Video: https://twitter.com/GBNewsSpin/status/1706998621567066463
Non-Twitter link: https://nitter.salastil.com/GBNewsSpin/status/1706998621567066463
Archive: https://archive.ph/5sFGt
I know the link is to a fierce critic of GB News but it's the only account I can see that posted the full context, most only played a clip. Any footage has been memory holed from YouTube.
For context, a journalist for JOE appeared on the BBC to mock and ridicule an MP who asked for a Minister for Men to balance out the existing appointment of a Minister for Women. On Dan Wootton Tonight, Laurence Fox blasted the journalist by decrying her as a modern day feminist that no-one unless they were a "cucked little incel" would sleep with. He states further that no self-respecting man would engage in a date with her and asks "who'd wanna shag that?".
Ofcom are now investigating the channel and the Metropolitan Police have been contacted regarding Fox's comments and whether they would be in breach of section 127 of the Communications Act - speech that causes "gross offence", the same law that got Count Dankula a fine of £800 for his pug prank on his girlfriend at the time. If the Police do investigate and press charges, Ofcom will likely revoke their broadcast licence there and then. They have a zero tolerance attitude to law breaking on the air.
Both Fox and Wootton are now suspended and the channel is in damage limitation mode fearing for its survival. Those going against GB News and have sensed blood will not stop with them if they succeed in their goals, they will go for Talk TV next.
The UK is officially a fascist state. GB News is making a big mistake by surrendering like this. Let the fascist state come after you and show all the world exactly what it is.
Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has gone on record on Sky News to tell companies to keep men who "talk about women in that way" out of the public light or else.
We also know the SNP intends to bring in an anti-misogyny law that the UK will likely follow in lock-step. And we also have the forthcoming Online Safety Bill likely to start being enforced next month. And of course, the precedence of both section 127 the Communications Act 2003 for Fox's repetition of what he said on-air off-air - the same law got Count Dankula fined £800 for his pug prank and harassment and stalking law that sunk Alex Belfield and earned him five and a half years in prison.
He's probably basing that on his own experience after, rightfully, calling a woman a "bigoted" while near enough to a microphone. He was of course tarred and feathered for this despite being correct.
There was nothing "rightful" about it.
She pointed out that migrants are able to claim benefits when they've just arrived in the country yet haven't contributed anything towards it, meanwhile many native Britons who have worked and paid tax and contributed to their country all their lives are unable to claim those same benefits. What is "bigoted" about that?
Here's the full transcript of the conversation, for those who are interested: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bigotgate-gordon-brown-anniversary-gillian-duffy-transcript-full-read-1957274.html
Any time Gordon Brown rears his head, the only answer should be "how many people did you kill in Iraq again?"
I listened to the whole thing and I'm struggling to hear where Fox is wrong. I think most men if they hear the words patriarchy, feminism or oppression on a date would walk away.
I didn't listen to the interview, but based on the report above, he was wrong for personally attacking her based on her sexual attractiveness. Whatever he said might be true, but it is completely pointless. The main problem with the feminist isn't that she is annoying and unattractive. The problem is she is sexist against men, like all feminists. That's what he should have focused on. Not whether or not any man wanted to date or shag her. Who cares? It's the same attitude as the "incel" insult, where someone's sexual attractiveness to the opposite sex is being used as an indicator of their value - that always leads to gynocentrism and is a losing game for anyone opposed to feminists.
The UK is ahead of most western countries in that the institutions are crumbling and they are lashing out even more desperately in their death throes to cling onto power.
The key to surviving if you are targeted is don't apologise, don't give any ground and remain resolute. You do that and you can outlast them as they don't have the strength left for a long protracted fight. If they even went full scorched and shut down GB News the audience there won't go back to BBC or mainstream so it's just a losing fight so long as you remain firm.
Giving Laurence Fox credit, he is not apologising and he is standing firm in what he has said. What is happening here is that individuals and an news organisation are being cancelled because of a statement he made about a woman that has caused gross offence and could potentially land Fox in big trouble.
If they succeed, we're in dangerous territory where we will have unequal treatment of men and women in terms of consequences of criticising someone of the other sex (and having it classed as an illegal, grossly offensive and sexist act one way but not the other).
Apologize and you will apologize forever
what he said was EXACTLY what she had said in the past :
https://x.com/charliesansom/status/1706951170147729430
Methinks Laurance is actually trying to generate attention prior to the election by being a bit edgy. A few months ago, he burned an 2SIATLBG+ flag but without eliciting a police response, which I don't think was his intention.
Also, in case anyone is confused, literally nothing was said here that actually wouldn't have been said by a Feminist to Laurance's face. They'd giddily call him a sexless incel to his face, on any BBC morning program, and nobody would have said shit.
Fox's comments were retarded but OFCOM is a fucking bag of wretched shitcunts that routinely ignore the law and broadcasting regulations the same as Canada and their shtiheads.
Here is that stupid fuckign law they're citing and is used all the time against the public but it says at the bottom it doesn't apply to broadcasters.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.
(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).
We can hope it doesn't apply to what he said on TV but bear in mind it was also published online and he has repeated what he said off-air on a public online forum via X.
It hasn't stopped the SNP leader using it for a political agenda.