Alan Jones still scheduled for 2CC in Canberra

johnboy 2 October 2012 92

A quick squiz at the 2CC presenters list still shows the vile Alan Jones due to broadcast to Canberra at 11am.

The Brisbane Times has a long list of sponsors who have withdrawn their support having belatedly realised what they were associating themselves with. BT also mentions that three regional stations have stopped running the Alan Jones show.

I’ve emailed Capital Radio’s Peter Davidson for comment and will let you know when we get something.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
92 Responses to Alan Jones still scheduled for 2CC in Canberra
Filter
Order
« Previous 1 3 4 5
Bosworth Bosworth 12:15 pm 11 Oct 12

johnboy, any update?

    Jazz Jazz 12:21 pm 11 Oct 12

    He’s in Bali til next week. I dont have anything to add at this stage.

NoImRight NoImRight 11:06 am 11 Oct 12

LSWCHP said :

Mr Gillespie said :

54-11 said :

JB, have you heard from Capital Radio’s Peter Davidson yet? It would be interesting to know if he thinks if it is still appropriate to broadcast this hate-monger to a Canberra audience.

Who are you to decide what the whole audience wants to hear? In your opinion he is a hate-monger, but in my opinion he is a justice crusader, a hero.

But that is only MY opinion.

It’s up to the listener, not the leftard, to dictate what the listener wants to hear on the radio.

Alan Jones is a justice crusader? A hero? Surely this is a gee-up.

So youve never seen him in his cape and leotard then?

LSWCHP LSWCHP 5:59 pm 04 Oct 12

Mr Gillespie said :

54-11 said :

JB, have you heard from Capital Radio’s Peter Davidson yet? It would be interesting to know if he thinks if it is still appropriate to broadcast this hate-monger to a Canberra audience.

Who are you to decide what the whole audience wants to hear? In your opinion he is a hate-monger, but in my opinion he is a justice crusader, a hero.

But that is only MY opinion.

It’s up to the listener, not the leftard, to dictate what the listener wants to hear on the radio.

Alan Jones is a justice crusader? A hero? Surely this is a gee-up.

Mr Gillespie Mr Gillespie 5:21 pm 04 Oct 12

54-11 said :

JB, have you heard from Capital Radio’s Peter Davidson yet? It would be interesting to know if he thinks if it is still appropriate to broadcast this hate-monger to a Canberra audience.

Who are you to decide what the whole audience wants to hear? In your opinion he is a hate-monger, but in my opinion he is a justice crusader, a hero.

But that is only MY opinion.

It’s up to the listener, not the leftard, to dictate what the listener wants to hear on the radio.

Gungahlin Al Gungahlin Al 5:07 pm 04 Oct 12

johnboy said :

Still no reply

No real surprise. They just have to wait until the inevitable short attention spans of the media get distracted, and then business as usual.

54-11 54-11 3:30 pm 04 Oct 12

JB, have you heard from Capital Radio’s Peter Davidson yet? It would be interesting to know if he thinks if it is still appropriate to broadcast this hate-monger to a Canberra audience.

EvanJames EvanJames 2:28 pm 04 Oct 12

stillflying said :

Thumper said :

With free speech comes responsibility.

This.

I hate to disagree because I think this man has said something completely distasteful, but what you’re saying is inaccurate. I would never personally use free speech to bully and harass like he has but free speech is free speech. You can’t say to someone “You have freedom of speech but only if you say positive things and avoid X and Y”, that’s not freedom of speech. It is your opinion that you should not use free speech to say such things, but it’s an opinion.

Freedom of speech (which we do not have) means that Jones can say something vile and low, and then the rest of us are allowed to say what we think about it. The US view is that you can be an asshole, and say asshole things, and then your listeners can say “you’re an asshole for saying that”. That’s pretty much how it works over there.

We haven’t really had that. It’s interesting to watch people rise up and take back their voice. For so long Alan Jones and Co have said “we’re speaking out for Youuuuuu!” and now people are riled enough to stand up and say “no you are not”.

