# Kyle Sandilands at it again



## sam76 (29 July 2009)

This time he tries to brush off the rape of a 12 year old girl.

listen here

http://media.news.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/main/index.html?id=1285

Time to go Kyle. 

One can only put his foot in his mouth so many times IMHO


----------



## Prospector (29 July 2009)

*Not Kylie's fault at all*

It was the girl's MOTHER who asked the question, knowing she had been raped.  Kyle was probably shocked at the girl's response and the situation and just said something (admittedly stupid) to cover the space.  I dont see this as his problem at all.

It is the girl's so called MOTHER who should be investigated by DOCS.  What kind of mother would ask her 14 year old, on air, in front of a lie detector, 'have you had sex" KNOWING she had been raped.  I am so angry that a mother could do that!


----------



## Ashsaege (29 July 2009)

I've never liked Kyle!

must watch video below, kyle gets owned by Jay from Frenzal!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EJkJi_yHHE


----------



## investorpaul (29 July 2009)

sam76 said:


> This time he tries to brush off the rape of a 12 year old girl.
> 
> listen here
> 
> ...




I listened to it live this morning and to be honest the mother has to shoulder the blame.

In the lead up to the lie detector test they asked the mum what her concerns where about her daughter. She listed drugs, sex and staying out late and say the lie detector test as a way to learn the "truth".

When the test started the first question was have you ever wagged school, the girl answered no but it came up as a lie. The analyst asked if she had chucked a sickie she said yes and he explained thats why it thought she was lieing. (this obviously highlights that the use of vague words/scenario can alter the results).

The next question the mum asked was, have you ever had sex. There was a breif pause before the girl answered, mum you know i was raped when i was 12 (or something along those lines).

Immediately the segment was stopped and both kyle and Jackie O made it clear to the mum that she should have known better to ask such a question/ put her child in that position. I imagine she would have got a blasting off air as well. 

In addition Kyle and Jackie O both offered mum and daughter professional counseling at no cost.

To be honest I am not a fan of kyle and jackie O (i just happened to be near a radio at the time). I think it is sick how they prey on vulnerable people especially with their segment where they give sick and needy people gifts as long as no one calls in. But in this situation the Mum has to shoulder alot of the blame and both Kyle and Jackie O handled the situation well given what occured.

Just my


----------



## sam76 (29 July 2009)

I agree with those that said the blame rests mostly with the mother.

However, Kyle is a supposed professional and should have shut down the interview immediately (like Jackie did)

He is trained in this sort of thing and should have the experience as well

But to blurt out what he said is inexcusable.


----------



## Happy (29 July 2009)

I avoid them like plaque, no wander I missed it.


----------



## Mr J (29 July 2009)

Sounded like the mum had doubt about the rape. Might have been some twisted way to confirm her doubt, and any others she had about her daughter?


----------



## cuttlefish (29 July 2009)

The mother is stupid, but since when could anyone in their right mind think subjecting a fourteen year old girl to this sort of humiliation could ever have been a good idea? 

Kyle, Jackie O and whole production team need their heads read for even considering allowing a girl this age to be subjected to a lie detector live on air.

Kyle comes across as having zero compassion in this interview but thats no surprise the bloke is a first class tool.


----------



## Prospector (29 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> Sounded like the mum had doubt about the rape. Might have been some twisted way to confirm her doubt, and any others she had about her daughter?




But what kind of moronic parent would do that on radio!  If she thought that was an ok thing to do, I can only wonder what else is going on in that family!

I dont listen to that segment, and only know of Kyle from Idol.


----------



## cuttlefish (29 July 2009)

sam76 said:


> However, Kyle is a supposed professional and should have shut down the interview immediately (like Jackie did)
> 
> He is trained in this sort of thing and should have the experience as well
> 
> But to blurt out what he said is inexcusable.




Yep I agree - that he decided to just take it in his stride and continue on with the questioning is just bizarre. To continue questioning a fourteen year old girl about her sex life live on air while subjecting her to a lie detector just after she's announced she was raped at 12 is just unbelievable.

Jackie O did handle it better but I'd still contend they strayed into off-limits territory well before the subject of rape came up.


----------



## Mr J (29 July 2009)

Prospector said:


> But what kind of moronic parent would do that on radio!




You answered the question yourself. 



> should have shut down the interview immediately (like Jackie did)




She didn't really. She started what should have been a private conversation. It did cross my mind that it may not have been real, but probably only because they handled it so casually.


----------



## Prospector (29 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> You answered the question yourself.



. 

Ah, yes, I did, didn't I



Mr J said:


> She didn't really. She started what should have been a private conversation. It did cross my mind that it may not have been real, but probably only because of the casual way they handled it.




