The place where everyone hangs out, chats, gossips, and argues
User avatar
By Nicola_Red
#503887
Turicum wrote:
I'm more and more sceptical if Chris or the rest of The Chris Moyles Show says what an absolutely lovely and top person someone is. Dappy, really? Justin Lee Collins, really?


Jimmy Savile *cough* Stuart Hall *another cough* and also Gordon Ramsey, although it's never been made public why he had a superinjunction out, it's pretty well known that he had/has one.
User avatar
By Nicola_Red
#503889
No, that's not what I meant to imply at all. The rule of three is that all three are/were not nice blokes. Do you mean that Savile and Hall also had superinjunctions? I assume Savile can't have, as he was dead when the allegations first surfaced.
User avatar
By chrysostom
#503890
Oh, no I just thought that the overwhelmingly obvious association with the first two was sexual assault of children & that there was an implication of Ramsey in there! Crossed wires.
User avatar
By Nicola_Red
#503891
Ha! Sorry. I was probably not clear enough. Just the three names that came to mind when discussing people the Moyles team had once referred to as lovely, great people etc (other than the two Turicum had already mentioned). The Savile tribute in the sound vault is fascinating listening now.
By Misfit
#503893
As some who is relatively young, I don't remember Saville being the nice guy everyone says he was. I remember him from the newsreels of charity events and the last Top of the Pops, and thats about it but the amount of clips on youtube now, (like the one from Have I Got News For You) where you listen to his jokes and then tie in what he said then with what we know now....I just think...How did no one figure it out before?

One very strange man.
User avatar
By chrysostom
#503896
colinho wrote:Does having a super injunction automatically mean that you are/were not a nice bloke then?


If you talk to the general population that seems to be the consensus.

When you're passionately defending the rights of free speech & a free press in order for you to be able to read about someone having an affair, I think your priorities are slightly skewed.
User avatar
By Topher
#503898
Superinjunctions are bad for all sorts of reasons, but affairs aren't one of them. The fact that people can take them out, regardless of the reason, is very bad though - secrecy in our courts is never good. See also: secret courts.
User avatar
By chrysostom
#503899
To be fair, the only reason which the papers were up in arms & making martyrs from the situation around super injunctions was because they might be stopped from publishing trashy stories which may not be in the public interest. It's not like you just apply for one, pay a fee and get it - it needs to go through a whole process and decided by a judge. The process is essentially a private one, and has associated costs so unfortunately will only viably be utilised by those who can afford it.

Regarding secret courts:

"How did you catch the terrorist?"

"We used surveillance methods which are legal, but undisclosed to the public in order to keep them effective"

"Seems unfair, everyone should know our methods. Publish the details of how you did it"

"Seems after letting everyone know how we catch terrorists, they've found a way to circumnavigate our methods"

Although contentious, there are situations which I think secrecy in courts can often be justified in the interest of national safety. I wouldn't say there's never a reason to contemplate secret trials. There is a lot of anger from newspapers as again, it prevents them an opportunity to report juicy details - but I do acknowledge that there's a much wider view that it undermines the legal process.
User avatar
By G-Sizzle
#503914
Listening to the 21st march episode, and it's quite funny listening to Chris completely slag Justin Lee Collins off considering he became such a friend of the show later on.
#503915
G-Sizzle wrote:Listening to the 21st march episode, and it's quite funny listening to Chris completely slag Justin Lee Collins off considering he became such a friend of the show later on.

21 March was my listen also this morning and I had exactly the same thought!
User avatar
By Yudster
#503940
chrysostom wrote:To be fair, the only reason which the papers were up in arms & making martyrs from the situation around super injunctions was because they might be stopped from publishing trashy stories which may not be in the public interest. It's not like you just apply for one, pay a fee and get it - it needs to go through a whole process and decided by a judge. The process is essentially a private one, and has associated costs so unfortunately will only viably be utilised by those who can afford it.

Regarding secret courts:

"How did you catch the terrorist?"

"We used surveillance methods which are legal, but undisclosed to the public in order to keep them effective"

"Seems unfair, everyone should know our methods. Publish the details of how you did it"

"Seems after letting everyone know how we catch terrorists, they've found a way to circumnavigate our methods"

Although contentious, there are situations which I think secrecy in courts can often be justified in the interest of national safety. I wouldn't say there's never a reason to contemplate secret trials. There is a lot of anger from newspapers as again, it prevents them an opportunity to report juicy details - but I do acknowledge that there's a much wider view that it undermines the legal process.


Read this carefully because it is a rare utterance - I agree with Chrysostom.
User avatar
By Badger Mark
#504032
Listening to the March 6 2006 show. The morning after that year's Oscars and Chris just talked about how they had a chance to get Jon Stewart from The Daily Show as their first interview for the New York shows they did late 2005. And they turned him down because he wasn't famous enough even though he was famous enough to host the Oscars! As a big fan of Stewart and The Daily Show, I find this very funny. Stewart would have been great to have on the show.
User avatar
By Topher
#504052
Not famous enough in this country though - that would perhaps not be the case these days, but I think it would have been back then.
User avatar
By G-Sizzle
#504187
Was just listening to the Halle Berry "racist" show at work this morning, and again Moyles completes rips into Justin Lee Collins. It's amazing how much his opinion changes of him!
User avatar
By doby
#504188
I never realised Doms impression of Jade Goody was the precursor to fake Adele.

Also I had never heard where the Cath clips had come from until the other day. Really enjoying the old shows, one a day isn't enough.
User avatar
By doby
#504198
How? I thought they were released one a day on iTunes?

I know there's ones in the show archive thread (i previously listened from around 2010 to the very last show) but I didn't think they went all the way back to the start like they are now on iTunes.
User avatar
By neilt0
#504207
JayE wrote:What app is that out of interest?

Beyondpod EVO (the current Beta).

Image

It's great for "power users" who listen to a lot of pods and/or old radio shows.
Are you still doing your podcast, Jay?
  • 1
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34

TCMS Unedited Monday November 18th, 2019 htt[…]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPHp_6nUk[…]

Criminal (US based) Latest episode of this is on[…]

Newsbeat packages 2007-present

Hi all, I was wondering if anyone on here had any […]