Anyone hear Jim Rodgers on BBc Radio Ulster this morning. He was being interviewed and his complaint was about the difficulties being posed for the disabled accessing certain parts of cornmarket and surrounding areas with all the works going on -
BUT then to clinch it he finishes sentence off by saying "its not only a problem for the disabled, but human beings also!"
and the interviewer never even batted an eyelid ! :-\
I heard it and in fairness, the interviewer pointed out to him that disabled people are also human beings, they then quickly cut the interview short to get them off the air.
If ever a politician committed political suicide, Jim Rogers did today. You don't come out with comments such as he did without having it in his head in the first place....to quote:
"It is not just a problem for people in wheelchairs, it is a problem for human beings as well"
he has just dun a glenn hoddle
wooops, think he meant to say all human beings
Jim Rodgers isn't the worst politican, but he's got the brains of a jellyfish!
Still not as bad as Ian Óg!
Oh for the love of God and all that is good......
Hard to believe in this day that a politican (isn't he the Lord Mayor??) could come off with that!
Jesus H Jackson :o
Quote from: thejuice on February 13, 2008, 10:54:57 AM
wooops, think he meant to say all human beings
I would agree with this.
One for Coleman Balls methinks :D
'Hard to believe in this day that a politican (isn't he the Lord Mayor??) could come off with that!'
Dunno, the boul Jim is a 'legend' in these parts
Quote from: Abble on February 13, 2008, 08:31:49 AM
Anyone hear Jim Rodgers on BBc Radio Ulster this morning. He was being interviewed and his complaint was about the difficulties being posed for the disabled accessing certain parts of cornmarket and surrounding areas with all the works going on -
BUT then to clinch it he finishes sentence off by saying "its not only a problem for the disabled, but human beings also!"
and the interviewer never even batted an eyelid ! :-\
The interviewer picked up on it immediately and said "Wheelchair users are human being also"
That Man Rodgers hasnt the brains he was born with and he is the Lord Mayor of a city....
Apparently there was a council meeting a few years ago in Belfast and they were talking about a river festival on the lagan....When talking about buying Gondolas for this the lord mayor at the time ( the guy who met Clinton) not sure of his name asked...." why can we not just buy 2 of them and then breed them"
That was Eric Smyth, Pat ... another legend from the Dome of Delight
Quotewooops, think he meant to say all human beings
Nope, would disagree. I heard what he said and to say something like that has to be in your head somewhere. F**king disgrace....is he the current Lord Mayor?
'F**king disgrace....is he the current Lord Mayor?'
Yep, and it's the second time he's been in the position
Did anyone ring in and complain, the only way to deal with a tool like that is mass public uproar.
Quote from: balladmaker on February 13, 2008, 01:01:14 PM
Quotewooops, think he meant to say all human beings
Nope, would disagree. I heard what he said and to say something like that has to be in your head somewhere. F**king disgrace....is he the current Lord Mayor?
So do you consider that Rodgers doesn't actually believe the disabled to be "human beings"? I suppose it's possible, but in the absence of any other evidence, I'd have to say it's more likely down to inarticulacy than naked prejudice.
QuoteBUT then to clinch it he finishes sentence off by saying "its not only a problem for the disabled, but human beings also!"
f**king hell!
What did he say when the interviewer pulled him on it?
To be honest I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and say he must have misspoke.
Is it available online?
I want to hear it for myself, for I am going to email the UUP about it.
EG, I in no way think he's prejudice towards disabled people. I do however think he's a fool.
Quote from: Red Sky on February 13, 2008, 01:17:38 PM
Did anyone ring in and complain, the only way to deal with a tool like that is mass public uproar.
Mass public uproar? ;D
A numpty has made a numpty of himself. Simple as that. Save your uproar for something worthwhile.
QuoteSave your uproar for something worthwhile.
Like supposedly responsible people voting for him?