Dont they have the 15 second dump button with talk-back?  In which case, it should never have gone to air.  Maybe the producers thought it a good idea?


----------



## moXJO (29 July 2009)

Exploiting a 14yo for ratings is a new low unless it was all scripted. How was this viewed as a good idea, unless Kyle has some of teenage voyeur fetish?


----------



## Mr J (29 July 2009)

moXJO said:


> Exploiting a 14yo for ratings is a new low unless it was all scripted. How was this viewed as a good idea, *unless Kyle has some of teenage voyeur fetish?*




Unless? I don't see how Kyle liking underage girls makes it a good idea :.



> Exploiting a 14yo for ratings is a new low unless it was all scripted




It's low either way.


----------



## cuttlefish (29 July 2009)

I think this woman has summed it up pretty well:

_Karen Willis, manager at the NSW Rape Crisis Centre, said the segment was "appalling on a number of levels".

"First, an adult person asking a child about their sexual experiences is not on, and to do that in a public arena is quite frankly harassment of a child," she said.

"Then when [the girl's] answer came, to glibly ask whether she'd had any other experiences, rather than getting her off air as soon as possible … it's abuse of a child really."_


(full article here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/enetertainment/articles/2009/07/29/1248546762075.html)


----------



## beerwm (29 July 2009)

sounds fishy,

she changed schools, wagging classes, doing drugs, sneaking out at night, being escorting home by police
-cant even accept responsibility for wagging class.
[and this is all the mother knows about]

i wouldnt trust what this girl says either

[but putting her on the radio is just stupid]


----------



## gooner (29 July 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> I think this woman has summed it up pretty well:
> 
> _Karen Willis, manager at the NSW Rape Crisis Centre, said the segment was "appalling on a number of levels".
> 
> ...




Exactly, the whole idea was a paedophile's dream from the start - adults asking about children's sexual experience for entertainment is not on.


----------



## Prospector (29 July 2009)

gooner said:


> Exactly, the whole idea was a paedophile's dream from the start - adults asking about children's sexual experience for entertainment is not on.




I hadnt thought of that but yes, adult strangers asking about a child's sex life is sick.  But I still think it would never have happened without the mother.


----------



## MrBurns (29 July 2009)

What sort of stupid mole mother brings her 14 year old daughter into a radio station and asks her that question ON AIR and Kyle whatever his name is, "is that the only experience you've had with that" he is a ****ing idiot employed by a ****ing idiot radio station and they should be shut down and all those concerned tied to posts and beaten to death.

The co host woman handled it very well, but you dont bring a child to a radio station to quiz her on her sex life. dickheads


----------



## cuttlefish (29 July 2009)

Prospector said:


> I hadnt thought of that but yes, adult strangers asking about a child's sex life is sick.  But I still think it would never have happened without the mother.




Even while acknowledging that the mother is an idiot, the show had a responsibility at the very least to check what sort of questions she was going to ask.  Its pretty clear given Kyle's questioning of the mother just before they started that it was likely she would ask questions about sex - this from the outset is completely innappropriate regardless of what answers came.   (in fact what possible answer, when she asked if she'd had sex before, apart from 'no', would not lead to an entirely inappropriate conversation? )

Also, the girl when asked prior to the 'test/stunt' clearly stated that she thought it was unfair and that she was scared.  What kind of reprehensible human beings publicly subject 14 year old girls to scary, fearful situations against their will for entertainment purposes!?!  It was Kyle and Jackie O and the rest of the idiots that put this program together that instigated the situation. 

Personally I think the show or the people present in the room should be charged with something - I mean they collectively put a 14 year old girl in a situation against her will and subjected her to abusive treatment and humiliation.

Its disgusting, but completely consistent with what I'd expect from a piece of slime like Kyle.


----------



## Prospector (29 July 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Also, the girl when asked prior to the 'test/stunt' clearly stated that she thought it was unfair and that she was scared.  What kind of reprehensible human beings publicly subject 14 year old girls to scary, fearful situations against their will for entertainment purposes!?!




Then how the hell did this happen then!  That is child abuse, nothing less.


----------



## MrBurns (29 July 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Its disgusting, but completely consistent with what I'd expect from a piece of slime like Kyle.




He needs to be tied to a post , shot, burnt and beaten then rushed to hostital so they can save him, bring him back to health and then taken out and have it done all over again.

This should be repeated for 10 or 20 years with no time off for good behaviour.


----------



## cuttlefish (29 July 2009)

MrBurns said:


> He needs to be tied to a post , shot, burnt and beaten then rushed to hospital so they can save him, bring him back to health and then taken out and have it done all over again.
> 
> This should be repeated for 10 or 20 years with no time off for good behaviour.





yep sounds about right to me!