And Jones and his friends term this “mob rule”. No mate, it’s actually the real voice of the people. The voice you’ve usurped for so long.

poetix poetix 1:42 pm 04 Oct 12

poetix said :

#79. Trying to figure out what looks worse: huge unrelieved slabs of text, or where the comments sometimes go long and thin like electronic tapeworms.

white
long
thin
tape
wor
ms
un
ro
ll
in
g

Definitely the slabs of text.

Of course, the white is the background, not the text. Substitute black for white? Same number of letters? But white reads better. Problems…

But perhaps this is getting a little far from the topic.

NoImRight NoImRight 1:29 pm 04 Oct 12

poetix said :

#79. Trying to figure out what looks worse: huge unrelieved slabs of text, or where the comments sometimes go long and thin like electronic tapeworms.

white
long
thin
tape
wor
ms
un
ro
ll
in
g

Definitely the slabs of text.

Sorry not a fan of the tapeworm. In this case though neither option wins.

poetix poetix 1:09 pm 04 Oct 12

#79. Trying to figure out what looks worse: huge unrelieved slabs of text, or where the comments sometimes go long and thin like electronic tapeworms.

white
long
thin
tape
wor
ms
un
ro
ll
in
g

Definitely the slabs of text.

Thumper Thumper 12:24 pm 04 Oct 12

Whoops.

Stuffed up the italics, however, as much as Jones is a bitter and twisted old man with mysoginist tendencies and an almost pathological hatred of Gillard, you can quite adequately see my point.

Oh, and a little humour goes a long way.

Thumper Thumper 12:16 pm 04 Oct 12

Boring comment.

Why is it that when someone here writes something that supports any party it is automatically assumed that they are either an MP, work for that arty or a die hard supporter? It

It shows that you have poor conversation/ debate skills and just fall back on childish name calling.

Next time try try to come up with something a little more constructive then dismissing what people say as “they are just a stooge of X and actually add value to the conversation.

Do you realise how many posts Mr Anon posted on this specific subject?

And not only were there lots of posts but they were rather lengthy as well.

Shall I copy and paste them all?

Actually, here we go.

And yes Wow.

Trad and Anon said

It seems to me that people are being a little unkind to poor old Alan, cancer veteran, aspiring war hero and defender of all that is good and righteous. The man is clearly mentally ill. After the ACT elestion, we should invite him down (we could even have a whip around for the bus fare, because he is of pensioner age) and then he can availe himself of the new mental health services we will all have. just in time for the tsunami of mental illness that will follow Abbott’s election.
But I digress. What has Poor Al got? Well, it could be antisocial personality disorder:
a condition characterized by repetitive behavioral patterns that are contrary to usual moral and ethical standards and cause a person to experience continuous conflict with society. Symptoms include aggression, callousness, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, hostility, a low frustration level, marked emotional immaturity, and poor judgment. A person who has this disorder overlooks the rights of others, is incapable of loyalty to others or to social values, is unable to experience guilt or to learn from past behaviors, is impervious to punishment, and tends to rationalize his or her behavior or to blame it on others. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sociopathic+personality+disorder
Or he could be, to use the more common expression, a psychopath:
Glibness and Superficial Charm
Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”
Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Incapacity for Love
Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

But if all that was too long, there is this list you can print and keep in your pocket:
Other Related Qualities:
Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Authoritarian
Secretive
Paranoid
Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
Conventional appearance
Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim’s affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Incapable of real human attachment to another
Unable to feel remorse or guilt
Extreme narcissism and grandiose
May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
Any similarity that Abbott, Howard, Abetz have to a person described here is, i am sure, purely coincidental and the product of genetics.

Jonathan Marshall, the journalist who recorded and published Alan Jones’ comment, said people demonstrated their lack of disappproval by not walking out of the dinner.
Marshall himself remained in his seat. On that basis, by the same logic, he himself did not disapprove of Alan Jones’ comments.
Actually, that does not follow. The reporter as there to report; not to participate. Many people have watched – and reported executions – and been opponents of the death penalty.
But the reporter has a fairly interesting CV, if you google him.

