c4countdown

Rachel Riley has seemingly caused upset amongst many as a result of this:
https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/uk ... n-mandela/ (article for image purposes)
Given that people are calling for her sacking, I was purely interested as to what the C4C forum thought about the whole issue, and as to whether they agree with the trending "#sackRachelRiley"?

I was going to post about this actually. I think Rachel Riley is completely blinkered about Corbyn and plain wrong. I'm not going to call for her to be sacked or anything though.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:36 pm I was going to post about this actually. I think Rachel Riley is completely blinkered about Corbyn and plain wrong. I'm not going to call for her to be sacked or anything though.

I (as a former Corbynite) think she had overstepped the line in this case in regards to the image used, but the fact that she has been branded as a "Katie Hopkins" is total sloblock and plain-out wrong.

Is it time to start speculating about her replacement?

Given the times we live in... it won't be a sexy young girl. Not PC enough.
Perhaps, given that it has traditionally been a job given to a woman, they'll Ghostbust a man into the role? Preferably a man who ticks at least one of the following boxes:- Non-Binary, Disabled, LGBTQIABCXYZ, Ethnic Minority.

Though, I wouldn't rule out a fat lesbian.

When did this mass delusion start, that people who work in TV aren't allowed, or shouldn't be allowed, to make political statements away from TV? This only applies to broadcast journalists who work in news and current affairs. Coincidentally, people only seem to want to enforce this rule when the thing being posted is something that they don't agree with. When Gary Lineker posts something pro-European or pro-immigration, it brings out the gammon brigade chanting "stick to football". Funnily enough, when Tim Martin appears on the TV to grunt about Brexit, the same people don't advise him to "stick to running pubs". And when Rachel posts something anti-Corbyn, that brings out some of the more vocal Corbyn supporters who demand that she both stick to Countdown and be sacked from it.

If a Jewish public figure has genuine concerns about antisemitism in Labour and the consequences of a Corbyn government, is it wrong for them to post about that? How is it different from someone in poverty posting about how much they fear a Conservative majority?

Whether you agree with Rachel's views on Labour and Jeremy Corbyn - and it's fine to hold either view - her views are clearly motivated by honest reasons and nothing to do with Countdown. Demanding that someone be sacked from their job because they voiced a legitimate opinion you strongly disagree with outside of that job is just absurd.

Also: remember that if you're not a target of a particular kind of discriminatory abuse, you're unlikely to be better at identifying such discrimination than someone who is a target of it. I wouldn't presume to be able to lecture a person of colour on what constitutes racism, or a woman on what counts as sexism, or a Jewish person on what is and isn't antisemitic. That doesn't mean everything Rachel says or does is necessarily always right, and I can certainly see why people are upset about the photoshopped placard on the T-shirt. But it's at least a good reason not to dismiss her views without a second thought.

I think people misunderstand calling for someone to be sacked, especially through the likes of twitter, as a statement of moral imperative rather than just a hyperbolic way of saying to powers that be, "you've just lost yourself a customer".

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:59 pmAlso: remember that if you're not a target of a particular kind of discriminatory abuse, you're unlikely to be better at identifying such discrimination than someone who is a target of it. I wouldn't presume to be able to lecture a person of colour on what constitutes racism, or a woman on what counts as sexism, or a Jewish person on what is and isn't antisemitic. That doesn't mean everything Rachel says or does is necessarily always right, and I can certainly see why people are upset about the photoshopped placard on the T-shirt. But it's at least a good reason not to dismiss her views without a second thought.

But the specific problem in this instance is that she is doing to others exactly what you're saying here. Many of those most upset by this incident are black and/or South African, and are livid that their own recent struggle is being erased for her to make her own point - a point which could have been made in so many ways that don't involve undermining anti-black racism. Instead of considering those concerns, she's doubled down that everyone criticising her for it is a troll. She can't credibly campaign against *racism* if she's unwilling to listen to people from other races.