----------



## Pager (29 July 2009)

It only encourages them when you tune in and listen to there dribble, bet the station are loving all the attention, will get a few more advertising $ in. 

Nice dinner for the shows producers and presenters and a slap on the back all around 

What about the girl though ?, well the shows hosts and producers don't really give a f@ck i would bet.


----------



## Tink (29 July 2009)

*Re: Not Kylie's fault at all*



Prospector said:


> It was the girl's MOTHER who asked the question, knowing she had been raped.  Kyle was probably shocked at the girl's response and the situation and just said something (admittedly stupid) to cover the space.  I dont see this as his problem at all.
> 
> It is the girl's so called MOTHER who should be investigated by DOCS.  What kind of mother would ask her 14 year old, on air, in front of a lie detector, 'have you had sex" KNOWING she had been raped.  I am so angry that a mother could do that!




I agree Prospector

Only the mother knew what the kid had been through yet put her through this 

Unbelievable !!


----------



## Ghetto23 (29 July 2009)

He'll get off lightly because he's a known f-wit.

Imagine the uproar if it was the Chaser guys that did this?


----------



## MrBurns (29 July 2009)

Yes and what's even more disgusting than the act itself is that they will get away with it because *this society does not protect children.*

From letting pedophiles off, useless child protection services to this 

A pretty crappy society we live in isn't it despite all the advantages we have.


----------



## Aussiest (29 July 2009)

I actually thought Kyle was quite professional and that Jackie (cos she didn't know what to do), kept the experience going on for a bit long. They should not have talked about counselling on air.


----------



## Tink (29 July 2009)

Aussiest said:


> They should not have talked about counselling on air.




I think it was good they talked about counselling - we got to hear the mother say they havent had any, and she knew about it..

Why hasnt she done anything about it in 2 years?

Why would you go on a show and ask this of your child?

Go to a counsellor for Gods sake if you got problems at home..

Some people are unreal..

I think I have only heard that show a couple of times, but it must have made a great impression, as I cant remember it..


----------



## adds (29 July 2009)

I saw this at the top of news.com.au in the featured section and purposely choose not to click on it as news.com.au track the articles to see what is most popular and brings in the readers. I am always conscience when selecting which news articles to read as I hate seeing d**khead/losers promoted.


----------



## sam76 (29 July 2009)

Kyle's Reply....

There have only been a few occasions in my whole career that I’ve been sideswiped by something. When faced with a situation like what happened today, when a girl revealed live on air that she had been raped when she was 12, you react like anyone else. I was horrified. 

We have had the lie detector thing on regularly for about six years. It’s a semi-regular segment on the show. We check with the mother before hand, and go through the questions they want asked. 

I’m in New Zealand this week and all I have is a microphone, a computer screen, and a camera that relays back to Jackie and the producers in the studio. 

The mum hadn’t said anything about the rape. She was concerned that her daughter was on drugs or was sexually active. Like a lot of mothers worried about their kid, she just wanted to find out what was going on. 

She put her on and at the second question the girl said she had been raped when she was 12. 

We were stunned.

To tell you the truth I was floundering around, signalling to the producers and Jackie – down the camera – indicating that we had to get it off air. 

*I didn’t realise I had said “Have you had any other experiences?”*

At the same time I was speaking I was signalling to Jackie that we had to terminate the segment. I went into a slight panic as how to get the thing off the air and I was more focused on making that happen than on what I said. 

The only good part to take out of this is that the family has now got some help. I’ve spoken to the mother this afternoon – and they are going to get some counselling. We have done everything that we can possibly do to help them. But the truth is that the mother’s more concerned that it has turned into a bigger media story. 

I’m sorry for her that it turned out like that. I’ve certainly pissed off a lot of journos over the years but I’m sad that they’re using the rape of a 12-year-old girl to have a go at me.

There’s terrible things that happen in society. Rape is always terrible, but it’s more unpleasant to not deal with it. This girl hasn’t been able to do that. My main concern has been the mother and the daughter. I believe that the police and DOCS have been involved, so at least something’s being done about it now. 

I know a few people that have been raped. My first experience of it was when I was a teenager – I knew a girl who had been raped by a family member. 

I just spoke to the mother this afternoon, and she’s very fraught about the whole situation. I said to her if she needed anything, not to hesitate to contact me. 

We muck around a lot on the radio but off the air there’s lots of different things we do with people. Contrary to popular belief, Jackie and I care a lot about people. 

As far an apology goes, the only person I feel sorry for is the girl. That what should have been dealt with as her private situation ended up being one of the biggest news stories of the day. 

