Jump to content

Eric Bristow


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

To those suggesting it isn't censorship, i would disagree.

 

The message is quite clear, say something that is contentious and you get the sack, that is intimidation to silence unpalatable views, or censorship, by inference it is being denied the opportunity to voice an opinion for fear of having your livelihood removed.

 

His comments were ridiculous, of that there is no argument, but should an ill informed opinion that has nothing what so ever to do with his professional role as a darts pundit see him sacked?

 

There have been a lot of ill informed and ignorant opinions on this forum, would any of you who have made them feel aggrieved if you got binned from your job?

 

There is an argument that because Bristow enjoys a higher profile role that his comments are more widely heard than those on Pigeon Watch, but it's the underlying principle that most hold true, if you express a strong opinion in public then you must face the potential of being sacked.

 

The size of audience for his comments cannot be a deciding factor in the sanction, it can only be the comment itself.

 

Almost every time anybody with the remotest public profile makes their opinion heard, if that runs counter to what is deemed acceptable, there is a clamour for them to be sacked. Tyson Fury with his ignorant, in my eyes, but largely culturally formed opinions, was castigated relentlessly and the BBC harangued to drop him from SPOTY.

 

There is a pervasive and insidious movement to control of freedom of expressing an opinion unless it fits in with some arbitrarily decided set of rules of acceptability.

 

Arguably Bristow's comments are culturaly formed, it is a product of his social background, his education, the generations from which he comes from, what the pervading opinions were in his formative years, etc

 

Of course he should try to move beyond his level of ignorance, but if that is to be a measure from which to decide censure then 80% of this forum should be sacked immediately too.

 

The largest selling daily tabloid that do express powerful opinion or commentary, the Daily Mail, has been under pressure from those pursuing a liberal agenda to stop writing what they do with the automatic assumption that those liberals are correct in what they deem appropriate. No matter that 7 million readers may hold a similar opinion they are not to be allowed the freedom to express what they think because some deem it offensive.

 

Pressure on Lego, pressure on John Lewis and Waitrose to stop advertising in the Mail, under threat of boycot, because through advertising they fund the publication of a paper that voices something different to the opinion of the self appointed morally righteous. That is sinister behaviour in the extreme.

 

Go and read about Professor Jordan Petersen in the university of Toronto who is facing censure and a clamour for his reaignation because he refuses to use the made up non gender specific term of "ze" when referring to someone who chooses not to be described as either male or female.

 

It is a made up word yet the man who has a top class professional record is being persecuted for having the audacity to challenge what is an overt attempt to control the use of language to pursue an alternate agenda.

 

If you choose to look you will see countless examples in every walk of life, an ever increasing demand for legislation or censorship or censure.

 

All you have to do is look through the first couple of pages in this forums off topic section, the amount of posts of faux outrage at someone saying or doing something, the bizarre instant gratification that brings for some to be able to vent their spleen about things that in all honesty have no impact on their lives whatsoever.

 

The more that this type of behaviour continues then the more we gradually cede of our ability to start to speak openly about things that really matter.

 

How many commenting on this thread have expressed outrage in the way that UKIP or even BREXIT supporters have been categorised, all closet racists, bigots and xenophobes? For expressing an opinion you are castigated in the most powerful language by those who think otherwise.

 

In this case we decide that Bristow's comments were beyond 'acceptable' so he deserves to be sacked, what about when others decide that your comments about immigration or the EU are deemed to be beyond 'acceptable' will you accept the sack?

 

What about those of you that love to have a go at the SNP or Jezza Corbyn, should you get the sack because your comments offend some?

 

Yes Bristow's comments were offensive to some, but to most they are simply ignorant. The danger is that when there is the clamour for the guy to be sacked from those that choose to be indignant then we simply add more leverage to those who do choose to try and control langauge and freedom of expression.

Edited by grrclark
Link to post
Share on other sites

freedom of expression is great. Bristow showed how it is also utter cack. He has not the slightest bit of knowledge about the subject. Its not about shouting down free speech it's about educating dinosaurs. Its nothing to do with Brexit,immigrants, SNP or anything else. Its a ***** making crass comments about child abuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

freedom of expression is great. Bristow showed how it is also utter cack. He has not the slightest bit of knowledge about the subject. Its not about shouting down free speech it's about educating dinosaurs. Its nothing to do with Brexit,immigrants, SNP or anything else. Its a ***** making crass comments about child abuse.