Where was the commentariat when Marieke Hardy called Peter Dutton a rapist?
Probably having a lie down after Barnaby Joyce likened the PM to Pol Pot, Kim Il Jung, Stalin and Hitler. Heffernan and that deranged poodle Pyne used similar epithets as did that thug Hockey. I do not like either party. I am disgusted at the politics of invective that we now have in this country – rather than actually focusing on policies and why they may be well advised or ill. I also do not like the feebly, specious justifications that this way of talking is defensible because it is what people do in the country. I come from the country and I never heared such awaful things said about public figures. I am sure it happens, but suggesting that a portion of the population talk in a particular way is no defence

This Alan Jones thing is the biggest storm in a teacup I have seen in quite awhile. All he did was mutter what he really, really thinks, in language too raw for anyone with an IQ above room temperature, about our precious lady prime minister, off the cuff and off the record, illegally recorded by a vulture journalist misrepresenting himself undercover, who snuck into the function under false pretences.
If you ask me, Julie Bishop isn’t too far wrong when she says the haters are pushing their own agenda, especially with this “wrecking the joint” pile of crap bringing “sexism” into the equation, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the death of “Ms” Gillard’s father.
1. Sometmes, in civilised society one should refrain from saying what one really thinks. In any case, unless Jones was in the room when Gillard’s dad popped his clogs, he has no way of knowing why he died from.
2. “Julie Bishop isn’t too far wrong when she says the haters…”. That is true. She is one of the haters that has said some vile things. But we should not forget, to used Bill Heffernan’s standard, that Bishop is herself “barren” not married to the bloke she is shacked up with and he is 15 years older. People in glass houses…..
3. The recording of Jones’ speech was not illegally done; it was not a public function – tickets were generally available; and there was no presumption of confidentiality. The Lib students’ presidents twet the next day that Jones gave an awesome speech suggess that. But in any case – that is irrelevant. Jone’s comments were simply cruel and odious. and those type of comments, from a public figure about another are simply cruel and odious and suggestive of Jones’ having a fixation on the PM.
4. And yes, there is sexism here. Jones’ loathes th PM, not only because she is Lobor but because he is woman. I think jones’ suffers from vagina envy.
5. I do not think it is a storm in a tea cup but a distraction from the real issue. ALP has no real policies; and the coalition is no better; only it is driven by a bunch of doctrinaire, ideologically motivated, power crazed sociopaths. Great choice, Australia.

Quote:
1. the actual comment may not have been sexist, but it fits into an ongoing tirade Jones has directed at the PM that has contained sexist elements and I think we are justified in concluding that, given this pattern of behaviour – it is not an isolated incident – sexist sentimeent infuses Jones’ comment.
2. Bishop may have said that – but it is a matter of dispute where she “rightly said” it. You have merely assumed to be true what she said and not analysed it. And in any case, she would say that, wouldn’t she?
3. The ongoing, pathological invective of Jones, Abbott, Heffernan, Joyce, Pyne, Bishop rather than policy, is an issue. Democracies function on policy debate and what the opposition is doing is not policy debate. They are duding the country.
4. Let’s talk about lies. Bob Menzies lied to the country in 1951 about the inflation rate; McMahon was a pathological liar as as Black Jack McKewen, Fraser lied when he said he would not get rid of Medibank; he did. Howard lied. Constantly. Tampa, Children overboard; invasion of Iraq. Then there is Campbell Newman. Pots and kettles. If the issue is lying, thyen the Coalition has much more ot fear.
5. Yes, she may have lied (presuming she intended to bring in the tax when she said she woud not, but we do not know whether she did that – or whether circumstances changed necessitating a change in policy. We simply do not know. In any case, have we looked at what Abbott said – and what he would have done. I think we will find a few furphies there – if not lies.
6. Jone’s comments are not defensible in terms of what his purported larger narrative may have been. the comments are cruel and nasty. Just like the man. Too mnay people are trying to defend the indefensible. If Jone’s believe the PM lied then he should say it like that and give his evidence; he should not bring in her late father.