As for what I said, it wasn’t intended to hurt. If people have found it appalling or offensive I’m sorry for them that feel that way, but I would ask people to put themselves into the situation where someone says to you during a live radio show that they have been raped. 



http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/kyle-sandilands-girls-rape-revelation-stunned-me/


----------



## sam76 (29 July 2009)

A fantastic summary of Kyle's reasoning

Alison says:

That’s it???  After everything that has gone down today?

This is how the above piece can be summarised:

1. It’s not my fault

2.  I’ve been doing this for years, so there.

3.  I wasn’t there anyway.

4.  I’m not very good at my job either.

5. I’m really a top bloke - I got them counselling.

6.  Some of my best friends have been raped, so I know what I’m talking about.

7. I’m sorry we made your life worse.

8.  I don’t care about the rest of you.  And I’m not really apologising anyway.


----------



## jono1887 (29 July 2009)

MrBurns said:


> He needs to be tied to a post , shot, burnt and beaten then rushed to hostital so they can save him, bring him back to health and then taken out and have it done all over again.
> 
> This should be repeated for 10 or 20 years with no time off for good behaviour.




are we really gonna stoop that low?


----------



## moXJO (29 July 2009)

sam76 said:


> Kyle's Reply....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




None of it excuses putting a 14 yo on radio to find out if she is sexually active or not. What idiot (I'm guessing Kyle) would think putting a teenager on a lie detector would benefit either mother or daughter. This was a case of Dirty Old Man syndrome gone to far.

I will say this about Kyle and Jackie O (and not in any way to defend their current actions) 
They once helped an acquaintance of mine (and his wife) that had cancer. They went right out of their way to help. I'm sure they have helped others a bit as well and it’s easily forgotten. 
Not trying to defend them (as I think it was disgusting). But I would think they would pull their heads in a bit after this. 

If the media whips itself into a frenzy, then I'm sure they may just hang them out to dry.


----------



## MrBurns (29 July 2009)

jono1887 said:


> are we really gonna stoop that low?




I think to scrape crap off the sidewalk you need to scrape a little below it , ok ?


----------



## Timmy (29 July 2009)

Given the business they are in, I wonder what the effect on ratings will be?


----------



## Aussiest (29 July 2009)

Tink said:


> Why would you go on a show and ask this of your child?




Because some people believe that "rape" isn't sex.

Anyhow, i agree with you. It was done in poor taste on behalf of the mother, not uncommon in rape situations. Why do they do this? It's almost as if they turn a blind eye to it. Sick imo.


----------



## Aussiest (29 July 2009)

jono1887 said:


> are we really gonna stoop that low?




Really, peodophiles are to be pitied, but who's got time for pity? The reason half of them do it is because subconsciously they know they will get away with it. Hold a knife to a kid's throat, threaten them with their life, threaten the lives of those they love. That's how they work. Don't worry, the poor kid won't tell for years for fear of their life. And, then when the adult finally tells, "it's too late" in the rapists eyes, who's gonna believe them all those years later?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (30 July 2009)

Give the guy a break! It is quite clear they didn't know about it and his response is more "I have no experience with this what should I say"


----------



## jono1887 (30 July 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I think to scrape crap off the sidewalk you need to scrape a little below it , ok ?




It wasn't even his fault... shouldn't the producers have filtered the mum on what questions were going to be asked before they even went on air.


----------



## Mr J (30 July 2009)

MrBurns said:


> The co host woman handled it very well, but you dont bring a child to a radio station to quiz her on her sex life. dickheads




I don't think she did. She kept the conversation public rather than going to a commericial or letting Kyle move on. Of course if it was real, easier said than done especially when, as a radio host, she'll have the habit of talking through awkward situations.



> Given the business they are in, I wonder what the effect on ratings will be?




Doesn't the Kyle guy do these kind of things all the time? If so, I doubt it will have much of a negative effect.

I forgot what 14 year olds sound like (it's been a while, and I can't remember the last time I talked to someone that age). Think she is 14?

Something else to consider is that none of us are experienced radio hosts, and we don't really know how we'd react if we were. Radio hosts naturally talk their way through trouble, and it's quite possible Kyle was a bit stunned, and did a bit of the "the show must go on".


----------



## queenslander55 (30 July 2009)

I wonder if Pink has heard about it yet?  It would be interesting to hear her reaction.