Quote from: Billys Boots on February 13, 2008, 01:49:32 PM
QuoteSave your uproar for something worthwhile.
Like supposedly responsible people voting for him?
No supposedly about it. They are definitely responsible ;D
I heard the interview this morning and while it was clumsily expressed it wasn't meant the way it's being interpreted here. In fact, he said the public acess was not only difficult for "wheelchairs", but also human beings. He did not say wheelchair users. If anything, he was pointing out that the acess was so narrow for able bodied people then it must be so much worse for wheelchair users.
And Seamus McKee picking up on the erroneous interpretation was, to me, facetious rather than clarifying. He tried to make Rogers sound like an ass (admittedly, no help needed, but on this occasion I'm with the mayor!).
Quote from: Billys Boots on February 13, 2008, 01:49:32 PM
QuoteSave your uproar for something worthwhile.
Like supposedly responsible people voting for him?
AZ :D
You think there should be mass uproar because people have voted for Jim Rodgers?
Quote from: Chrisowc on February 13, 2008, 01:41:11 PM
Quote from: Red Sky on February 13, 2008, 01:17:38 PM
Did anyone ring in and complain, the only way to deal with a tool like that is mass public uproar.
Mass public uproar? ;D
A numpty has made a numpty of himself. Simple as that. Save your uproar for something worthwhile.
So belittling disabled people is acceptable in your view? You're some craic!!!!
Quote from: Red Sky on February 13, 2008, 01:59:56 PM
Quote from: Chrisowc on February 13, 2008, 01:41:11 PM
Quote from: Red Sky on February 13, 2008, 01:17:38 PM
Did anyone ring in and complain, the only way to deal with a tool like that is mass public uproar.
Mass public uproar? ;D
A numpty has made a numpty of himself. Simple as that. Save your uproar for something worthwhile.
So belittling disabled people is acceptable in your view? You're some craic!!!!
Well, belittling disabled people is unacceptable in my view. But following the post by "Imposerous" (specifically the distinction between "wheelchairs" and "wheelchar users"), I'm more inclined than ever to give Rodgers the benefit of the doubt. I reckon it was an unfortunate tip of the slongue...
I'm sure it had to be a slip of the tongue. How could anyone say, or privately think, that wheelchair users were not human beings. This smacks of 'political' opportunism to take it to any level other than, 'jaysus, what an eejit to say that'.
Quote from: hardstation on February 13, 2008, 02:14:59 PM
Never underestimate the warped mind of that bitter little cnut.
I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge on that one hardstation, I don't know him at all. I find it hard to imagine though.
QuoteI reckon it was an unfortunate tip of the slongue
I'd agree with that - it's a symptom of public office that one needs to fill airspace with noise, I imagine he was trying to say something meaningless and failed (miserably).
QuoteI heard the interview this morning and while it was clumsily expressed it wasn't meant the way it's being interpreted here. In fact, he said the public acess was not only difficult for "wheelchairs", but also human beings. He did not say wheelchair users. If anything, he was pointing out that the acess was so narrow for able bodied people then it must be so much worse for wheelchair users.
He actually said "It is not just a problem for people in wheelchairs, it is a problem for human beings as well". I took a mental note of it trying to understand what he was on about. I was shocked to hear him say it, then when picked up on it by the interviewer, he knew he had messed up big time and started blithering something else at which point the interview was terminated.
Quote from: Red Sky on February 13, 2008, 01:59:56 PM
Quote from: Chrisowc on February 13, 2008, 01:41:11 PM
Quote from: Red Sky on February 13, 2008, 01:17:38 PM
Did anyone ring in and complain, the only way to deal with a tool like that is mass public uproar.
Mass public uproar? ;D
A numpty has made a numpty of himself. Simple as that. Save your uproar for something worthwhile.
So belittling disabled people is acceptable in your view? You're some craic!!!!
No, belittling disabled people is not acceptable. Where did I say that?