Ansolutely the guy is a knob, but should he be sacked from a job as a darts pundit because of that?

 

It is absolutely everything to do with shouting down free speech, just by another means. Simply in this case it happens to suit your agenda to believe otherwise so you dismiss it as being that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

His comments reflect the opinion of many.

Do you really believe that?

 

Do you really believe that a lot of people think that the victims of sexual abuse (mostly children) should "Just man up"

 

I find that quite a bizarre statement.

 

The reason imo that he should lose his job as a pundit is that you would never know what he would come out with next, maybe on live TV,

 

People who put themselves voluntarily in the public eye as pundits and the like have a responsibility to behave and to keep opinions for which bare no relation to what they are being employed for to themselves,

 

Now I don't know if he has children but if he does and he found out they had been sexually abused do you really think he would have told them to "Man up"?

 

I think not, so it beggars belief that he should treat other people's children differently.

 

Tis a strange and sad world at times

 

:shaun:

Link to post
Share on other sites

my "agenda" is based on me being abused as a child. I'll leave this topic now to those who have a better insight and clearly see his words as a bit of old school truth, freedom to be a fool etc

I've dismissed it for being crass,uneducated drivel

Link to post
Share on other sites

There you have it Flashie.

 

Interesting to think about the line, though. I have a Twitter account, in my own name, and recently some of my work contacts have started following me. Twitter is frequently hilarious, and often genuinely educational, and I vamp around on there in my typically devil-may-care fashion, adding to the sum of bants. I'm not 100% comfy with people from my professional existence crossing over into my personal sphere.

 

Question is, to I expect all my followers to take me as they find me, or do I moderate my comments knowing that there is a wider immediate audience that might not appreciate it?

 

My LinkedIn profile is an extension of my 'professional persona', whereas I view Twitter as a bit more fun.

 

It's a toughie.

 

LS

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's an uneducated and narrow minded man. Simple as. Same happened to Glenn hoddle when he made the comments about believing that disabled people are suffering from karma due to doing bad things in a previous life. He was sacked from his post as England manager but he is working as a tv pundit. I think it's more to do with sky worrying they will lose customers if they didn't sack bristow. Yes, if I was a victim I would take revenge on that person.

Edited by winnie&bezza
Link to post
Share on other sites

@grrclark I really think you have nailed it. PC and the fear of 'offending' people is painting society into a corner, where it may never escape. PC is fast becoming censorship.

 

Also, I tend to find now that society / opinions are very polarised. People now seem incapable of reasoned argument, and of accepting when the other has a fair and valid point. The rise of social media etc gives people a platform to espouse opinions and rather quite viscous attacks on people that would other wise not happen if it were not for the anonymity that the platform affords them. I bet they would not say it to the persons face.

 

Public opinion on such matters is something which in the large part is manufactured.....remember Iraq? So it is hard to tell, without the news agencies embellishing stories what the true meaning to the common man is. I don't think that his ignorance on this given subject directly affects his ability to commentate on darts? Or does it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

grrclark - you have contributed many worthy posts on here and I normally agree with most. However, I cannot subscribe to your view.

 

It isn't PW members who have sacked Bristow. Two rather large companies have decided that they do not want their name associated with his views. I understand and support their view. I respect Bristow's right to say whatever he wants, just as I expect others to afford me the right to form my own opinion.

 

Bristow may be old-fashioned, a product of his era, but he must have known the outcome. I can't really comprehend why others seek to minimise what he has done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He always has been a very outspoken person.yes a little arrogant but he was one of the best in the world in his day.and I am sure his comments will bring in paid interviews and put him back in the headlines for a short while.its all a game you know.

 

 

bostonmick - you may well be right. I would quibble with one bit - he was the best not one of.

At throwing small sticks at a large plate!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To those suggesting it isn't censorship, i would disagree.

 

The message is quite clear, say something that is contentious and you get the sack, that is intimidation to silence unpalatable views, or censorship, by inference it is being denied the opportunity to voice an opinion for fear of having your livelihood removed.

 

His comments were ridiculous, of that there is no argument, but should an ill informed opinion that has nothing what so ever to do with his professional role as a darts pundit see him sacked?

 

There have been a lot of ill informed and ignorant opinions on this forum, would any of you who have made them feel aggrieved if you got binned from your job?

 

There is an argument that because Bristow enjoys a higher profile role that his comments are more widely heard than those on Pigeon Watch, but it's the underlying principle that most hold true, if you express a strong opinion in public then you must face the potential of being sacked.