Thumper Thumper 12:11 pm 04 Oct 12

Baldy said :

Thumper said :

Trad_and_Anon said :

Quote: <>
1. the actual comment may not have been sexist, but it fits into an ongoing tirade Jones has directed at the PM that has contained sexist elements and I think we are justified in concluding that, given this pattern of behaviour – it is not an isolated incident – sexist sentimeent infuses Jones’ comment.
2. Bishop may have said that – but it is a matter of dispute where she “rightly said” it. You have merely assumed to be true what she said and not analysed it. And in any case, she would say that, wouldn’t she?
3. The ongoing, pathological invective of Jones, Abbott, Heffernan, Joyce, Pyne, Bishop rather than policy, is an issue. Democracies function on policy debate and what the opposition is doing is not policy debate. They are duding the country.
4. Let’s talk about lies. Bob Menzies lied to the country in 1951 about the inflation rate; McMahon was a pathological liar as as Black Jack McKewen, Fraser lied when he said he would not get rid of Medibank; he did. Howard lied. Constantly. Tampa, Children overboard; invasion of Iraq. Then there is Campbell Newman. Pots and kettles. If the issue is lying, thyen the Coalition has much more ot fear.
5. Yes, she may have lied (presuming she intended to bring in the tax when she said she woud not, but we do not know whether she did that – or whether circumstances changed necessitating a change in policy. We simply do not know. In any case, have we looked at what Abbott said – and what he would have done. I think we will find a few furphies there – if not lies.
6. Jone’s comments are not defensible in terms of what his purported larger narrative may have been. the comments are cruel and nasty. Just like the man. Too mnay people are trying to defend the indefensible. If Jone’s believe the PM lied then he should say it like that and give his evidence; he should not bring in her late father.

Wow!

So which current serving federal minister are you?

Boring comment.

Why is it that when someone here writes something that supports any party it is automatically assumed that they are either an MP, work for that arty or a die hard supporter? It

It shows that you have poor conversation/ debate skills and just fall back on childish name calling.

Next time try try to come up with something a little more constructive then dismissing what people say as “they are just a stooge of X and actually add value to the conversation.

Do you realise how many posts Mr Anon posted on this specific subject?

And not only were there lots of posts but they were rather lengthy as well.

Shall I copy and paste them all?

beejay76 beejay76 11:15 am 04 Oct 12

HenryBG said :

God I can’t wait for all the stupid old people under-educated in the 1950s to die so arseholes like Jones can fade into obscurity.

Good to see you’re in such fine fettle this morning, Henry, and really getting your hate on. Greens….old people….. have you seen the Philip Pocock thread? There are some excellent hating opportunities over there.

HenryBG HenryBG 11:06 am 04 Oct 12

Joy_H said :

A Jones is an old fool, the problem is there are probably a few hundred thousand fools that listen to him every day and hand on every word, so I don’t think 2GB would give him the arse just yet.

150,000. Peak.

Think about it – politicians bend over backwards to humour him, agree to go on his idiotic show, and all because of 100,000 cranky pensioners who might be listening.

God I can’t wait for all the stupid old people under-educated in the 1950s to die so arseholes like Jones can fade into obscurity.

stillflying stillflying 9:35 am 04 Oct 12

Thumper said :

With free speech comes responsibility.

This.

I hate to disagree because I think this man has said something completely distasteful, but what you’re saying is inaccurate. I would never personally use free speech to bully and harass like he has but free speech is free speech. You can’t say to someone “You have freedom of speech but only if you say positive things and avoid X and Y”, that’s not freedom of speech. It is your opinion that you should not use free speech to say such things, but it’s an opinion.

Obviously you cannot make actual death-threats but free speech is that, unless you’re threatning to do something illegal you should be allowed to say what you like. Is it unethical to use a platform you’ve obtained to make hateful comments? Yes. Not unlawful.

Baldy Baldy 8:51 am 04 Oct 12

Thumper said :

Trad_and_Anon said :