----------



## Tink (30 July 2009)

moXJO said:


> None of it excuses putting a 14 yo on radio to find out if she is sexually active or not. What idiot (I'm guessing Kyle) would think putting a teenager on a lie detector would benefit either mother or daughter. This was a case of Dirty Old Man syndrome gone to far.
> 
> .




well supposedly the mother had approached the radio station as she thinks her daughter is running off the rails 
-- what a good place to get your answers 

From what I gather the show is suppose to help people work out problems, but I agree, who would say yes to a 14yo and sexual active as a topic, no matter what the parent asks..

Probably the only good thing in all this is now the police and DOCS are involved and they will get to the bottom of it all..


----------



## waz (30 July 2009)

The rest of the media outlets are just as bad for making this their number one storey. (In the mean time another 5 girls were raped in our country yet we didn't hear anything about that). We only hear about the scandal storey of the day.

I think Kyle is an absolute prick. Although in this situation I feel sorry for him as he didn't create the situation. He was put on the spot,* we have all said things we later regret*. You see it everyday in our own forum posts.

The media thrives on controversy/scandals, if they (television/newspapers) really cared about the girl they would stop discussing it and move on.

A couple of years ago the words scandal and controversy were hardly every used. These days its used in every 2nd news storey.


Edit: Just did a quick word count on the word 'controvery' on smh, found it 5 times on the one page.
Yup, the media industry is struggling.


----------



## Prospector (30 July 2009)

moXJO said:


> None of it excuses putting a 14 yo on radio to find out if she is sexually active or not. .




Yep, that sums it up.  If that was the mother's intent then she is not a mother.  If that was the Station's intent then its licence should be reviewed.  If that was Sandilands intent then he should be suspended.

We know that 14 year olds (and younger) have sex, but it is still illegal and technically sexual abuse depending on the age and relationship of the other party.  And to have that confirmed on radio surely breaches all the standards and codes we have put in place.  The child is not of a legal age to consent to being on the radio station for that purpose so by virtue that passes to the mother. I trust (ha!) that DOCS are investigating child abuse by the *mother*.

And why didnt they use the DUMP button - that would have terminated the discussion well before the listener ever heard any of it!


----------



## cuttlefish (30 July 2009)

jono1887 said:


> It wasn't even his fault... shouldn't the producers have filtered the mum on what questions were going to be asked before they even went on air.




Kyle knew she was going to ask about drugs and sex because he discussed it on air with the mother before the questioning began.  He also knew that the girl thought it was unfair and she was scared because the girl said so on air before the questioning began.   He was quite happy to proceed with the segment even though he knew it involved asking a scared 14 year old girl that didn't want to be there questions about her sex life on a public radio segment.  

When the girl said she didn't wag school but the lie detector showed a 'fail' they proceeded to question her in more detail - maybe she skipped a class? maybe she had a sickie? etc.

So if the girl, when asked if she'd had sex, had replied 'no' and the lie detector had come up showing a 'fail' would they have then asked her more detailed questions - maybe you kissed a boy? maybe you ...? etc. you can see where this is going.

Its completely ridiculous that anyone could defend this.  I'm astounded that not only the presenters but the producers who are supposedly experienced professionals could not foresee this - they are either totally incompetent or it was a deliberate stunt - either way they should be punished for it - the segment was never going to work and never going to be anything but distasteful and controversial and a traumatic experience for the child - no matter what answer she gave to the 'have you had sex?' question.


----------



## sam76 (30 July 2009)

That's right.

Even if you take away Kyle's comment and (mis)handling of the situation the question still remain


"Why were they quizzing a 14 year old girl about her sex life on air"


----------



## awg (30 July 2009)

publicity stunt 100% for sure

check the coverage they are getting

the producers and presenters would have been completely aware of the impropriety well beforehand, how could they not have been.

they would have argued about this one going ahead I would say.

Calculated...thats why they call them " shock jocks"

remember how Derryn Hinch used to carry on...the "human headline" i believe he was called

have never listened to them, but I have the impression that Kyle seems to be modelling Derryn


----------



## Agentm (30 July 2009)

Not the first time Kyle's been caught

http://www.theage.com.au/news/enter...les-been-caught/2009/07/30/1248546805031.html


Yesterday’s controversial radio segment was not the first time Kyle Sandilands broadcast a family’s painful sexual history.

While Sandilands said he and co-host Jackie O were "stunned" yesterday when a 14-year-old revealed on-air that she had been raped, the pair were reportedly embroiled in similar controversy in 2001, when they worked for B105 FM in Brisbane.

Sandilands had arranged an on-air confrontation between a schoolgirl, Natasha, and her mother, Angela, who said she had sex with her daughter’s boyfriend, News Ltd said.

On that occasion co-host Jackie O expressed concerns about the segment, labelling it "tacky", but Sandilands dismissed her concerns and the segment was broadcast.

