Also in the news

[davieG]

Just now, ealingfox said:

Jeremy Kyle permanently cancelled.

They'll create a copy with a different name and bring it back next year probably.

 

News of the World = The Sun on Sunday.

[urban.spaceman]

44 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

Jeremy Kyle permanently cancelled.

The speed at which ITV have acted is curious. I wonder how bad the episode was and if they’re worried about being prosecuted by his family?

[Wymsey]

Definitely the right decision, but certainly a massive loss to ITV for sure.

The show had attracted a good fair share of the total TV viewing audience whenever it was shown for many years.

[Heathrow fox]

I take it that there will be no more repeats of it either?

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

They'll create a copy with a different name and bring it back next year probably.

 

News of the World = The Sun on Sunday.

BRING BACK TRISHA

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

Jeremy Kyle permanently cancelled.

 

Shocking decision. They should have done a special edition with a different host doing the aggressive questioning and Kyle as the main guest.

 

The family of the bloke who died could have been sat at the other side of the stage, accusing him of causing the death, while he angrily defended himself and the audience bayed for his blood.

 

I'm sure Kyle would have had no problem with that. Would have been in line with the programme's values - and a guaranteed ratings success....

 

[Wymsey]

 

 

[Samilktray]

Jeremy Kyle is widely regarded as cvnt and it’s very easy to believe. It’s about time that repulsive show was cancelled. 

[The Horse's Mouth]

Seems rather harsh, after 14 years to only have 1 death is quite impressive considering the state of some of the people that go on. As a lot have been saying, love island has a better K/D so I'm reckoning viewing figures have gone down a bit and ITV felt it was a good thing to cash in on for PR

[Alf Bentley]

30 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

 

 

 

So, Kyle is condemned by the company he keeps, too.......... 

 

I appreciate that some of his guests are chaotic, messed-up people. That's partly why his programme is able to use them to provide "entertainment" - and to make lots of money for him all the team involved over the years.

I also appreciate that those guests appear voluntarily - but people do all sorts of things voluntarily, like prostituting themselves & taking hard drugs. Doesn't make it moral to make a living out of encouraging them.

I'm sure he's excellent at his job. Likewise, I'm sure lots of pimps and drug dealers are excellent at their jobs.....

 

If that makes me a snob, so be it. But I've only ever seen the show because other people were watching or because it was on in the dentist's waiting room, so I wouldn't accept the hypocrisy charge.

Of course, my behaviour hasn't always been ideal. But when I've done shameful things, I've been ashamed of them. I'm talking about the programme here, more than the death - though he and his team were always taking a risk, making a living out of publicly baiting and humiliating people (even if the "victims" participated voluntarily, and often enthusiastically).

 

I would accept that Kyle is almost certainly a nicer bloke than Piers Morgan, though. 

 

[Buce]

18 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

So, Kyle is condemned by the company he keeps, too.......... 

 

I appreciate that some of his guests are chaotic, messed-up people. That's partly why his programme is able to use them to provide "entertainment" - and to make lots of money for him all the team involved over the years.

I also appreciate that those guests appear voluntarily - but people do all sorts of things voluntarily, like prostituting themselves & taking hard drugs. Doesn't make it moral to make a living out of encouraging them.

I'm sure he's excellent at his job. Likewise, I'm sure lots of pimps and drug dealers are excellent at their jobs.....

 

If that makes me a snob, so be it. But I've only ever seen the show because other people were watching or because it was on in the dentist's waiting room, so I wouldn't accept the hypocrisy charge.

Of course, my behaviour hasn't always been ideal. But when I've done shameful things, I've been ashamed of them. I'm talking about the programme here, more than the death - though he and his team were always taking a risk, making a living out of publicly baiting and humiliating people (even if the "victims" participated voluntarily, and often enthusiastically).

 

I would accept that Kyle is almost certainly a nicer bloke than Piers Morgan, though. 

 

1

 

There are very few who don't share that distinction.

[Alf Bentley]

The Change UK fiasco continues.....: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48281672

 

"Change UK's lead candidate for the EU elections in Scotland has quit the race and is now endorsing the Lib Dems. David Macdonald is top of the Change UK list in Scotland, but said the party "don't stand much of a chance" of winning a seat in the 23 May poll. He urged pro-Remain voters to back the Lib Dems to avoid "splitting the vote" and benefiting pro-Brexit parties. Change UK MP Chuka Umunna said it was "disappointing" that Mr Macdonald had "let down his fellow candidates".

Mr Macdonald is the second lead candidate to quit the Change UK list in Scotland, after David Russo withdrew one day into the race".

[Stinkenzo]

Never understood the point in programmes like this but to pull it completely seems ridiculous

[bovril]

2 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Seems rather harsh, after 14 years to only have 1 death is quite impressive considering the state of some of the people that go on. 

 

[Wymsey]

Wouldn't be surprised if some show likeThis Morning will tell the public about this situation and even get Jeremy Kyle on board to discuss the olunge of his show.

 

Am quite a fan of his 'The Kyle Files' documentaries - as it shows the more serious and more insightful stories of what's affecting a lot people in the country, rather this now-axed show where it was often intimidation of the people affected in common relation/family etc events.

Edited 15 May 2019 by Wymeswold fox

[Buce]

Tommy Robinson sued by Syrian schoolboy he accused of assault

Jamal Hijazi brings libel action over EDL founder’s claim he attacked white schoolgirls

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/15/tommy-robinson-sued-by-syrian-schoolboy-he-accused-of-assault

 

Good for him.

[Corky]

Having Piers Morgan give you a character reference is possibly the worst thing when you are struggling in the spotlight (as outlined in the responses to that tweet).