I have already said I believe this to be a gaffe with my reference to Coleman Balls in an earlier post.
Good enough for him. Even tho he is director of Glentoran, he couldn't even get enough votes to become a MLA in the heart of the shankill.
A bitter bollox
Quote from: Seany on February 13, 2008, 03:35:55 PM
Good enough for him. Even tho he is director of Glentoran, he couldn't even get enough votes to become a MLA in the heart of the shankill.
A bitter bollox
Rogers stood unsuccessfully for election in East Belfast. The Shankill is on the other side of the city. Had he stood in the Shankill, I daresay he'd have got even fewer votes, since it is staunch Linfield territory. (Linfield and Glentoran are rivals, btw)
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2008, 02:12:28 PM
I'm sure it had to be a slip of the tongue. How could anyone say, or privately think, that wheelchair users were not human beings. This smacks of 'political' opportunism to take it to any level other than, 'jaysus, what an eejit to say that'.
It couldn't be anything more than a slip of the tongue, or is anyone here going to argue that all disabled people are nationalists and republicans?
Quote from: Solomon Kane on February 13, 2008, 04:36:50 PM
is anyone here going to argue that all disabled people are nationalists and republicans?
Jeezs, no-one said that :o
Quote from: ziggysego on February 13, 2008, 04:37:44 PM
Quote from: Solomon Kane on February 13, 2008, 04:36:50 PM
is anyone here going to argue that all disabled people are nationalists and republicans?
Jeezs, no-one said that :o
I'm not arguing that at all, but there is no political gain in what Rodgers said for anyone, least of all himself but AZ Offally rightly pointed out that this was political opportunism for others to jump on him for it. I have no time for the man but I don't see what he came out with as anything other than clumsiness.
To all ye unionist nordies, Offaly is spelt O-f-f-a-l-y. One 'L'.
thank you
;D
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2008, 04:47:57 PM
To all ye unionist nordies, Offaly is spelt O-f-f-a-l-y. One 'L'.
thank you
;D
My apologies :) I'm just a Nordie by the way, but apparently not incapable of a slip of the tongue (sorry keyboard) myself.
Quote from: Solomon Kane on February 13, 2008, 04:46:57 PM
I'm not arguing that at all, but there is no political gain in what Rodgers said for anyone, least of all himself but AZ Offally rightly pointed out that this was political opportunism for others to jump on him for it. I have no time for the man but I don't see what he came out with as anything other than clumsiness.
Getcha.
I wasn't taking political opportunism from this. I just think that a high publicity member of a party in the North should choose his words more carefully.
First he disables someone, and now he thinks we're a sub-species.... dear oh.
No bother Solomon. It's not just unionists, or nordies come to that, who mis-spell Offaly :D
QuoteFirst he disables someone
What did he do ziggy? How do you mean he 'disabled' someone?
Quote from: ziggysego on February 13, 2008, 04:54:52 PM
Quote from: Solomon Kane on February 13, 2008, 04:46:57 PM
I'm not arguing that at all, but there is no political gain in what Rodgers said for anyone, least of all himself but AZ Offally rightly pointed out that this was political opportunism for others to jump on him for it. I have no time for the man but I don't see what he came out with as anything other than clumsiness.
Getcha.
I wasn't taking political opportunism from this. I just think that a high publicity member of a party in the North should choose his words more carefully.
I forgot about that poor woman he leap-frogged. That says it all really about the man. More than a bit clumsy.
First he disables someone, and now he thinks we're a sub-species.... dear oh.
I misspell Ofally requently. I try not to but it just happens.
Or maybe in his speak he "dehumanised" someone ;)
It must be a slip of the tongue, surely!
Or then again quite often slips of the tongue are based on secret beliefs that should never be aired in public.
There wasnt much sympathy for the girl in Big Brother who said "nigger" then claimed it was a slip of the tongue and she wasnt racist.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 13, 2008, 05:05:04 PM
Or maybe in his speak he "dehumanised" someone ;)
It must be a slip of the tongue, surely!