When anyone takes to social media to express their views, they need to consider that it can impact their career directly or indirectly, and make a judgement accordingly. Even more so for someone in the public eye.

In this case, I think that her judgement was poor.

I don't agree that she *should* be sacked, but she needs to recognise that, if her actions are considered offensive (and as Jen says, they undoubtedly are genuinely offensive to some), and if viewing figures are affected because of them, or the show simply doesn't want to be seen to condone them, then she *could* be sacked.

If Countdown was on the BBC she would have been sacked as they are notorious for knee jerk reactions.

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:59 pm When did this mass delusion start, that people who work in TV aren't allowed, or shouldn't be allowed, to make political statements away from TV?

This isn't making a political statement. It's a potentially libellous slur on an individual. It's also incredibly crude and simplistic.

Also: remember that if you're not a target of a particular kind of discriminatory abuse, you're unlikely to be better at identifying such discrimination than someone who is a target of it. I wouldn't presume to be able to lecture a person of colour on what constitutes racism, or a woman on what counts as sexism, or a Jewish person on what is and isn't antisemitic.

I don't think this is necessarily true. These things need to be looked at objectively. You don't get to decide if something is racist/sexist etc. just being you are the subject of it. That way madness lies.

Plus racism isn't just committed by white people on people of colour and sexism isn't just committed by males on females as your post implies.

Tom S wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:40 pmI (as a former Corbynite) think she had overstepped the line in this case in regards to the image used, but the fact that she has been branded as a "Katie Hopkins" is total sloblock and plain-out wrong.

I disagree. She's exactly like Katie Hopkins (although obviously coming from a different angle). She posts things that she knows are going to wind people up, in order to get a reaction (which she can then use as "evidence" that anyone disagreeing with her is antisemitic).

It's trolling, quite simply. Katie Hopkins has a more scattershot approach, but they are very much doing the same thing.

Lucky her baby wasn't a boy or she probably would have chopped his nob off or something.

I wonder if Maven will teach typing ?

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:02 pm Lucky her baby wasn't a boy or she probably would have chopped his nob off or something.

I find this post offensive.

Adam Gillard wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:55 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:02 pm Lucky her baby wasn't a boy or she probably would have chopped his nob off or something.

I find this post offensive.

That was a knee jerk reaction

Adam Gillard wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:55 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:02 pm Lucky her baby wasn't a boy or she probably would have chopped his nob off or something.

I find this post offensive.

I thought I might get some comeback from this post at the time actually, but then it seemed I got away with it.

But anyway - my post wasn't meant to be anti-Jewish. I am against the ritual of cicrumcision of babies of Jewish parents, but plenty of Jewish people are against this, and I see this as more of a basic humans rights thing rather than anti religion/race etc. And the people that go ahead with this practice would be people I disagree with vehemently anyway. Which brings me to Rachel.

What I said about Rachel Riley, I wouldn't say it about just any Jewish person. It's the fact that I don't like some of her views anyway, so I just caricatured her as an individual. And I would equally do the same for anyone in any group - regardless of whether it was a race, religion, a political party or just some hobby.

So apologies to you Adam if you were offended by my post - I wasn't entirely clear where my dig was directed.

Unless you mean my spelling of "nob", but there's a whole thread about that.

If you want to start a debate about ritual circumcision, fine, but equating it to deliberately chopping off a baby's penis is both offensive and anti-semetic, and should be called out as such.

Also, implying a mother would casually harm their new born child is a horrible thing to say, and can't be excused because you disagree with her political views.

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:32 pm If you want to start a debate about ritual circumcision, fine, but equating it to deliberately chopping off a baby's penis is both offensive and anti-semetic, and should be called out as such.

It's not anti-semetic, nor is it anti-semitic. It was a comic exaggeration of what I consider to be a grotesque act anyway.

Also, implying a mother would casually harm their new born child is a horrible thing to say, and can't be excused because you disagree with her political views.