[Corky]

Anyway, if you didn't ever watch the show, this was pretty much it:

 

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2014/03/12/every-possible-outcome-of-the-jeremy-kyle-show/

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Buce said:

 

There are very few who don't share that distinction.

But if they were on FT would they have limited posts?

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

But if they were on FT would they have limited posts?

At least you don’t let it get too you pal.

Edited 16 May 2019 by Strokes

[egg_fried_rice]

 

 

[MC Prussian]

BC father of a 14-year old who wants to receive testosterone injections as part of gender switch procedures is legally prevented from calling her by her real sex:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/29/authorities-arrest-canadian-father-refers-trans-child-real-sex/

[David Guiza]

12 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

BC father of a 14-year old who wants to receive testosterone injections as part of gender switch procedures is legally prevented from calling her by her real sex:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/29/authorities-arrest-canadian-father-refers-trans-child-real-sex/

I just did a tiny bit of research into this as I was interested from a legal perspective, which turned out to be pretty difficult as about 99% of the articles are on either Conservative or Christian websites (or both), and it seems that the reasoning behind the decision is that the father was publicly discussing the ongoing case to the press, which was deemed to be having a dangerous impact on the child. The order was in fact a protection order which prevents the father from sharing the any information regarding the sex, gender identity or mental/physical health to anybody other than his lawyers, the court or medical professionals.  

 

Whilst you could certainly make an argument that it is somewhat anti freedom of speech, I think the protection of a vulnerable 14 year old certainly has to be taken into account. 

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I just did a tiny bit of research into this as I was interested from a legal perspective, which turned out to be pretty difficult as about 99% of the articles are on either Conservative or Christian websites (or both), and it seems that the reasoning behind the decision is that the father was publicly discussing the ongoing case to the press, which was deemed to be having a dangerous impact on the child. The order was in fact a protection order which prevents the father from sharing the any information regarding the sex, gender identity or mental/physical health to anybody other than his lawyers, the court or medical professionals.  

 

Whilst you could certainly make an argument that it is somewhat anti freedom of speech, I think the protection of a vulnerable 14 year old certainly has to be taken into account. 

Hey, get outta here with your nuance - we're going PC gone mad and insisting on our right to deadname here!

[MC Prussian]

41 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I just did a tiny bit of research into this as I was interested from a legal perspective, which turned out to be pretty difficult as about 99% of the articles are on either Conservative or Christian websites (or both), and it seems that the reasoning behind the decision is that the father was publicly discussing the ongoing case to the press, which was deemed to be having a dangerous impact on the child. The order was in fact a protection order which prevents the father from sharing the any information regarding the sex, gender identity or mental/physical health to anybody other than his lawyers, the court or medical professionals.  

 

Whilst you could certainly make an argument that it is somewhat anti freedom of speech, I think the protection of a vulnerable 14 year old certainly has to be taken into account. 

Which means he can't share that information publicly, not even his (extended) family or friends, correct? Then again, I also wonder what this will mean from a schooling perspective - I mean, she still needs to complete her regular education, and her change will be visible to her classmates and the school environment the longer it goes on, so you can't keep it a secret at all.

Will the school, her classmates or all pupils have to sign an NDA, too? See where this is going?

 

The doctor in charge of the BC program as well as the corresponding children's hospital have also come under scrutiny:

Quote

Maxine’s counselors at school were of a different mind.  They referred Maxine and her mother, Sarah, to a “Dr.” Wallace Wong — a psychologist and LGBT activist who predictably decided that Maxine should be referred to a children’s hospital for testosterone injections when she was only 13. Not to be outdone, the children’s hospital asked Maxine’s parents for permission to begin injecting Maxine with testosterone on her very first visit. Clark said no and refused to sign.

From the middle of August until October, the hospital worked Clark over, trying to get his consent. When he finally refused, the hospital dropped a bombshell threat: simply put, they declared that they didn’t need Clark’s or Sarah’s permission for that matter. In a letter mailed December 1, 2018, Dr. Brenden Hursh informed Clark that they would begin treatment on Maxine in two weeks, without Clark’s consent. BC Children’s Hospital believed Maxine was a “mature minor,” who could receive treatment against the wishes of both her parents, according to section 17 of the BC Infants Act.

 

It has also been alleged by the father/her family that the girl has been "indoctrinated" by the school's environment to proceed with the transition as early as a 12-year old.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/02/26/doctors-insist-canadian-14-year-old-needs-no-parent-consent-trans-hormone-injections/

 

I just think as long as the girl is not legally able to decide for herself what's best for her, then the parents ought to retain that right, as per usual. It could set a dangerous precedent, in which authorities take over by law under some of the most ridiculous of reasonings. I find that somewhat worrying.

In the case of young people experiencing the need to change gender, you can also point to the previous experience of many teenagers reverting back to their natural sex as they approach maturity. By which point the physical change often cannot be reversed, they're stuck and regret sets in, potentially leading to mental problems.

 

Btw, here's a more official report on the matter:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/who-gets-to-decide-when-a-14-year-old-wants-to-change-gender

 

And this:

Quote

A 2011 Swedish study of 324 sex-reassigned persons (191 male-to-females, 133 female-to-males) clearly proved that the long-term outcome of such treatments resulted in life-long psychological trauma and increased suicide.  

The suicide rate in these patients was 19 times higher than the general population as these individuals passed through a post-treatment period of relative happiness but then began to experience significant morbidity and regret. 

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/carpay-can-a-14-year-old-girl-decide-on-permanent-infertility-facial-hair-and-a-male-voice/

Edited 16 May 2019 by MC Prussian