Current Affairs

[Gill W]

But, I do hope that she reflects on her behaviour and is a bit more sympathetic when others transgress.

Her aggressive interviewing style and snide comments leaves a lot to be desired.

One thing is for sure, she will never have the moral high ground on this issue again.

OL might but I wouldn't bet on it.
There are people who are never wrong and are brazen enough to find an excuse from somewhere for anything. It puts Sky's reporting on very dodgy ground when they try to take the high moral ground.
Not that I'm biased against the self obsessed little &£?*$s.

Do you really think so OBF Kay Burley is a smart lady and is now one of the top media journalists. She did not have the silver spoon entry the profession demands these days, coming from an ordinary family and attending state school. Sky are far from fools and she would not have gained such prominence if she was not so competent. This will soon be yesterdays news, and Ms Burley, continue asking the questions we would wish to ask

I think the problem some people have is that Burley, along with some other journalists, ask questions that some people would rather not be asked !!

I've noticed that Piers Morgan, who asks very pointed questions and keeps interrupting the replies doesn't raise the same level of ire on this forum as do the likes of Burley, Rigby and Munchetty. I wonder why that is.....

[towny44]

Can't believe anybody would jump to the defence of these first class hypocrites. Not surprised though.

If that's directed to me, I haven't jumped to anybody's defence.

My comments were about the reaction of people on this forum.

You really are a right goody two shoes Gill, as well as being a Teflin tilly. Nothing you ever say or do is wrong, but everything anyone who disagrees with you says, you pick over and pull apart to find something to criticise.

[oldbluefox]

Has Mornin' All come early?

[Ray Scully]

[

I think the problem some people have is that Burley, along with some other journalists, ask questions that some people would rather not be asked !!

I've noticed that Piers Morgan, who asks very pointed questions and keeps interrupting the replies doesn't raise the same level of ire on this forum as do the likes of Burley, Rigby and Munchetty. I wonder why that is.....
[/quote]

Funny you should mention that Gill, the thought had also crossed my mind. hmm I wonder why.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Can't believe anybody would jump to the defence of these first class hypocrites. Not surprised though.

She's probably more embarrassed that everyone now knows she's 60!

Why would she be embarrassed. She looks very good for her age.

Women in the public eye are often very protective of their true age. But I realise we're back to the old days of you arguing with anything I post on principle.

[Gill W]

Can't believe anybody would jump to the defence of these first class hypocrites. Not surprised though.

If that's directed to me, I haven't jumped to anybody's defence.

My comments were about the reaction of people on this forum.

You really are a right goody two shoes Gill, as well as being a Teflin tilly. Nothing you ever say or do is wrong, but everything anyone who disagrees with you says, you pick over and pull apart to find something to criticise.

Oh put a sock in it, you’re a fine one to talk

[oldbluefox]

I think the problem some people have is that Burley, along with some other journalists, ask questions that some people would rather not be asked !!

The problem I have is not the questions she asks but the way she asks them, her pathetic attempts to try to get ministers to say something she can later use against them, her rude and sarcastic asides if she can't have everything her own way and her persistent interrupting with some politicians but not all.

I've noticed that Piers Morgan, who asks very pointed questions and keeps interrupting the replies doesn't raise the same level of ire on this forum as do the likes of Burley, Rigby and Munchetty. I wonder why that is.....

Not sure what you are implying here but I presume you are insinuating our criticism is sexist. The reason I don't comment on Piers Morgan is because I don't watch him but if you read my posts properly you would notice that my two favourite reporters are both women and for good measure you can add Sophy Ridge amongst many others.

[oldbluefox]

Funny you should mention that Gill, the thought had also crossed my mind. hmm I wonder why.

I think I've answered that for you. Simple really

[Gill W]

She's probably more embarrassed that everyone now knows she's 60!

Why would she be embarrassed. She looks very good for her age.

Women in the public eye are often very protective of their true age. But I realise we're back to the old days of you arguing with anything I post on principle.

I thought everyone knew how old she was, especially people who seem to take a keen interest in her.

I’ve barely responded to any of your posts for months, so I’m not sure where this idea of ‘the old days’ has surfaced. Old days which only existed in you imagination at that!

[Ray Scully]

Funny you should mention that Gill, the thought had also crossed my mind. hmm I wonder why.

I think I've answered that for you. Simple really

Nothing appears simple these day!!

[Gill W]

I think the problem some people have is that Burley, along with some other journalists, ask questions that some people would rather not be asked !!

The problem I have is not the questions she asks but the way she asks them, her pathetic attempts to try to get ministers to say something she can later use against them, her rude and sarcastic asides if she can't have everything her own way and her persistent interrupting with some politicians but not all.

