Originally Posted by
the_idiotb_stardson
Holmes quotes in response to his guest stating her opinion that 5G phone masts are not involved:
"I totally agree with everything you are saying but what I don't accept is mainstream media immediately slapping that down as not true when they don't know it's not true.
"No-one should attack or damage or do anything like that, but it's very easy to say it is not true because it suits the state narrative. That's all I would say, as someone with an inquiring mind."
What he is implying here is that the Government (state) has a narrative and that the story 5G masts may in some way be involved with Covid may be being dismissed as it does not suit the Government narrative. He is also (interestingly for those like us interested in conspiracy theories) implying that the mainstream media is playing the role of "slapping down" these stories - I presume he is saying that they are doing this on behalf of the Government (state).
Great to hear that Holmes has an inquiring mind. I applaud anyone who has an inquiring, critical mind and reading up more on how the state and media act to suppress inconvenient information. I think we both know that Governments across the world do this routinely. But evidence is often hard to find, hence our suspicions taking on the unfortunate label of 'conspiracy theories'.
My issue with what you posted is not to do with Holmes being correct or incorrect, but whether he should be promoting his own conspiracy theory arising from his inquiring mind, on a morning TV show. And if he has the right to express this conspiracy theory, then I would also like him to take up some of my own on other issues whilst he's about it.
However, in the real world, I understand tthat ITV bosses of TVAM or whatever its called these days may not want their TV show to broadcast state questioning conspiracy theories. As it was Ofqual received 419 complaints by the next day and have to launch an investigation, which as you can imagine might piss his bosses off!
So what you see as outrageous censorship I see as TV show managers wanting to protect the image of the show and keep it's mainstream viewers happy. However, if the Government itself acted to penalise the show, then I would be behind you all the way. I'm sure you will share my concerns at the implied threats from the current Government towards BBC and Channel 4? Now you're talking!
This reminds me of your (and others on here) indignation of Facebook banning extremist pages, seemingly saying that a private company should be forced against its will to host views with which its leaders and large parts of it's punters find offensive. And forcing a board game manufacturer to keep producing an un-pc board game, even though it's owner, having received numerous complaints about the game in question, exorcised his right not to continue producing that game in order to protect his brand. Commercial response to public opinion, by adjusting what it produces or broadcasts, is a completely different thing to state censorship and shouldn't be confused.
Interesting that someone on here mentioned that two Talksport presenters were criticising the Government on allowing flights into the country without testing. Great that the programme producers here allow this free speech to be broadcast, fair play to them. But that doesn't mean that every programme should allow their presenters to say whatever enters their inquiring mind, and as a fellow conspiracy theorist, I respect the right of that programme's producers to restrict the content and not piss their viewers off. There are many other outlets for such theories, from Infowars to Navara Media.
Hall Of Fame
Posting Permissions