During the exchange, Sandilands asked the mother: "Have you slept with your daughter’s boyfriend?"

She replied: "Yes, but there was alc ... we were drunk, it was, you know, it was ..."

While crying, her daughter Natasha said: "Yeah, that makes it all okay, doesn’t it?".

Later in the segment, after Natasha said she did not wish to speak with her mother again, Jackie O said: "I think we should leave them and not broadcast this ..."

Sandilands replied: "You’ve got to be kidding me."

Sandilands later told News Ltd he had overruled Jackie O "because I have more experience".

The radio station reportedly received hundreds of complaints about the segment.


----------



## MrBurns (30 July 2009)

Sandilands is a worm, you can see it in his eyes.


----------



## trainspotter (30 July 2009)

If this wasn't so serious it would be funny. Girl cries rape on National LIVE radio broadcast. Apprently MUMMY knew all about it. Afterall, it was MUMMY who was asking the questions and not KYLE. Pfffffffffffttttttt !!! Give me a break. Children Services now involved, family to be scrutinised, Police investigating rape claims. FAR CANAL ! Common muck raking exercises that LIFT ratings. And it has. Great media coverage across this big brown land of ours. 

Let's not forget she is a MINOR. Oh dear ... someone is going to taste the lash on this one. I hope she has not cried RAPE (wolf) whatever and all this is for nought. The term "shock jock" is there for a reason. Lest we forget.


----------



## awg (30 July 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Sandilands is a worm, you can see it in his eyes.




I dont think it is implausible or defamatory of me to suspect the interview may reflect his interests.


----------



## MrBurns (30 July 2009)

awg said:


> I dont think it is implausible or defamatory of me to suspect the interview may reflect his interests.




touchÃ©' ..............now you mention it....................


----------



## Solly (2 August 2009)

"Kyle and Jackie O suspended indefinitely, Kyle 'unable to work' "

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,25871523-5013560,00.html


----------



## MrBurns (2 August 2009)

Solly said:


> "Kyle and Jackie O suspended indefinitely, Kyle 'unable to work' "
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,25871523-5013560,00.html




He's an idiot and it's good that he's gone.

She handled it well, shame she got dragged down with the other.

The producers are to blame for the whole thing by letting it go to air in the first place.


----------



## trainspotter (3 August 2009)

Could be one of the greatest contract negotiations stunts I have ever witnessed. "I can't work" bleats Kyle. "Heres more money after a short recess" radio exec cries. Ooooooooooooeeeeeeeer ! Chaos theory?


----------



## orr (3 August 2009)

from todays Ausrtralian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25872036-7582,00.html

But now anger over Sandilands' treatment of the girl has led to calls for sponsors to be lobbied to drop anything he is associated with. Managing partner at Naked Communications Adam Ferrier wrote an open letter to sponsors asking them if they really wanted to "support two nasty bogans, be associated with the exploitation of damaged people, be associated with the sexualisation of children, be associated with rape, bigotry, and misogynistic behaviour and contribute to a (radio) show that's contributing to the demise of our culture".

The bogan king and queen of Australian Media, or as i'll remember them 'Pyle and Hema Roe'


----------



## moXJO (3 August 2009)

moXJO said:


> If the media whips itself into a frenzy, then I'm sure they may just hang them out to dry.




Not even the media is safe from the media

He made a smart move of stepping out of the way of the 'team media career ruin train'. And will probably be back at a later date when the news latches on to the next scandal. 

While I don't know if I support the full lynching of kyles career. In fact I think at this stage it is becoming a bit too much of a feeding frenzy (suppose it is expected when you base your media personality on love or hate me, but up yours anyway).
 It has shaken the sexualisation of children among these drongo's. And hopefully the brain dead fans who missed the whole point of why such a fuss was made. Children are not there to be exploited for entertainment, or to be treated as adults would in the same situation. This whole episode may have stopped it in its tracks. IMO from the year 2000 onwards, the entertainment industry looked at the image of young girls in a disturbing new way.


----------



## cuttlefish (3 August 2009)

In spite being the thick skinned and petulant individual that he is, I suspect even Kyle maybe going through a bit of an emotional hard time as a result of this reaction. It would be hard for him not to end up in a pretty big emotional slump given the amount of universal vitriol that has been directed at him.

I'd normally feel sympathy for someone in this plight but I'm finding it pretty hard to, given his self serving nature and how callously apathetic he's been regarding his unpleasant treatment of others on so many occasions.


----------



## MrBurns (3 August 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> In spite of the thick skinned and petulant individual he is I suspect even Kyle maybe going through a bit of an emotional hard time as a result of this reaction - it would be hard for him not to end up in a pretty big emotional slump given the amount of vitriol that has been directed at him.
> 
> I'd normally feel sympathy for someone in this plight but I'm finding it pretty hard to find much given his self serving nature and how much of an unpleasant creature he's been to others on so many occasions.