I've noticed that Piers Morgan, who asks very pointed questions and keeps interrupting the replies doesn't raise the same level of ire on this forum as do the likes of Burley, Rigby and Munchetty. I wonder why that is.....

Not sure what you are implying here but I presume you are insinuating our criticism is sexist. The reason I don't comment on Piers Morgan is because I don't watch him but if you read my posts properly you would notice that my two favourite reporters are both women and for good measure you can add Sophy Ridge amongst many others.

I think that, if the ministers actually gave straight answers to straight questions, there’d be a lot less need for what is perceived as an abrasive interview style. But we have a situation where ministers are actually not capable of a straight answer and out and out lie, so interviewers are forced to challenge them.

To be honest, I have wondered if there is a sexist element in the constant criticism of certain reporters, criticism that is often very personal. I think some men have problems with strong women who speak up for themselves, and they often react by making disparaging remarks about the woman in a demeaning way. As the criticism is so strident and frequent on this board, I do have to wonder if there is some sort of sexism going on, even if unconscious.

Sorry if this offends, but it’s my honest thoughts.

[oldbluefox]

Doesn't offend me at all Gill since I take most of your comments with a pinch of salt. I have never known you agree with any of us and you look to find fault wherever you can. That's fine by me. You can think whatever you like but if I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.
I too am being honest so I hope you're not offended.

[towny44]

If that's directed to me, I haven't jumped to anybody's defence.

My comments were about the reaction of people on this forum.

You really are a right goody two shoes Gill, as well as being a Teflon tilly. Nothing you ever say or do is wrong, but everything anyone who disagrees with you says, you pick over and pull apart to find something to criticise.

Oh put a sock in it, you’re a fine one to talk

Well I finally managed to get under your skin, and elicit a barbed reply, rather than one of your more usual convalutions.

[anniec]

Sorry to interrupt your argument, but what's a convalution, and why would you wish to get under anyone's skin?

[towny44]

Sorry to interrupt your argument, but what's a convalution, and why would you wish to get under anyone's skin?

Maybe because she regularly gets under mine, and so sorry I spelt convolutuons incorrectly, it seems my spell checker has the incorrect spelling.

[screwy]

This is fun..

[Ray Scully]

Would be a quiet topic without Gill an I to kick your ball against

[Gill W]

Doesn't offend me at all Gill since I take most of your comments with a pinch of salt. I have never known you agree with any of us and you look to find fault wherever you can. That's fine by me. You can think whatever you like but if I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.
I too am being honest so I hope you're not offended.

Not offended at all.

When I do agree with people on this board, there’s no comment at all.

I said the other day that I, like several others, am in the Van Tam fan club. No reaction at all from the board. If I’d said that I didn’t rate him, everyone would have kicked off (again)

[Gill W]

You really are a right goody two shoes Gill, as well as being a Teflon tilly. Nothing you ever say or do is wrong, but everything anyone who disagrees with you says, you pick over and pull apart to find something to criticise.

Oh put a sock in it, you’re a fine one to talk

Well I finally managed to get under your skin, and elicit a barbed reply, rather than one of your more usual convalutions.

And there we have it.

You have admitted that you are a wind up merchant, and have been trying to get me to react for months if not years.

Now you have got the reaction you so desperately wanted, are you satisfied?

[oldbluefox]

I spend a lot of my time talking to myself without comment.
Don't read so much into it. It's par for the course. But if you are going to be contradictory don't be surprised if you get a reaction positive or negative.

[Gill W]

Sorry to interrupt your argument, but what's a convalution, and why would you wish to get under anyone's skin?

Maybe because she regularly gets under mine, and so sorry I spelt convolutuons incorrectly, it seems my spell checker has the incorrect spelling.

If you don’t like what I say , that’s fair enough.

However, it’s your problem if what I say gets under your skin. You are flattering yourself if you think anything I say is targeted personally at you.

You are welcome to disagree with anything I say, and it’s fine to say so.

However, for some reason you have to make it personal, and even resorted to name calling today. Why do you do this?

[Onelife]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD8Kw9ceuuY

Sack the stupid self-obsessed, wannabe pit bull terrier who always ends up being a bitch.

[Gill W]

I spend a lot of my time talking to myself without comment.
Don't read so much into it. It's par for the course. But if you are going to be contradictory don't be surprised if you get a reaction positive or negative.

Oh no, I don’t read anything into it. I would never have mentioned it, except that you said you’d never known me to agree!

[Gill W]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD8Kw9ceuuY

Sack the stupid self-obsessed, wannabe pit bull terrier who always ends up being a bitch.

Oh come on Keith, that’s OTT

You’d have gone loopy if anybody spoke like that about Theresa!

[Gill W]

Would be a quiet topic without Gill an I to kick your ball against

It would be an echo chamber!