If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Angus Deayton sacked
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
News just in that Angus Deayton, presenter of Have I Got News for You, has been "asked to step down" from his post of presenter at Have I Got News for You, following more sex and drugs allegations.
I am absolutely disgusted that once again this country's fucking evil tabloids and the desire to dictate how people lead their private lives have succeeded in damaging an individual and make them lose their jobs for no good reason at all.
Deayton is neither a politician nor is he bound by a moral code of conduct. Some might argue that as a man who scorned celebrities and politicians about their cheating and drug taking he is open to such attacks. But Deayton did not protest at the barrage of piss-taking hurled by Ian Hislop and Paul Merton. Sacking him was out of order.
Of course there is the drug taking. But this is something he's done in his private life, and the BBC hasn't had any problem employing hundreds of journalists, not to mention music artists and other celebrities, who have a well documented history of love affairs with party powder and other substances.
No. The real reason for the sacking was the massive pressure applied by the Daily HateMail, the S*n and the Daily Moron. They did not like being ridiculed in the programmed and exposed as the worthless illiterate rags they are, and they have jumped at this opportunity.
Another victory for the forces of evil. Shame on the BBC for bowing to that! :mad:
I am absolutely disgusted that once again this country's fucking evil tabloids and the desire to dictate how people lead their private lives have succeeded in damaging an individual and make them lose their jobs for no good reason at all.
Deayton is neither a politician nor is he bound by a moral code of conduct. Some might argue that as a man who scorned celebrities and politicians about their cheating and drug taking he is open to such attacks. But Deayton did not protest at the barrage of piss-taking hurled by Ian Hislop and Paul Merton. Sacking him was out of order.
Of course there is the drug taking. But this is something he's done in his private life, and the BBC hasn't had any problem employing hundreds of journalists, not to mention music artists and other celebrities, who have a well documented history of love affairs with party powder and other substances.
No. The real reason for the sacking was the massive pressure applied by the Daily HateMail, the S*n and the Daily Moron. They did not like being ridiculed in the programmed and exposed as the worthless illiterate rags they are, and they have jumped at this opportunity.
Another victory for the forces of evil. Shame on the BBC for bowing to that! :mad:
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
I still think the tabloid press is deeply scummy, though.
Are these drugs legal in the UK?
The problem, however, seems to lie in the fact that, as I understand it, fresh allegations have been made. It could be that, having stood behind Deayton once, the heads of the BBC aren't prepared to made to look like mugginses over events that were left undisclosed, or which occured after the original controversy (I don't know which is the case yet, but I'll wager 'tis one or the other).
I gather from Liquid News that Paul Merton will be hosting next Friday's episode. Now, I've been told that Jonathan Ross stepped in as a team captain when Hislop was absent previously, and I remember him being very good on 'Never Mind The Buzzcocks' so I hope he's on again.
Stephen Fry may be Deayton's permanent replacement.
As for the drugs Greenhat, he did at least cocaine, which is illegal in Britain. However the BBC- and the tabloids who were spitting blood about the issue- haven't had any problems in the past employing or interviewing rock & pop singers, celebrities, journalists and others who have taken the drug and even been convicted for it.
At the heart of the matter lies the argument of whether tabloids have a right to publish such rubbish kiss and tell stories or other trivial matter that is of no real consequence to the nation. What is of public interest shouldn't be confused with what interests the public. Deayton took the piss out of the rags no end for these reasons and exposed them as ignorant, illiterate and sometimes racist and homophobic publications, and the all-powerful owners and editors of these 'papers' don't take criticism lightly. They applied untold pressure on the BBC, and it worked.
Don't you have freedom of the press? Are you in favor of limiting that freedom?
Let me see if I get this straight. Some celebrity who works for the BBC had stories written about him engaging in criminal acts. Those stories (or at least some of them) are true. The BBC has chosen to let this criminal go.
And for this you want to limit the freedom of the press?
As I said, if the BBC was to take a zero tolerance policy against drug takers, or criminals as you call them, then the majority of their own frontline staff, pop and rock singers, UK artists, writers and celebrities (not to mention His Royal Highness Prince Harry) would be blacklisted by the corporation.
Give me a cocaine taker like Deayton before these self-appointed guardians of morals any time.
Who chooses? What do you do when someone decides that The Times is a pathetic and useless rag?
Freedom of the Press means you have to put up with the stupid as well as the smart. They have the right to publish, regardless of what you or I think of it.
I don't know what the law is elsewhere. In here there have been moves to extend privacy laws to respect the integrity and privacy of individuals, which surely is a fundamental human right. Unless certain issues or details are of public interest (such as a Member of Parliament cheating on the wife whilst campaigning for moral values) nobody has the 'right' to know who's shagging who, who is cheating on the wife and who is doing a few lines of charlie on their privacy.
Such moves have so far been successfully resisted by those merchants on human misery. I can only hope this will change soon. It is the right of the press to expose someone when it is relevant to the country. But not to pay some tart hundreds of thousands of Pounds so she gives a semi-pornographic account of someone's private exploits that should be nobody's business, for the only purpose of selling more copies.
in my opinion they've just got too much power and they just abuse it really.
