GB News: a thread so you never have to watch it
- Thread starter 19force8
- Start date
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
The Comrades from GBNews have torn a sheet off of George Galloway's bog roll and are organising a "Celebration of Dysentery" at the Emanuelle Centre in Westminster. They promise: celebrities, probably Lady Colin Campbell, Doctors, and a blessing from the Cosplay Vicar.
It will only set you back £20 which is cheaper than a trip to the London Dungeons
It will only set you back £20 which is cheaper than a trip to the London Dungeons
Lurdan
old wave
prunus
Tick tock.
His stance is that it's the mRNA vaccines that are dangerous. Because he's an ignorant fuckwit and it's new* "ooh sounds like gene editing". The statistics are (I think? I'm a bit out of date) clear that the more "traditional" AZ adenovirus-vectored vaccines have higher levels of the kinds of cardiovascular secondary effects than the mRNA ones. But why let facts get in the way eh? I expect that (because DNA/RNA link and a (very very) little knowledge being a dangerous thing) he'll be going on about how they cause cancers and rewrite your immune system or something similar soon.
* 20+ years in development mind, but that probably doesn't count. See "fuckwit" above.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Naive take here, but I would have thought the AZ vaccine would be considered more “scary” than a vaccine which just contains direct instructions for ribosome translation without any transcription involvement or the imported DNA getting into the cell nucleus.
prunus
Tick tock.
Naive take here, but I would have thought the AZ vaccine would be considered more “scary” than a vaccine which just contains direct instructions for ribosome translation without any transcription involvement or the imported DNA getting into the cell nucleus.
It might be, with a little bit more knowledge that these people don't have. It's partly the name - mRNA sounds genetic-engineeringy - perhaps if they called the AZ one a "cellular nucleus hijack vaccine" it could have gained more traction with the loons.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
A fair bit to unpack here.
www.theguardian.com
Translation - it's not going very well, we're in the shit and need to get out of it.
Only now, after 18 months, are they introducing training.
And, if you employ loons, they are bound to 'blunder into image-tarnishing controversies.'
I didn't realise they had 17 complaints upheld so far, come on OFCOM, time to revoke their broadcasting licence.
‘Proud to be a disruptor’: GB News faces growing pains as it tries to clean up image
Right-leaning TV channel to cut costs, hire new talent and enforce ‘discipline’ as it aims for growth
Translation - it's not going very well, we're in the shit and need to get out of it.
Only now, after 18 months, are they introducing training.
And, if you employ loons, they are bound to 'blunder into image-tarnishing controversies.' I didn't realise they had 17 complaints upheld so far, come on OFCOM, time to revoke their broadcasting licence.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
Is he an actual priest?
I’m not sure about the rules re: that sort of thing but I’m sure there are churches in America who will ordain anyone for a few bob.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
he's joined one of your CofE sects as the mainline strand of the denomination wouldn't have him.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
The CoE wouldn't have him, so he joined the 'Free Church of England', looks like they have 17 churches in England.
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
One of those weird new offshoots that insists you believe in God or something, I guess.
spitfire
Walty McWaltface
Heretics.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
He's not a priest yet. He's still a deacon which is the next rank down. He was Trained in the C of E, but they decided not to ordain him. However, the "Free Church of England" which split from the main lot in the 19th Century had fewer qualms took him into their fold.
moochedit
Mr Mooched It
Is that just his version of events though?
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
It is, but probably not far from the truth. His media profile probably did for him. Here's a Church Times article on the issue
Calvin Robinson: I was blocked from ordination
Bishop of London suggests his views were immaterial
www.churchtimes.co.uk
Richard Kirker is an example, from the late 1970s of someone who made it to being a deacon but wasn't priested, in his case because of his gay rights campaigning
Richard Kirker - LGBT Archive
8ball
Maximum Facepalm
It doesn't look like it (he mentions being "conservative" and a "traditionalist" being factors - obv that could cover a multitude of things - it reads to me like journalists' interpretation).
The CoE itself seems quite tight-lipped on the matter.
I haven't looked at loads of stuff on it tbf - just a few links.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
I've gone down slightly more of a rabbit-hole than I should've.
It looks like:
1) Before the stage of offering him a job, the bishops become aware that he is an attention-seeking loon active on Twitter and likely to be a liability (I guess they probably do social media screening). There isn't evidence that this makes them want to block his ordination, although you can see why it might do. But they're not supposed to block him for political views, which might make it tricky to act.
2) He has helped them out though, by making it clear he will only accept jobs in London diocese and at GAFCON member churches. GAFCON being a conservative, evangelical, secessionist church organisation. I haven't been able to find out how many CofE churches in London fit this bill, but it seems like there are not many GAFCON chuches in the UK and they are mostly independent of the CofE. The church he ends up being considered for is Anglo-Catholic and not a GAFCON member, but is opposed to women being ordained (something CR is also opposed to). So, it seems likely that he redistricted himself to a choice of zero churches, but is being considered for the closest thing they can find.
3) So, the bishops don't actually need to block him, they just need him to be found unsuitable for this particular parish.
4) His position of denying that any sort of systemic racism exists seems to be a particular sticking-point, and it's perhaps not hard to make the case that it makes him unsuited to a central London parish with a mixed-ethnicity congregation. So, reading between the lines, maybe that's what they did. Although, maybe that's an inevitable thing to conclude regardless of whether the were also concerned about his Twitter account.
It looks like:
1) Before the stage of offering him a job, the bishops become aware that he is an attention-seeking loon active on Twitter and likely to be a liability (I guess they probably do social media screening). There isn't evidence that this makes them want to block his ordination, although you can see why it might do. But they're not supposed to block him for political views, which might make it tricky to act.
2) He has helped them out though, by making it clear he will only accept jobs in London diocese and at GAFCON member churches. GAFCON being a conservative, evangelical, secessionist church organisation. I haven't been able to find out how many CofE churches in London fit this bill, but it seems like there are not many GAFCON chuches in the UK and they are mostly independent of the CofE. The church he ends up being considered for is Anglo-Catholic and not a GAFCON member, but is opposed to women being ordained (something CR is also opposed to). So, it seems likely that he redistricted himself to a choice of zero churches, but is being considered for the closest thing they can find.
3) So, the bishops don't actually need to block him, they just need him to be found unsuitable for this particular parish.
4) His position of denying that any sort of systemic racism exists seems to be a particular sticking-point, and it's perhaps not hard to make the case that it makes him unsuited to a central London parish with a mixed-ethnicity congregation. So, reading between the lines, maybe that's what they did. Although, maybe that's an inevitable thing to conclude regardless of whether the were also concerned about his Twitter account.
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
I refer the Rt Hon Gentleman to this from 2021 (trigger warning: contains copious Lozzery)...
There's also this post from 10 years ago, which you posted directly underneath
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
In an effort to clean up their act, GB News put a particularly nasty Steyn through the wringer:
www.theguardian.com
GB News presenter quits after channel tries to make him pay Ofcom fines
Mark Steyn could face sanction by media regulator after he cast doubt on safety of Covid vaccines
Similar threads