Or then again quite often slips of the tongue are based on secret beliefs that should never be aired in public.
There wasnt much sympathy for the girl in Big Brother who said "nigger" then claimed it was a slip of the tongue and she wasnt racist.
Maybe on a different scale here but there was no sympathy for Glen Hoddle or Ron Atkinson after the things that they said.
The guy is a public figure and "slip of the tongue" for something like this isn't just a small thing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/noscript.shtml?
/radio/aod/ulster_aod.shtml?ulster/gmu_wed
Think this is the link for it here..Was about 8 o clock or so as far as i can remember..
You can judge for yourself then.
Quote from: take_yer_points on February 13, 2008, 05:22:15 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 13, 2008, 05:05:04 PM
Or maybe in his speak he "dehumanised" someone ;)
It must be a slip of the tongue, surely!
Or then again quite often slips of the tongue are based on secret beliefs that should never be aired in public.
There wasnt much sympathy for the girl in Big Brother who said "nigger" then claimed it was a slip of the tongue and she wasnt racist.
Maybe on a different scale here but there was no sympathy for Glen Hoddle or Ron Atkinson after the things that they said.
The guy is a public figure and "slip of the tongue" for something like this isn't just a small thing.
Glen Hoddle is a class apart there. Atkinson's comments were likely just ignorance from a bygone age, but wrong none the less. Hoddle should never have been allowed to work in football again. The man is a disgrace.
Had a listen there and no matter whether it was a slip of the tongue or not.... with this remark Rogers has just confirmed what we all thought...there's more brains in a hairy mary. :-\
You'd think he'd have a bit more sympathy for the disabled since he was practically responsible for crippling one of his own workers during the infamous 'tomato stunt'
Quote from: Solomon Kane on February 13, 2008, 05:51:16 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on February 13, 2008, 05:22:15 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 13, 2008, 05:05:04 PM
Or maybe in his speak he "dehumanised" someone ;)
It must be a slip of the tongue, surely!
Or then again quite often slips of the tongue are based on secret beliefs that should never be aired in public.
There wasnt much sympathy for the girl in Big Brother who said "nigger" then claimed it was a slip of the tongue and she wasnt racist.
Maybe on a different scale here but there was no sympathy for Glen Hoddle or Ron Atkinson after the things that they said.
Glen Hoddle is a class apart there. Atkinson's comments were likely just ignorance from a bygone age, but wrong none the less. Hoddle should never have been allowed to work in football again. The man is a disgrace.
Unless someone has some sort of evidence that Rogers really does believe that disabled are somehow not human beings - and no-one has done so yet - then we must still assume this to have been an unintended slip. Whereas, both Hoddle and Atkinson were entirely aware of what they were saying.
Hoddle was expressing views the implications of which many of us will find repugnant, but it should not be overlooked that those views are essentially no different from those shared by literally hundreds of millions of Hindus, including many in England. And repulsive whilst these are to the rest of us, if others are permitted to hold such views, then why should Hoddle be any different? After all, they have no bearing on his ability or fitness to be a football manager (imo).
As for Atkinson, of course his language was a disgraceful throwback to a discredited age, but at least he expressed genuine regret and contrition, the sincerity of which was attested to by many of the black players he has helped down the years.
Quote from: Solomon Kane on February 13, 2008, 05:51:16 PM
The guy is a public figure and "slip of the tongue" for something like this isn't just a small thing.
A "slip" is just that, whether suffered by a public figure or a private one. I repeat, is there any evidence that Rogers has a lack of sympathy for the disabled? As someone else alluded to, there is no shortage of evidence of a lack of intelligence, which more likely explains his slip, but that is a different matter!