It's not just this incident, it's just that people don't like him at all and understandably so.


----------



## trainspotter (3 August 2009)

I don't get it? Wasn't it the MOTHER who was asking the questions but knowingly risked exposing her daughter with the question purveyed?  Kyle is a shock jock of the gutter kind and completely misjudged the situation with his comment of "Is this the only experience you have had?" Surely the radio producers who set this up should be catching a bit of flak for placing this situation in front of him? Or as we as a public becoming used to such stunts and this time it backfired? Look at what happened to the "Chaser". Maybe the moral pendulum is FINALLY starting to turn?


----------



## MrBurns (3 August 2009)

Network Ten confirms Kyle Sandilands sacked as Australian Idol judge


----------



## trainspotter (3 August 2009)

The ROT has begun to set in. Kyles invidious remarks are spreading like cancer through his fiefdom.


----------



## MrBurns (3 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> The ROT has begun to set in. Kyles invidious remarks are spreading like cancer through his fiefdom.




Yes at this stage one of his only options is the join the Labor party they like hacks, bludgers and sneaky bastards.


----------



## cuttlefish (3 August 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Network Ten confirms Kyle Sandilands sacked as Australian Idol judge




I never understood why they put him on as a judge again anyway - he seemed to be pretty much tone deaf from the episodes I saw last time he was judging it.


----------



## trainspotter (3 August 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Yes at this stage one of his only options is the join the Labor party they like hacks, bludgers and sneaky bastards.




LOLOLOL ... he would fit right in ! Sitting adjacent to dirty stop out Peter Garrett.


----------



## moXJO (3 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Maybe the moral pendulum is FINALLY starting to turn?




This is a big possibility after the excess and the resulting hangover of the naughties. Media driven moral wowsers are on the rise. 

The decade of sex and sin looks to be coming to a close


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 August 2009)

A professional announcer I most certainly am not, but I've been on radio (live, no delay) plenty of times and it was always my understanding that a "one stike and you're out" policy applied to any inappropriate comments.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 August 2009)

moXJO said:


> The decade of sex and sin looks to be coming to a close



The 1960's is finally ending?


----------



## Aussiest (3 August 2009)

Kyle's been made a scape goat. I don't think he did too much wrong with those comments, it was the mother. I've heard and seen Kyle do worse things (sexual connotations on Big Brother, eying off women etc) and nothing was made of it. The networks really should stand by their announcers and point out the fact that the mother asked the question and Kyle was merely the voice.

Also, you don't see networks sending fans away when the smut looks good for the network. It's just the same old typical politics. Morality has nothing to do with it.


----------



## MrBurns (3 August 2009)

Aussiest said:


> Kyle's been made a scape goat. I don't think he did too much wrong with those comments, it was the mother. I've heard and seen Kyle do worse things (sexual connotations on Big Brother, eying off women etc) and nothing was made of it. The networks really should stand by their announcers and point out the fact that the mother asked the question and Kyle was merely the voice.
> 
> Also, you don't see networks sending fans away when the smut looks good for the network. It's just the same old typical politics. Morality has nothing to do with it.




1/ It's not the mothers responsibility to control what goes to air, it's the producers.

2/ People hate Sandilands and this is just the last straw, a good excuse to get rid of bad rubbish and I see no support out there for him at all.


----------



## Aussiest (3 August 2009)

MrBurns said:


> 2/ People hate Sandilands and this is just the last straw, a good excuse to get rid of bad rubbish and I see no support out there for him at all.




I don't particularly like K/Sandilands either, just trying to be objective. Maybe there should be a parental consent thing signed when it's a minor. Maybe the network should offer the questions first so parent can vet. Maybe it's the network's fault for allowing such a segment. I'm sure most of what prime time announcers do has to be approved by the network first? Just seems unfair to lay *all *the blame on Kyle. Scape goat for network.


----------



## MrBurns (3 August 2009)

Aussiest said:


> I don't particularly like K/Sandilands, just trying to be objective. Maybe there should be a parental consent thing signed when it's a minor. Maybe the network should offer the questions first so parent can vet. Maybe it's the network's fault for allowing such a segment. I'm sure most of what prime time announcers do has to be approved by the network first? Just seems unfair to lay *all *the blame on Kyle.




He deserves it for being a prick.