It was a throwaway joke really. I think you're reading too much into it.

Rachel Riley is now suing a Corbyn aide over what the aide said about another stupid tweet from Rachel Riley.

Riley is suing Laura Murray over the tweet, posted a short time after Corbyn was hit by eggs thrown by a Brexit supporter during a visit to Finsbury Park mosque on 3 March 2019; the attacker was later jailed for 28 days for assault.

Shortly after the incident, Riley tweeted a screenshot of a January 2019 tweet by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones about an attack on the former British National party leader Nick Griffin, in which Jones said: “I think sound life advice is, if you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi.”

She then added “good advice”, along with an emoji of a red rose and an egg.

Later that day, Murray tweeted: “Today Jeremy Corbyn went to his local mosque for Visit My Mosque Day, and was attacked by a Brexiteer. Rachel Riley tweets that Corbyn deserves to be violently attacked because he is a Nazi. This woman is as dangerous as she is stupid. Nobody should engage with her. Ever.”

Jeremy Corbyn should sue her over the "racist endeavour" nonsense.



Maybe she should just stick to welding.

Well, I read that as pointing out Owen Jones's hypocrisy more than anything else. Bit like when Corbyn said if you are neutral then you have chosen the side of the oppressor, then proceeded to be neutral when the Russian Salisbury poisoning happened...

Of course, my disdain for Owen Jones is well known.

Rachel Riley tells court tweet by Corbyn aide harmed her reputation

Just wait until Rachel hears what her own tweets have done to her reputation!

This

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/rach ... 35223.html

So she's involved in multiple libel cases. It's looking like it might become a full-time job.

Ben Wilson wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 3:29 pm Just wait until Rachel hears what her own tweets have done to her reputation!

This made me giggle.

I wonder if Ms Vorderman is friends with Ms Robinson

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 6:39 pm So she's involved in multiple libel cases. It's looking like it might become a full-time job.

But seriously, obsessing over tweets she doesn't like could lead her to have some sort of nervous breakdown. She needs to concentrate on the more important things in her life. Maybe give Twitter a break.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 6:16 pm This

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/rach ... 35223.html

From the article:

"The judge also said there was no evidence that the presenter had encouraged any of her 600,000 followers to harass Rose, and she was not responsible for any abuse the teenager received."

This is just bollocks, isn't it? Of course she's responsible. She's not stupid, she knew exactly what would happen and went ahead anyway.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 1:30 pm Rachel Riley is now suing a Corbyn aide over what the aide said about another stupid tweet from Rachel Riley.

Riley is suing Laura Murray over the tweet, posted a short time after Corbyn was hit by eggs thrown by a Brexit supporter during a visit to Finsbury Park mosque on 3 March 2019; the attacker was later jailed for 28 days for assault.

Shortly after the incident, Riley tweeted a screenshot of a January 2019 tweet by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones about an attack on the former British National party leader Nick Griffin, in which Jones said: “I think sound life advice is, if you don’t want eggs thrown at you, don’t be a Nazi.”

She then added “good advice”, along with an emoji of a red rose and an egg.

Later that day, Murray tweeted: “Today Jeremy Corbyn went to his local mosque for Visit My Mosque Day, and was attacked by a Brexiteer. Rachel Riley tweets that Corbyn deserves to be violently attacked because he is a Nazi. This woman is as dangerous as she is stupid. Nobody should engage with her. Ever.”

Jeremy Corbyn should sue her over the "racist endeavour" nonsense.



Maybe she should just stick to welding.

Rachel Riley 1 - 0 Gevin.

https://order-order.com/2021/12/20/rach ... ra-murray/

Well these things are decided on the whims of individual judges, who are just as biased and fallible as anyone else.

This is being reported on actual new sites by the way - e.g. the BBC. And it's worth pointing out that Riley didn't come out of it looking the best either.