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 13, 2008, 07:14:54 PM
A "slip" is just that, whether suffered by a public figure or a private one. I repeat, is there any evidence that Rogers has a lack of sympathy for the disabled? As someone else alluded to, there is no shortage of evidence of a lack of intelligence, which more likely explains his slip, but that is a different matter!
To summarise:
Prima facie evidence (attributed quotation) to be set aside (as it sounds particularly harsh), and responsibility for providing corrorborating evidence to lie with would-be critics on this board.
I see a politically convenient 'get out' clause in development!
Has Mr Rodgers made any comment on this apparent faux pas as yet?
Quote from: Niall Quinn on February 13, 2008, 07:49:28 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 13, 2008, 07:14:54 PM
A "slip" is just that, whether suffered by a public figure or a private one. I repeat, is there any evidence that Rogers has a lack of sympathy for the disabled? As someone else alluded to, there is no shortage of evidence of a lack of intelligence, which more likely explains his slip, but that is a different matter!
To summarise:
Prima facie evidence (attributed quotation) to be set aside (as it sounds particularly harsh), and responsibility for providing corrorborating evidence to lie with would-be critics on this board.
I see a politically convenient 'get out' clause in development!
Has Mr Rodgers made any comment on this apparent faux pas as yet?
There are two possible explanations for what he said: either a slip of the tongue (innocent), or a view that the disabled are less than human (guilty).
Faced with that choice, I prefer the maxim "Innocent until proven Guilty".
With your 'politically convenient' gibe, I'm guessing you prefer "Innocent, until proven Unionist". ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 13, 2008, 08:08:21 PM
There are two possible explanations for what he said: either a slip of the tongue (innocent), or a view that the disabled are less than human (guilty).
Faced with that choice, I prefer the maxim "Innocent until proven Guilty".
With your 'politically convenient' gibe, I'm guessing you prefer "Innocent, until proven Unionist". ::)
One thing that surprised me is that IF it was a slip of the tongue (I think it was) then why hasnt he come out to clarify this. Otherwise he must know his slilence will be seen as deafening.
*Incidentally EG, not to get off topic, but its been said that you have been given credit for "running" me from the OWC board. Just to clarify you personally had nothing to do with me not sticking around, so dont be feeling bad ;)
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 13, 2008, 08:16:49 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 13, 2008, 08:08:21 PM
There are two possible explanations for what he said: either a slip of the tongue (innocent), or a view that the disabled are less than human (guilty).
Faced with that choice, I prefer the maxim "Innocent until proven Guilty".
With your 'politically convenient' gibe, I'm guessing you prefer "Innocent, until proven Unionist". ::)
One thing that surprised me is that IF it was a slip of the tongue (I think it was) then why hasnt he come out to clarify this. Otherwise he must know his slilence will be seen as deafening.
What, you're having a go at the mute and the deaf, now? ;)
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 13, 2008, 08:16:49 PM
*Incidentally EG, not to get off topic, but its been said that you have been given credit for "running" me from the OWC board. Just to clarify you personally had nothing to do with me not sticking around, so dont be feeling bad ;)
I have never claimed the "credit" for any such thing. So why not come back? I was enjoying our little debate, even if you weren't. Besides, I've still not had any real answer to my questions... ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 13, 2008, 08:23:43 PM
What, you're having a go at the mute and the deaf, now? ;)
Yes, bastards.
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 13, 2008, 08:23:43 PM
I have never claimed the "credit" for any such thing. So why not come back? I was enjoying our little debate, even if you weren't. Besides, I've still not had any real answer to my questions... ;)
I know you never claimed to, but others have claimed you were responsible, I just wanted to put your mind at rest.
Why not come back? Well thats already been answered, a few times.
Not sure what questions you had in mind, but whatever they were, I dont care so for the love of god dont drag them over here ;)
Anyway, back on topic...
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 13, 2008, 08:16:49 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 13, 2008, 08:08:21 PM
There are two possible explanations for what he said: either a slip of the tongue (innocent), or a view that the disabled are less than human (guilty).
