because we know the BBC practice these policies and he fits the profile of the person the policy is designed to aid.

It would appear that you're much more interested in my -unstated- opinion on the matter than I am on yours. Why do you think that is? Are you going to ask a sensible question that would elicit my actual opinion on the BBC's discrimination policies regarding race, gender, sexuality etc?

When Moira Stewart joined the BBC, was it because they practiced these policies?

In 1981?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:11 pm

Rowls wrote:Yes I'm saying that and I'm also saying it's pointless trying to second-guess it without any more information. Saying or implying he definitely never benefited from such a policy would be stupid. Saying or implying he definitely did benefit from such a policy would be stupid too.

So why is there a "strong possibility" that he may have benefited - because we know the BBC practice these policies and he fits the profile of the person the policy is designed to aid.

It would appear that you're much more interested in my -unstated- opinion on the matter than I am on yours. Why do you think that is? Are you going to ask a sensible question that would elicit my actual opinion on the BBC's discrimination policies regarding race, gender, sexuality etc?

Well I’ve already seen that on another BBC thread. I am surprised that you’re implying that there’s a strong possibility that the only people at the BBC on merit are white. Yates’ career was progressing as a young actor/presenter before he joined the BBC, his career path mirroring that of many white presenters (who are equally as talented/untalented depending on taste/opinion. I’m failing to see the artificial boost his career has got from the BBC compared to white peers.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:16 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:When Moira Stewart joined the BBC, was it because they practiced these policies?

In 1981?

You mean cos she was Scottish ?
Thank goodness those days are long gone eh !!

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:17 pm

UpTheBeehole wrote:When Moira Stewart joined the BBC, was it because they practiced these policies?

In 1981?

I know the answer to this (stupid) question - she got her news-reading role as a direct result of her appearances on the Adventure Game.

It's a bit off topic though, isn't it.

You never come across as being as clever as martin_p but you share the same agenda on these topics. You're always asking daft questions like this rather than asking a simple, open question requesting my opinion on the matter.

So the same applies to you as it does to martin_p - ask me a simple, sensible question and I'll give you my opinion.

Or else you can carry on asking stupid questions like the Moira Steward one which will add nothing to the debate. Fortunate for you that I have a geeky love of the Adventure Game and was able to answer the question with my personal knowledge. I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of other black people the BBC have employed.

UpTheBeehole · Post by **UpTheBeehole** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:23 pm

Rowls wrote:I know the answer to this (stupid) question - she got her news-reading role as a direct result of her appearances on the Adventure Game.

It's a bit off topic though, isn't it.

So Moira Stewart got her job at the BBC on the back of being good on the Adventure Game, but Reggie Yates didn't get his job at the BBC on the back of him being good in Disney Club, Grange Hill, Desmonds, and presenting on CITV?

He just got the job because he's black?

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:24 pm

Did you enjoy his work on Disney Club ?

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:24 pm

martin_p wrote:Well I’ve already seen that on another BBC thread. I am surprised that you’re implying that there’s a strong possibility that the only people at the BBC on merit are white. Yates’ career was progressing as a young actor/presenter before he joined the BBC, his career path mirroring that of many white presenters (who are equally as talented/untalented depending on taste/opinion. I’m failing to see the artificial boost his career has got from the BBC compared to white peers.

No.

No, no, no.

That, is YOUR inference.

It is NOT my opinion.

As usual martin it's taken a little while to wheedle out the prejudice on display here and as it normally proves to be the prejudice is yours. You have incorrectly attributed me with an opinion I do NOT hold.

Just because the BBC definitely enact policies to favour non-white people does NOT mean that only white people have got their jobs on merit. That is a logical fallacy on your part and it is also NOT my opinion.

Because you've spent your time dicking around asking silly questions on the matter you don't even know my opinion AND you've wasted the time asking stupid questions instead of asking questions that might have revealed my actual opinion on the matter.

If you are actually interested in finding out my opinion (as opposed to guessing at it incorrectly) then ask away and if you ask sensibly I'll respond.

But as it stands now, I'm off to something actually productive with my day.