He added that Ms Murray's tweet had misrepresented what Ms Riley had tweeted. Yet he rejected Ms Riley's argument that Ms Murray had been "motivated by any improper purpose".

While not "bad conduct", he said Ms Riley's tweet could be viewed as "provocative, even mischievous".

"There is a clear element of provocation in the good advice tweet, in the sense that the claimant must have readily appreciated that the meaning of the good advice tweet was ambiguous and could be read as suggesting, at least, that Jeremy Corbyn deserved to be egged because of his political views," he concluded.

"The claimant can hardly be surprised - and she can hardly complain - that the good advice tweet provoked the reaction it did, including the defendant's tweet."

Such context, he said, was taken into consideration when deciding on the amount of damages she would receive.

It seems to hinge on this though:

"I have found that the publication of the defendant's tweet has caused serious harm to the claimant's reputation, and I have rejected the defendant's defences.

What's the evidence for that? How many people are forming their opinion of Rachel Riley on this tweet by Laura Murray? Basically none. Most people are only aware of it because of the libel case, which Rachel Riley brought. And most of these people will have seen Rachel Riley's tweet for themselves rather than just basing their opinion purely on Murray's tweet. If there is a loss of reputation, it is from Riley's own actions. So I'd say it was poor judgery by the judge. And he can sue me if he wants. But in a weird twist, Laura Murray will be the judge.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 7:28 pm This is being reported on actual new sites by the way - e.g. the BBC.

This says more than you think about the state of our mainstream media in the pandemic, that I would rather listen to Calgie, Harwood, Gye, and Atkins, rather than the rest of the BBC, and their pro-lockdown agenda.

They have not abolished social distancing. They have not abolished face covering requirements. One of my colleagues has it from Fiona Bruce’s mouth - they are doing so to “send a message”. This is subversion of the government of the highest order.

So I will continue to read Calgie’s reports (who is widely respected in SW1) rather than “auntie BBC”.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 8:46 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 7:28 pm This is being reported on actual new sites by the way - e.g. the BBC.

This says more than you think about the state of our mainstream media in the pandemic, that I would rather listen to Calgie, Harwood, Gye, and Atkins, rather than the rest of the BBC, and their pro-lockdown agenda.

They have not abolished social distancing. They have not abolished face covering requirements. One of my colleagues has it from Fiona Bruce’s mouth - they are doing so to “send a message”. This is subversion of the government of the highest order.

So I will continue to read Calgie’s reports (who is widely respected in SW1) rather than “auntie BBC”.

You don't think that, perhaps, the fact that the government is extremely corrupt and dishonest is more subversive to their goals?

I see that Rachel Riley has decided she has to have an opinion on the Depp/Heard verdict.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 4:18 pm I see that Rachel Riley has decided she has to have an opinion on the Depp/Heard verdict.

She did have a point as the British case (which Depp lost) was not submissable in the US case along with medical reports

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 7:10 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 4:18 pm I see that Rachel Riley has decided she has to have an opinion on the Depp/Heard verdict.

She did have a point as the British case (which Depp lost) was not submissable in the US case along with medical reports

Well, I mean I have not really followed the case and I'm not on anyone's "side", but Rachel strikes me very much as the sort of person that would pick a side first and find evidence to suit it (she has form with Corbyn at least). I doubt she's analysed this case in detail.

This BBC article discusses some of the differences between the US and UK cases.

I dunno the truth of the whole thing, and haven't followed it closely, but whatever the truth, this case is massively damaging.

The vast majority of domestic abuse victims are telling the truth and desperately need help.

This case gives licence to start from a position of disbelief (as is sadly all too frequently experienced by victims of rape)

Probably not for this thread, but it really has potential to lead to a culture of disbelief, or fear of reporting in case you're disbelieved.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 4:18 pm I see that Rachel Riley has decided she has to have an opinion on the Depp/Heard verdict.

Could you not have linked to something that could give us a hint of what her opinion was?