Faced with that choice, I prefer the maxim "Innocent until proven Guilty".
With your 'politically convenient' gibe, I'm guessing you prefer "Innocent, until proven Unionist". ::)
One thing that surprised me is that IF it was a slip of the tongue (I think it was) then why hasnt he come out to clarify this. Otherwise he must know his slilence will be seen as deafening.
Perhaps there is no need to clarify anything. I have checked BBC, Belfast Telegraph and Irish News and nowhere can I see this story being covered. There is deafening silence alright. This is a complete non-story.
'Perhaps there is no need to clarify anything. I have checked BBC, Belfast Telegraph and Irish News and nowhere can I see this story being covered. There is deafening silence alright. This is a complete non-story.'
The BBC isn't going to do a story about itself that induces negative publicity and the websites of daily newspapers aren't going to run a story before it appears in their (paid for) titles in the morning ... I'm willing to wager you £100 that the story will appear in tomorrow's Press as surely as day follows night...
Quote from: red hander on February 13, 2008, 09:19:29 PM
'Perhaps there is no need to clarify anything. I have checked BBC, Belfast Telegraph and Irish News and nowhere can I see this story being covered. There is deafening silence alright. This is a complete non-story.'
The BBC isn't going to do a story about itself that induces negative publicity and the websites of daily newspapers aren't going to run a story before it appears in their (paid for) titles in the morning ... I'm willing to wager you £100 that the story will appear in tomorrow's Press as surely as day follows night...
I wouldn't think this was negative publicity for the BBC at all. In fact, if this was a story of any importance then the BBC would be tripping over themselves to report it.
Any newspaper that reports on this other than being an embarrassing slip of the tongue for Rodgers really have little else to worry about.
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 13, 2008, 08:08:21 PM
With your 'politically convenient' gibe, I'm guessing you prefer "Innocent, until proven Unionist". ::)
Where the hell did that come from?
My 'gibe' was simply a comment on the potential of extending your logic to render null and void anything retospectively thought to be bad politics.
Why am I suddenly a bigot?
Quote from: Niall Quinn on February 13, 2008, 09:46:20 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 13, 2008, 08:08:21 PM
With your 'politically convenient' gibe, I'm guessing you prefer "Innocent, until proven Unionist". ::)
Where the hell did that come from?
My 'gibe' was simply a comment on the potential of extending your logic to render null and void anything retospectively thought to be bad politics.
Why am I suddenly a bigot?
Quote
You are suddenly a bigot because you said something about a elected unionist..
Though how he got elected and became Lord Mayor of Belfast twice beggars belief.....
I personally believe that this was a slip of the tongue....The man is virtually illiterate
just out of interest do ye's think if the same slip of the tongue had been made concerning the chinese/polish/any other immigrant community that he would have got away with it so easily i imagine it was an idiotic mistake but surely one that should be followed by an explanation and apology from the man himself? surely its better he clarify things than to leave the public to interpret it?!
Lord (have mercy) Mayor Jimbo Rodgers wouldn't know Cornmarket from his Cornhole.
Quote from: hardstation on February 13, 2008, 02:14:59 PM
Never underestimate the warped mind of that bitter little cnut.
ha ha, let rip with both barrels eh?
Quote from: Fishbat on February 13, 2008, 10:52:51 PM
Lord (have mercy) Mayor Jimbo Rodgers wouldn't know Cornmarket from his Cornhole.
ps - neither do the rest of the population of Belfast, What he and everyone else thinks is Cornmarket is in fact Arthur Square! - the open space at the junction of Anne Street and the other three streets ... Arthur Street ... Cornmarket and the other one... Cornmarket - where Henry Joy McCracken was hung, runs from High Street to Arthur Square ..i.e. where the Farset (which is under High Street) meets the front of Dunnes Stores to .. that cheap shoe shop before Arthur Square.!!!!!!!!!!!