 

The size of audience for his comments cannot be a deciding factor in the sanction, it can only be the comment itself.

 

Almost every time anybody with the remotest public profile makes their opinion heard, if that runs counter to what is deemed acceptable, there is a clamour for them to be sacked. Tyson Fury with his ignorant, in my eyes, but largely culturally formed opinions, was castigated relentlessly and the BBC harangued to drop him from SPOTY.

 

There is a pervasive and insidious movement to control of freedom of expressing an opinion unless it fits in with some arbitrarily decided set of rules of acceptability.

 

Arguably Bristow's comments are culturaly formed, it is a product of his social background, his education, the generations from which he comes from, what the pervading opinions were in his formative years, etc

 

Of course he should try to move beyond his level of ignorance, but if that is to be a measure from which to decide censure then 80% of this forum should be sacked immediately too.

 

The largest selling daily tabloid that do express powerful opinion or commentary, the Daily Mail, has been under pressure from those pursuing a liberal agenda to stop writing what they do with the automatic assumption that those liberals are correct in what they deem appropriate. No matter that 7 million readers may hold a similar opinion they are not to be allowed the freedom to express what they think because some deem it offensive.

 

Pressure on Lego, pressure on John Lewis and Waitrose to stop advertising in the Mail, under threat of boycot, because through advertising they fund the publication of a paper that voices something different to the opinion of the self appointed morally righteous. That is sinister behaviour in the extreme.

 

Go and read about Professor Jordan Petersen in the university of Toronto who is facing censure and a clamour for his reaignation because he refuses to use the made up non gender specific term of "ze" when referring to someone who chooses not to be described as either male or female.

 

It is a made up word yet the man who has a top class professional record is being persecuted for having the audacity to challenge what is an overt attempt to control the use of language to pursue an alternate agenda.

 

If you choose to look you will see countless examples in every walk of life, an ever increasing demand for legislation or censorship or censure.

 

All you have to do is look through the first couple of pages in this forums off topic section, the amount of posts of faux outrage at someone saying or doing something, the bizarre instant gratification that brings for some to be able to vent their spleen about things that in all honesty have no impact on their lives whatsoever.

 

The more that this type of behaviour continues then the more we gradually cede of our ability to start to speak openly about things that really matter.

 

How many commenting on this thread have expressed outrage in the way that UKIP or even BREXIT supporters have been categorised, all closet racists, bigots and xenophobes? For expressing an opinion you are castigated in the most powerful language by those who think otherwise.

 

In this case we decide that Bristow's comments were beyond 'acceptable' so he deserves to be sacked, what about when others decide that your comments about immigration or the EU are deemed to be beyond 'acceptable' will you accept the sack?

 

What about those of you that love to have a go at the SNP or Jezza Corbyn, should you get the sack because your comments offend some?

 

Yes Bristow's comments were offensive to some, but to most they are simply ignorant. The danger is that when there is the clamour for the guy to be sacked from those that choose to be indignant then we simply add more leverage to those who do choose to try and control langauge and freedom of expression.

We are not in the public eye and our opinions have no effect any further than the thread they appear in on here.

 

Being a public figure and having such opinions is a completely different matter.

 

I have a lot of respect for you comments in the main, but on this occasion I think you are wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll stick to the excellent advice in the shooting sections of this forum, I can't believe what I am reading.

 

People want the freedom to be able to accuse victims of child abuse to Man Up? Are you kidding me?

 

Some of these kids go to their parents and are called liars. Growing up through school listening to playground talk, and being ashamed of what they have endured and believing that even if they did speak again, nobody would believe them.

So they keep it clammed inside for years probably tearing them apart. Children are still going through things that you couldn't bear to think about! It's not some historical thing that people should just get over and man up!

 

Some loudmouth, who I assume some of these kids may look up to tells them that this old footballer that's been through the same thing Should man up!

 

We're not talking about offending muesli munching adults, these are scared children.

 

I agree freedom of speech is being tightened too far and am just about as liberal as they come in everything I do.

But as a father, I think he and anyone that condones or is indeed "thinking the same thing" should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I 100% disagree with what he had to say and agree with PW clan.

 

However.

 

I bet during his life, during and post pro darts, he has made significantly more money, (for himself) and charity than all of us put together, but he will have done a lot of good over many years.

 

He's a numpty, who needs a slap and knows SFA about what he's talking about.

Edited by markm
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...