If you're principally opposed to a mandatory license fee, fair enough - it doesn't make a shred of sense to then suggest you'd happily pay for a different bias, because you're then guilty of doing the thing you're supposedly opposed to.

If you want to financially support GB News off your own back, I'm sure there are avenues to do that, but framing it around a license fee doesn't really make sense.

You can always go and donate to that fake priests' latest holiday or something.

That doesn't really follow.If someone accepts that the BBC have a neo and social liberal bias and objects to being pressured by the state to pay for that then it doesn't mean that they object to having their own biased news that they do pay for.It would only be hypocritical, if you believed that the BBC could reform into a non politically aligned form......something that I no longer think is really possible personally.I think most people regard the 'license fee' concept as outdated in the modern age.

Wrong apostrophe....Also, a church is its people so god knows what you mean by 'fake'.

Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Oct 2023 5.06pm)

Of course it follows; we're not talking about privately paying for media, which obviously anyone can do at any time - we are talking about a state enforced fee, which if you're opposed to in principle, you're opposed to regardless of content.

If you're happy with state enforced fees, but just want content which more suits your bias, that's not a matter of principle.

Correcting punctuation is pretty desperate.

I mean fake in that he's not a priest, but dresses like one to very transparently try to add some credibility to his grift.

Not having it is worse and I thought it appropriate considering you were insulting the person with quite an irrelevant passive aggressive slight.

Where has the man claimed to be a priest? As far as I'm aware Robinson is currently an active ordinated deacon for the Free Church of England, which has been around since 1844.

Your attack is pretty poor form.

Edited by Stirlingsays (31 Oct 2023 6.52pm)

Well, perhaps 'attack' is a little strong but I certainly think you have an insulting and baseless accusatory tone towards the man.

'Desperate'? Yeah, Dan, this discussion is such an important exchange to me. I'm literally here biting my nails worried over how you might feel over Calvin Robinson...

As far as I'm aware Robinson's holiday in America was booked some time before he was sacked, something he proved on his Twitter account.....seemingly pointlessly.

Also, what is this nonsense about 'grifting'? Do you make this charge towards left wing commentators? Frankly I don't really understand what is meant here. Is the man not allowed to make a living? If someone is seen to be unfairly sacked then what's wrong with donations? I donated and was proud to donate to him.

Is the wool being pulled over my eyes in some way? If so how?

To be fair to him I don't think he falls within that bracket. He was suddenly let go, needs to pay his rent and enough people were happy to help. Soon after reaching his target he took the link down. I honestly don't really see why this guy engenders such ill will.

I should imagine him and Fox and what's the other chap....probably have something in the works.

You probably are blissfully unaware of the 'influencer' scene, which has plenty of people taking donations on all sides of the political menu. That's fair enough....if 'grifting' bothers you it's likely for the best as you'd see little else.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Nov 2023 5.35pm)