It sounds like a stupid gaffe to me. He should apologise and move on.
At least he didn't do what those cops in Tampa did and toss the quadriplegic guy out of the wheelchair because they thought he was faking to get out of a traffic offense!
I'd say it's just a stupid mistake and not worth making a whole fuss over. That man Rodgers isn't the sharpest tool in the box to begin with so what would you expect from a pig but a grunt?
Quote from: Aristotle Flynn on February 13, 2008, 11:37:16 PM
I'd say it's just a stupid mistake and not worth making a whole fuss over. That man Rodgers isn't the sharpest tool in the box to begin with so what would you expect from a pig but a grunt?
So which is he Flynn? A tool or a pig?
You could end up with a ban for personal abuse.
:D :D
Quote from: hardstation on February 13, 2008, 05:03:37 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 13, 2008, 04:57:34 PM
No bother Solomon. It's not just unionists, or nordies come to that, who mis-spell Offaly :D
QuoteFirst he disables someone
What did he do ziggy? How do you mean he 'disabled' someone?
If things go our way on the 1st of March I'm going to start calling yiz Awfully.
Some of us have been calling them that for years... :P
From this morning's Telegraph. To be fair, totally profuse in his apology, knows he fucked up and seems mortified by it
Lord Mayor sorry for 'slip of tongue' over disabled people
BY LESLEY-ANNE HENRY
LORD Mayor of Belfast Jim Rodgers last night apologised un-
reservedly over an offensive "slip of the tongue".
During a live radio discussion yesterday about the poor con-
dition of pavements in Belfast city centre, Mr Rodgers said the
footpaths were difficult for disabled people to negotiate as well
as "human beings".
However speaking to the Belfast Telegraph last night, Mr Rodgers urged anyone who had
been offended by his remarks to contact him.
He said: "I did correct it at the time and made it quite clear that
the footpaths were problems for disabled people, able bodied peo-
ple and also those with buggies.
It was a genuine slip of the tongue made during an early
morning telephone call — that's all it was.
"There was absolutely no offence intended. As one who is
actively involved with disability groups I would never intentionally offend anyone.
"Politicians and Lord Mayors are under tremendous pressure
and it really was a slip of the tongue. There is no way in the
world I would want to offend anyone regardless of their reli-
gion, class, colour or creed — it's not me.
"I absolutely apologise and anyone who may have been of
fended do not hesitate to contact me."
Throughout yesterday internet contributors were discussing
the controversial comments. Meanwhile, a spokesman for Ra-
dio Ulster said the corporation had received two complaints
about the comments.
A statement issued by the station said: "A guest on the BBC
Radio Ulster's Good Morning Ulster this morning made an ac
cidental comment during an interview.
Interviewer Seamus McKee immediately clarified the
guest's comments on air. We apologise for any offence caused
to our listeners during this interview."
Apology accepted :)
Was I away?
Whatever else one might think of Rogers, he's apologised for this particular incident and it seems sincere. And the BBC, which received precisely two complaints, appears to have further explained it adequately.
I wonder do the following feel a similar need to apologise for jumping to conclusions? ;)
Balladmaker - "You don't come out with comments such as he did without having it in his head in the first place" and "I heard what he said and to say something like that has to be in your head somewhere. F**king disgrace....is he the current Lord Mayor?"
Hard Station - "Never underestimate the warped mind of that bitter little cnut"
Seany - "bitter bollox"
Take Yer Points - "The guy is a public figure and "slip of the tongue" for something like this isn't just a small thing"
QuoteBalladmaker - "You don't come out with comments such as he did without having it in his head in the first place" and "I heard what he said and to say something like that has to be in your head somewhere. F**king disgrace....is he the current Lord Mayor?"
Nope, still stand by my remarks. If it wasn't in his subconscious somewhere, he wouldn't have said it. Disprove what I have said and then I'll apologise for making a remark which I am perfectly entitled to do.