Quote: <>
1. the actual comment may not have been sexist, but it fits into an ongoing tirade Jones has directed at the PM that has contained sexist elements and I think we are justified in concluding that, given this pattern of behaviour – it is not an isolated incident – sexist sentimeent infuses Jones’ comment.
2. Bishop may have said that – but it is a matter of dispute where she “rightly said” it. You have merely assumed to be true what she said and not analysed it. And in any case, she would say that, wouldn’t she?
3. The ongoing, pathological invective of Jones, Abbott, Heffernan, Joyce, Pyne, Bishop rather than policy, is an issue. Democracies function on policy debate and what the opposition is doing is not policy debate. They are duding the country.
4. Let’s talk about lies. Bob Menzies lied to the country in 1951 about the inflation rate; McMahon was a pathological liar as as Black Jack McKewen, Fraser lied when he said he would not get rid of Medibank; he did. Howard lied. Constantly. Tampa, Children overboard; invasion of Iraq. Then there is Campbell Newman. Pots and kettles. If the issue is lying, thyen the Coalition has much more ot fear.
5. Yes, she may have lied (presuming she intended to bring in the tax when she said she woud not, but we do not know whether she did that – or whether circumstances changed necessitating a change in policy. We simply do not know. In any case, have we looked at what Abbott said – and what he would have done. I think we will find a few furphies there – if not lies.
6. Jone’s comments are not defensible in terms of what his purported larger narrative may have been. the comments are cruel and nasty. Just like the man. Too mnay people are trying to defend the indefensible. If Jone’s believe the PM lied then he should say it like that and give his evidence; he should not bring in her late father.

Wow!

So which current serving federal minister are you?

Boring comment.

Why is it that when someone here writes something that supports any party it is automatically assumed that they are either an MP, work for that arty or a die hard supporter? It

It shows that you have poor conversation/ debate skills and just fall back on childish name calling.

Next time try try to come up with something a little more constructive then dismissing what people say as “they are just a stooge of X and actually add value to the conversation.

JC JC 7:30 am 04 Oct 12

Mr Gillespie said :

There was nothing in the comments about Gillard’s father that had anything to do with “sexism”. It was about her being a liar in the leadup to the last federal election. What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

Gillard didn’t lie, it is the likes of you and Jones that are the liars. Evidence, well people seem to conveniently leave off the last part of her No carbon tax under a government I lead quote, the full wording is:

“There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but lets be absolutely clear. I am determined to price carbon”

Notice the last line.

Also on the day before the election she said:

“I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism,” she said of the next parliament. “I rule out a carbon tax.”

cleo cleo 1:14 am 04 Oct 12

I must admit women have had it tough for a long long time, doing the same work as a man, and only being paid a lower wage, so unfair, it’s about time things are changing, I was so relieved when we got a female Prime Minister

Trad_and_Anon Trad_and_Anon 5:59 pm 03 Oct 12

R. Slicker said :

R. Slicker said :

p1 said :

Pork Hunt said :

The charges were dismissed.

I suspect that the charges of “outraging public decency” in a “public lavatory in London’s West End” stem from a time when the police had nothing better to do then harass men who like to anonymously meet other men for some short term lovin’. The fact that he pleaded not guilty – forcing the police to either provide evidence of an actual crime of shut up – is quite likely the only public action he has taken in his life I respect him for.

During the 1960s, ’70s and into the 1980s police used to send younger, sexually appealing officers into public toilets who would then lead men on by masturbating and when someone responded that person would be arrested.

I know, I was charged in 1978 when a member of the police rugby team led me on at the old Telopea Park beat. Thankfully the charges were dismissed after the magistrate concluded that the incident was manufactured by the police and that the officer acted as an agent provocateur.

I forgot to mention that the police officers sent into beats to act as agent provocateurs were plainclothed officers. If uniformed officers turned up you knew they were there to either scare or bash anybody there.

The “incident” in the UK is actually on Jones’ wikipedia entry. It is repoted to have occured in December 1988
I recall all the reporting about the incident at the time and later met a person who claimed he knew about it ( a copper who had been in London at the time).
Jones had just arrived in London and more or less made a b-line to these particular public toilets that men would attend, who were in need or urgent…errr… relief, with the assistance of a male friend.
There was no dispute Jones was in that establishment. There was no dispute he attempted to engage in a certain type of act – according to the press at the time. The dispute was whether he initiated it or as entrapped. He later denied he had don anything at all. In any case, folks in Australia intervened. Jones pled not guitly and the police refused to bring evidence and the charges were dismissed. I can’t recall if he was acquitted or just that the charges were dismissed or no billed. So, in the eyes of the law he is totally innocent.
One could not have a speech writer for a then former PM and the coach of a football eam that wond the Blediisoe for hte first time in years, on such a charge. In anycsae, it has provided much fodder for sniggering ever since – and a ongoing series of smutty jokes.

« Previous 1 3 4 5

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site