Just to add to the recent thread with this terrific news (LordHallHall goes taking with him the policy of booking on gender not talent) - a recent Derbyshire Show (actually hosted by Gosling) featured another "Cyprus" woman who claimed to be a rape victim (with the obligatory Derbyshire tears) who revealed the appalling fact that, after passing out, she woke to find a used condom inside her. Instead of immediately contacting police, she threw it away (sob sob). Now blames Scottish Police for not pursuing the rapist (she had no idea who it might have been and chose to destroy the evidence). Talk about DOH! Really, the BBC must NOT broadcast loonies like this. They might just as well be advertising to all potential rapists that killing their victims might be a good way to "get away with it". Extraordinarily irresponsible, like many other Derbyshire programmes. Constantly crossing the "good sense" line. Mind you, without their promotion of Peter Saunders NAPAC they would not have incensed me into tracking down evidence that he's a hypocrite and abuser of vulnerable victims (or, as the VD Show prefers "spokesman for the abused"!).

With her tight little mouth, pointy witches chin and ghastly soft and sympathetic voice, consign her to the bin of No Talent. A terrible host on radio or TV, probably paid far more than male counterparts, abominable broadcaster.

These issues no longer become sensitive when they are given to or thrown around by the media or anyone using it for financial or any other gain such as vengeance, spite or business.
I think where it has been seen and noted will come back on a lot of people. Some have already realised - hence the panic.

I don't think Rupert Murdoch is the only one on the radar when it comes to dirt.

Perhaps her declining looks has something to do with it. She seems to have developed a dew lap. I have the impression that women TV news presenters are expected to be of above average looks and maintain them by keeping slim and using hair dye, whereas the men just have to look groomed and smart and can get away with looking pretty ancient. Maybe they'll bring on a younger woman to do the same kind of programme.

We all get turkey neck after fifty, but although pleasant enough, she wasn't Miss World to begin with!

I mean, if she wasn't hired for her looks in the beginning, it shouldn't matter when she loses them.

Much though I loathe her, it's not just the looks; it's not even her appalling presenter skills or lack of them (she's dreadful on radio too) - the entire show is badly researched, poor tabloid TV, chasing ratings (and failing badly). They think getting press (even mentions in Parliament) and Awards means viewers will tune in. Wrong. It's ghastly and deserves too be replaced by a decent show costing far less, contributing far more.

Well, I'm not available Jo.

This is just it though, looks are used as a tool. Personally, I don't think all female presenters are what I would call attractive.
Suzanne on GMB is a stunner and she has a good personality when Piers isn't trying to turn her into a tabloid presenter.

I used to fancy Hugh Edwards and Nigel Bruce who played Watson. My son said " Mum, you fancy old men. I said, its something about him.

JK, I look at photos of you years ago and I didn't think you were much to look at. However, you are one of those who got better looking as you got older.

I remember I fancied a classmate when I was at primary school. He was ginger, covered in freckles and skinny. He had such a nice accent (not Bristolian) he came from London surrounds. I went out with him for one day ( in school). He wasn't even nice looking but I was besotted with him.
Anyway, I decided to look him up on Facebook (I don'usually do that), I found his profile and bloody hell, he's gorgeous!

I thought it was just me with an irrational dislike of the show, but I had the misfortune to be stuck in a hospital waiting room with VD playing on the TV, and the entire room were complaining and begging for a channel change.

I didn't realise VD required a hospital stay?
Mind you, I've never had it so...

I'm no big fan of this lady - and have rarely listened to/watched her programs.

But - whilst attacking her looks etc. - it's worth remembering her health problems.

These included cancer - during which she continued to work, for the most part.

As far as I can see, this relevant factor wasn't mentioned previously - about this working mother.

Barney wrote:
I'm no big fan of this lady - and have rarely listened to/watched her programs.

But - whilst attacking her looks etc. - it's worth remembering her health problems.

These included cancer - during which she continued to work, for the most part.

As far as I can see, this relevant factor wasn't mentioned previously - about this working mother.




In my opinion anyone who negatively characterises a person based on their height, skin colour, size of nose, shape of chin or any other genetically determined body feature is still living in the 1970’s and by making such comments all they are doing is highlighting their lack of awareness of current sensibilities

Yes sensibilities have changed and yes she did indeed fight cancer. My criticisms of her are based on her appalling lack of talent - as far as TV is concerned, her looks reflect her tightness of mind and pursed approach; she has a team which goes for tabloid stories no matter how true or untrue. I won't go into her behaviour in professional or private life. As a broadcaster she has exemplifies the policy of booking on gender not ability.

Blue Boy wrote:
Barney wrote:
I'm no big fan of this lady - and have rarely listened to/watched her programs.

But - whilst attacking her looks etc. - it's worth remembering her health problems.

These included cancer - during which she continued to work, for the most part.

As far as I can see, this relevant factor wasn't mentioned previously - about this working mother.




In my opinion anyone who negatively characterises a person based on their height, skin colour, size of nose, shape of chin or any other genetically determined body feature is still living in the 1970’s and by making such comments all they are doing is highlighting their lack of awareness of current sensibilities

My comment about her not being Miss World was an observation, not a judgement.

Yes - an observation on the looks and demeanour of a seriously ill professional broadcaster.

Trying to do her difficult job, in talking daily to the nation - whilst receiving chemotherapy.

She was actually rather better doing her health reports at that time than she was before and is again; patronising, phony with that fake, soft, sympathetic voice; quite ghastly.

JK2006 wrote:
With her tight little mouth, pointy witches chin ...................

Attack and harshly judge her ability - Yes acceptable

Use her physical features as part of a negative argument - Not acceptable

Turkey neck? And the rest we have to look forward to.

Bingo wings, corns and piss flaps like spaniels ears.


It's a good job sex toys can't talk!

Grow old disgracefully. It doesn't lead to self disappointment that way.

Barney wrote:
Yes - an observation on the looks and demeanour of a seriously ill professional broadcaster.

Trying to do her difficult job, in talking daily to the nation - whilst receiving chemotherapy.





My observation on her looks was not detrimental. I merely pointed out that because she is average looking like most of us, she must have been hired for talent, not her looks, as was suggested.
I was defending her actually.

As for her cancer treatment, I remember Mr King wishing her well and praising her bravery at the time.

I've been called a witch a few times by men.
Obviously I told them straight.
Don't you ever speak to me like that again. You could make me fall off my Broomstick!

Honey wrote:
if she wasn't hired for her looks in the beginning, it shouldn't matter when she loses them

Agreed

Cancer doesn't though