Mark James wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:01 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 4:18 pm I see that Rachel Riley has decided she has to have an opinion on the Depp/Heard verdict.

Could you not have linked to something that could give us a hint of what her opinion was?

I could but after seeing it mentioned on Facebook it was from my usual incognito Google browsing and it was on her Twitter account I found it. And Twitter behaves terribly when you're not logged in (as you know). But this is her account.

So, wrong on Corbyn, correct on Depp.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 9:36 pm I dunno the truth of the whole thing, and haven't followed it closely, but whatever the truth, this case is massively damaging.

The vast majority of domestic abuse victims are telling the truth and desperately need help.

This case gives licence to start from a position of disbelief (as is sadly all too frequently experienced by victims of rape)

Probably not for this thread, but it really has potential to lead to a culture of disbelief, or fear of reporting in case you're disbelieved.

I, or should I say my better half has followed it extensively and I can say that social media had played a huge part in this whilst the trial was happening.

I see the future of domestic abuse cases hanging on people clandestinely recording eventa

Mark James wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 10:59 pm So, wrong on Corbyn, correct on Depp.

Possibly. But probably more in a broken clock way if she is.

There does seem to have been a bit of a movement to use Heard as a representation of the DA victim's battle, and that's a bit troubling, because Heard looks to be an abuser herself, and certainly a completely unsympathetic character. I don't doubt Depp abused her (even if he did stop short of laying a hand, abuse takes many forms), but I also don't doubt she abused him back. They both seem bloody terrible.

I mean, I understand the broad optics - she called him a wife beater, he yeah-butted it, she lost. It's not good. But neither is she.

A highly intelligent young woman with a history of charitable work and campaigning, including against domestic abuse and other issues impacting women, has spoken out about a public case related to domestic abuse.

But I wonder what Gevin has to say on the matter?

And she's right. Mason Greenwood can fuck all the way off.

It's not a story I've been following closely. It should be said that all charges have been dropped. Obviously this doesn't actually mean he's not guilty, but on the other hand you can't simply condemn anyone who is ever accused of these crimes.

The bottom line is that if Man Utd think think there's enough evidence to sack the guy over this (even if a criminal conviction is unlikely) then go for it and they can present this if Mason Greenwood decides to sue.

If Rachel Riley knows more about the case than I do, she might be aware of evidence that exists, but there's probably not much more for me to say on the matter.

There is some quite compelling evidence which is very easy to find.

If Rachel Riley knows more about the case than I do

She really does. You can be quite intellectually lazy sometimes, far more willing to give opinions than research them. Like Jono says, the case has taken place very publicly, and there's transcripts/audio files out there from which to draw your own conclusion (and my life there really is only one, it's a bad listen).

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 8:44 am

If Rachel Riley knows more about the case than I do

She really does. You can be quite intellectually lazy sometimes, far more willing to give opinions than research them. Like Jono says, the case has taken place very publicly, and there's transcripts/audio files out there from which to draw your own conclusion (and my life there really is only one, it's a bad listen).

Just googled this and seen the transcript. Haven't heard the recording (not sure I want to). Why were charges dropped then?


Edit: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... d-29116651


All very strange. A very elaborate and deliberate set up if he's not guilty.

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 8:44 am

If Rachel Riley knows more about the case than I do

She really does. You can be quite intellectually lazy sometimes, far more willing to give opinions than research them. Like Jono says, the case has taken place very publicly, and there's transcripts/audio files out there from which to draw your own conclusion (and my life there really is only one, it's a bad listen).

I disagree with this take. Someone can't just demand someone's opinion on a subject and expect them to research it. I think my bland covers-all-bases approach was appropriate. I didn't exactly give an opinion.

As it happens, after Jono's reply, I did do a search and found a transcript and did also listen to the audio. Seems pretty damning, assuming it's genuine, and I've got no particular reason to think it isn't.

Edit - as Fiona says:

A very elaborate and deliberate set up if he's not guilty.