Hurrah, jus like me. I 100% agree with Aladdin. Was friggin crap. He's a great host for the show, and really can't see anyone filling his shoes. One of the good things about the the British is we quite good at taking the piss out of ourselves. Look at the show that was recorded just after Angus' revelations in the press. It was one of the best. Yeah, he was cringing a bit, but he gave as good as he got and was one of the best shows ever. That slack whore Christine Hamilton was on BBC news saying he should of been sacked. Yeah, what the fuck does that bitch know? Sticking by that fuckwit, brain dead, wimp she calls a husband. Acting all hollier than thou and 'my husband and I'
Oooo that's better, rant over
You seem to imply this will happen in future. It already did happen, when Murdoch bought it. Now it's just the Sun with big pages.
Ah, so you are the one who makes the choice? Hmmm...can we call you Himmler?
I dislike the media, generally, intensely mainly because I see the effects of their misreporting. But in this situation you have a man who is happy to use the, often personal, foibles of people in the public eye for amusement. That he has become a victim of his personal life being made public, is justice. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
When you denigrate the tabloids you appear to do so out of snobbery. What they did was report fact, an event which Deyton doesn't deny. Isn't that partly their job?
I suppose they were wrong to name John Leslie too? Even though another 20 or so alledged "victims" has subsequently made themselves know.
But hang on, the "assault" happened in his "private" life - so why should they have been reported?
If you are in a public position and you are found to be a twat then you cannot remain there, simple as that.
Well now that you mention it...
They didnt report themselves to the police, they reported themeslves to Max Clifford, a publicist. Like the "woman" who was "raped" by "Christine Hamilton".
Its not been proven about John Leslie, so they shouldnt have reported it. Itis defamation, but he has no way of proving he didnt do it because of the way Ulrika Jonsson has acted. The papers have acted illegally, but he has no comeback against it because he has no way to argue it is defamation unless Jonsson brings a trial. Which she wont.
Would you like it if you were accused of being a rapist, and, as such, were sacked from your job, ruining your career and any future employment prospects? Theres no proof he did anything other than he likes pulling women, but if every womaniser was a rapist half of this website would be in jail.
If theyd have accused him of womanising then it would be different, but they have made groundless allegations of rape. And, in the process, they have jeopardised a future conviction, and also the whole crimjinal justice system for other victimes of date rape.
Hope Jonsson is proud, and I hope you are proud for suppoorting evil scum like her. As with Eriksson, she is making profit out of her personal life, and getting away with it scot-free. Eriksson surivied cos it was a casual shag, but Leslie has been accused of rape, something no man can get over. Its cost Craig Charles, for instance, millions when it stopped him becoming prestenter of The Big Breakfast, the job going instead to Johnny Vaughan. Who, incidentally, has convictions for drug dealing. Doesnt stop him working, does it?
Yes, you can. Johnny Vaughan, for instance, has made a nice career, thanks all the same, despite convictions for drug pushing. Tony Adams was a drink-driver, yet became captain of England.
But, on a more cynical note, watching Deayton squirm every week was greatly entertaining. And, besides which, the BBC are still retaining his services, just not on that programme.
No, he'd be offered the Conservative Party leadership
*hides*
Just a question. John Leslie. Right, this guy dated Catherine Zeta Jones. If you can manage that, why would you *need* to rape anyone, let alone Ulrika.
Yes Ulrika is foul..............
Tony Adams and Johnny Vaughn are both reformed characters though, Deaton has lied to try and get out of it.........
he hasnt.
And I think thats the point, DJP. Zeta Jones has not said anything- could that be because shes rich and famous, so doesnt need the publicity? I mean, one of the so-called victims is a girl who read the weather with her tits out on L!ve TV. Itll be the first time shell ahve had her mug in the papers since she was in The Sport, ffs.
A lot of bosses that I know would fire him just for that...
You say why should he be sacked I say why the hell should the BBC employ him, what use is he.....
Have I got news doesn't need him and the joke would go crap pretty quickly. I really don't find his piss-taking as funny when I know he is as bad, the whole point is to show up the flaws of our politicians...........
as for deayton - what about the point that this show is SATIRE? and hence less successful from that point of view if a member of its team has done something very similar to the kinds of things they would immediately hoot at other public figures for?
'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' indeed - except HIGNFY, whilst very funny, casts the first stone every week. So that argument looks rather less effective.
I don't have a moral problem with deayton at all, and I think he's been brilliantly funny, and I think what the tabloids did was, as always, deeply scummy. But I think the show would simply be less good with deayton on it as a result of these revelations, and less able to do what it does so well. Doesn't it sound rather less convincing when they're laughing at every one else when one of them's been involved in something similar?
If it were any other kind of programme I would agree with you, aladdin - but the fact that it's satire moves it from a moral isssue to, for want of a better word, an aesthetic one.
I think stephen fry would be fucking good, by the way.
I agree... Unfortunately the front-runner for the job is Johnny Vaughan. That makes sense, sack Deayton for taking charlie and put a convicted drug dealer in his place.
Besides, Vaughn's drug days were much longer than 5 years ago, and after 5 years employers can't use minor offences to decide if they should employ you or not.
Deaton was using drugs, visiting prostitutes and having affairs.
Using cocaine is a serious offence, and other artists haven't been sacked because there isn't any evidence of them doing it. You've just stated that many of them do.
I think he should be happy with just losing his job, in my opinion he should be arrested and charged.
a) He's easier to replace than the two team captains, as he only read his lines off the autocue.
b) He 'used every opportunity to rip into the guests each week and make sneery and sarcastic remarks and put downs about them.' (Moderator and keen amateur coprophile from T21)
The Beeb were surely fools to sack (from the show) such a versatile man (unless they're grooming him for the directorship).