Quote from: balladmaker on February 14, 2008, 03:44:39 PM
QuoteBalladmaker - "You don't come out with comments such as he did without having it in his head in the first place" and "I heard what he said and to say something like that has to be in your head somewhere. F**king disgrace....is he the current Lord Mayor?"
Nope, still stand by my remarks. If it wasn't in his subconscious somewhere, he wouldn't have said it. Disprove what I have said and then I'll apologise for making a remark which I am perfectly entitled to do.
You've never made a dumb, inarticulate statement that didn't reflect your actual views then?
QuoteYou've never made a dumb, inarticulate statement that didn't reflect your actual views then?
No, not to my knowledge. But if I did, my remarks would not have offended a sizeable proportion of the population, plus I am not an elected representative, and there in lies the difference.
Quote from: balladmaker on February 14, 2008, 03:49:53 PM
QuoteYou've never made a dumb, inarticulate statement that didn't reflect your actual views then?
No, not to my knowledge. But if I did, my remarks would not have offended a sizeable proportion of the population, plus I am not an elected representative, and there in lies the difference.
"Not to my knowledge"! Oh the irony ::)
The whole point is that if Rogers had "known" what he was saying, he wouldn't have said it!
And as for
your having occasionally said something unintended, why should it make any such remarks any less "offensive" if only one or two people hear it from you, with none of them victims of the remark, than the exact same remarks by a someone on a Radio show, which will be heard by many more, including a few of the people referred to?
Unless, of course, you feel that getting elected somehow magically confers on someone perfect articulacy and immunity from error? Akaik, the only elected office which confers Infallibility is one which Jim Rogers could hardly be expected to contest! :D
The guy made a mistake. He apologised for it. Further, he offered to explain more fully to anyone who was offended, should they get in touch. What more do you expect?
P.S. That last question was rhetorical.
Lads, stop winding EG up.
isnt jim rogers the guy that presented '123' with dusty bin ?
thought he was dead ?
Quoteisnt jim rogers the guy that presented '123' with dusty bin ?
thought he was dead ?
The mammy subjected us to thon nonsense every Saturday night for years. Bloody Jim Rodgers and his finger trick >:( lads used to do it and would look the real spa, sory I am non-human being, trying to copy him!
Anyway, he made a gaff, it was stupid a was he for doing it. He really should have more wit in him to make such a ridiculous statement but what else would you expect from a unioinst anyway. :D
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on February 14, 2008, 04:39:25 PM
Quoteisnt jim rogers the guy that presented '123' with dusty bin ?
thought he was dead ?
The mammy subjected us to thon nonsense every Saturday night for years. Bloody Jim Rodgers and his finger trick >:( lads used to do it and would look the real spa, sory I am non-human being, trying to copy him!
Anyway, he made a gaff, it was stupid a was he for doing it. He really should have more wit in him to make such a ridiculous statement but what else would you expect from a unioinst anyway. :D
could never do that 3-2-1 finger trick fast enough, so gave it up years ago.
Rogers was a bit of a clownon the telly alright, not surprised he ended up as an elected unionist representative :D
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 14, 2008, 04:43:56 PM
not surprised he ended up as an elected unionist representative :D
He couldn't get elected as an MLA.
Quote from: lynchbhoy on February 14, 2008, 04:30:38 PM
isnt jim rogers the guy that presented '123' with dusty bin ?
thought he was dead ?
That would be Ted, but you already knew that
(http://www.ourextension.com/images/Extensionpics/Week_12/_553949_dustybin150.jpg)
Any one else remember having a Dusty Bin toy you could stick all the wee bits on to?
I just realised that those Mr PotatoHead bastards stole their idea from Dusty Bin!!
Jim Rodgers made a mistake. Get over it. I remember a poster on here (I think it ws Red Sky?) making a similar comment by mistake. He apologied and it was forgoten about. Give the man a break. He isn't that bright.
Sky Blue ;)