Someone can't just demand someone's opinion on a subject and expect them to research it.

That's a selective interpretation of what happened. Adam essentially demanded consistency from you, not your opinion. If you saw fit to pass judgement with the previous "I see that Rachel Riley has decided she has to have an opinion on the Depp/Heard verdict", bumping a thread to do so without anything corroborative and with big overtones to it, it's very fair that he did that.

Well if they do reinstate him, presumably they will have to publish the unseen evidence that throws significant doubt on his guilt or there would be a huge backlash

Fiona T wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 8:49 am Why were charges dropped then?

The victim (as happens in who knows how many less high-profile cases) took him back, and if I remember right, she asked for the charges to be dropped.

As far as I know, none of the parties concerned have suggested that the recording is anything other than exactly what it seems.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 9:09 am Well if they do reinstate him, presumably they will have to publish the unseen evidence that throws significant doubt on his guilt or there would be a huge backlash

As I say, I tend to assume that no such evidence exists and there will definitely be a backlash. Until recently I didn't think United would even consider keeping him on, and I doubt it'll take them long to U-turn if they do try it. They've already said they won't use him in any of their promotional campaigns which rather exposes the unsustainability of it all.

I don't know how well known the case of former Scotland international David Goodwillie is south of the border, but he was found not guilty (or not proven guilty) of rape in a criminal trial but then found guilty in a civil case, so somewhat similar to Greenwood. A couple of amateur teams tried to quietly take him on last season, but both pulled the plug after a couple of games when the fans inevitably found out.

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 8:57 am

Someone can't just demand someone's opinion on a subject and expect them to research it.

That's a selective interpretation of what happened. Adam essentially demanded consistency from you, not your opinion. If you saw fit to pass judgement with the previous "I see that Rachel Riley has decided she has to have an opinion on the Depp/Heard verdict", bumping a thread to do so without anything corroborative and with big overtones to it, it's very fair that he did that.

I don't think that because somebody has posted about something before, they are required to do so in all similar situations.

Also, I posted the Rachel Riley thing before (Depp/Heard) because she has previously spouted uninformed stuff online (see the start of this thread). It may have not been the most mature thing to do but you can see where it came from initially. I suspected (rightly or wrongly) that she was just doing this from her starting assumptions rather than based on the evidence. It wouldn't have been out of character.

In any case my Rachel Riley bashing days are largely behind me now, unless she does something particularly egregious in the future.

Rachel Riley bashing is probably not a good turn of phrase.
I think United should have sols him.
Im sure he would fit in well in Saudi.

Arsenal stood by Thomas Party which appears to be vindicated as no charges took place.

In case Rachel was wavering
https://twitter.com/utdreport/status/16 ... 6672599146

I really respect Rachel's comments on the Mason Greenwood topic. Coming from a public figure well known to be a very passionate Manchester United supporter, saying she would stop supporting the team is a significant statement that will surely cause a great number of football fans, who might otherwise dismiss Greenwood's off-the-field actions when he returns, to consider the issue more closely. An excellent use of her platform, and courageous given the abuse she has suffered personally for her public comments on serious topics in the past.

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 7:37 am And she's right. Mason Greenwood can fuck all the way off.

Yep.

Phil H wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 11:04 am

Fiona T wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 8:49 am Why were charges dropped then?

The victim (as happens in who knows how many less high-profile cases) took him back, and if I remember right, she asked for the charges to be dropped.

This is the part that's most terrifying.

It's mental that Man United still have him on their books at this point. They should have taken swift and decisive action much earlier. I wonder how the legal side of this works. Presumably in the contract there is a clause that renders it invalid if the player is convicted of criminal charges. However, when there's evidence of them committing a crime, but no conviction what happens? What's the financial hit for Man United in a worst case scenario? Greenwood suing them for unfair dismissal and loss of earnings for like £10M?

Pay up his contract or sell him to the Saudis, where no doubt he will be welcomed with open arms