----------



## MrBurns (3 August 2009)

I just saw Media Watch - It's worse than I thought, Sandilands is a contemptuous lowlife and the station should lose it's license it's as simple as that.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I just saw Media Watch - It's worse than I thought, Sandilands is a contemptuous lowlife and the station should lose it's license it's as simple as that.



farout man - wasn't that somepin 
justice ! - sacked ! - never to be an influence on innocent youth again !


----------



## MrBurns (3 August 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> farout man - wasn't that somepin
> justice ! - sacked ! - never to be an influence on innocent youth again !




Let's hope so.
Media Watch is great.


----------



## gooner (3 August 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I just saw Media Watch - It's worse than I thought, Sandilands is a contemptuous lowlife and the station should lose it's license it's as simple as that.




IMHO,  there are a number of guilty people in order of culpability

1. Those who came up with the idea of interviewing a child about her sexual experience.

2. Her Mum

3. Kyle for agreeing to host it and his totally inappropriate comments

Kyle got what he deserved - if you live in the media spotlight, you live or die by your reputation.

BTW, Mr Burns, I think you mean "its license" not "it's license". Perhaps ASF should have a three strikes and you are out policy for poor grammar.


----------



## MrBurns (3 August 2009)

gooner said:


> BTW, Mr Burns, I think you mean "its license" not "it's license". Perhaps ASF should have a three strikes and you are out policy for poor grammar.




If that were the case there would be no one here.


----------



## MrBurns (3 August 2009)

gooner said:


> IMHO,  there are a number of guilty people in order of culpability
> 
> 1. Those who came up with the idea of interviewing a child about her sexual experience.
> 
> ...




The mother is to blame for being a bad mother but not for putting a child on air being quizzed about her sex life, thats the stations responsibility.


----------



## moXJO (3 August 2009)

Aussiest said:


> Kyle's been made a scape goat. I don't think he did too much wrong with those comments, it was the mother. I've heard and seen Kyle do worse things (sexual connotations on Big Brother, eying off women etc) and nothing was made of it. The networks really should stand by their announcers and point out the fact that the mother asked the question and Kyle was merely the voice.
> 
> Also, you don't see networks sending fans away when the smut looks good for the network. It's just the same old typical politics. Morality has nothing to do with it.




A 14yo should not be broadcast on a radio station regardless. They knew full well it would lead to questions on sex, drug use etc. Only they were caught out by the rape and it snowballed. 
The mother did ask the question, but they should not have been there in the first place. You don't put a 14yo girl on the radio and quiz her about her sex life for ratings. To hide behind the fact her mother asked them is simply a thinly veiled excuse to say they didn't know what was coming. Unfortunately for them that didn't seem to work this time

And that’s the other thing; fans of the show began to think its ok to quiz youngsters on their sex life. Half of them still don't get it (don't mean you Aussiest).
It was not so much about the questions, but more to do with putting a young girl to air for entertainment in such a sick way in the first place.


What was the jist of Media watch?


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 August 2009)

gooner said:


> IMHO,  there are a number of guilty people in order of culpability
> 
> 1. Those who came up with the idea of interviewing a child about her sexual experience.
> 
> ...




hey goooner, you don't like the radio show based on that one "event".  Make a point of watchin (sorry watching) tonight's Media Watch on ABC.net.au when it is available - the Kyle & JackyO show was totally exploitative! = Modus operandi
(as if any normal adults would listen to it, but it was allegedly popular with kids)  ...
Like Mr B says , "it's worse than you think" . 
cheers


----------



## Julia (3 August 2009)

Aussiest said:


> Also, you don't see networks sending fans away when the smut looks good for the network. It's just the same old typical politics. Morality has nothing to do with it.



Agree.  They are simply riding the coattails of popular opinion.  If there had been widespread support for Sandilands' woeful lack of taste, they'd have given him a pay rise and a new show.



MrBurns said:


> The mother is to blame for being a bad mother but not for putting a child on air being quizzed about her sex life, thats the stations responsibility.



Oh, please, Mr Burns!   Of course the station showed zero responsibility but what sort of mother would offer up her child for a publicity stunt like that???
Of course she's responsible.





gooner said:


> IMHO,  there are a number of guilty people in order of culpability
> 
> 1. Those who came up with the idea of interviewing a child about her sexual experience.
> 
> ...



Agree moXJO.   About time Mr Sandilands got back a bit of what he has tossed out over the years.  Can't begin to imagine how many young people have been mortified by his comments, though I suppose they know what they're up for when they apply for Idol.


----------



## MrBurns (3 August 2009)

moXJO said:


> What was the jist of Media watch?




They showed the program's history of using people and they showed how Sandilans and Co knew what questions were going to be asked, laughed as they talked about the girl being scared and the fact she didnt want to be there, it was a real expose of these creeps.
I think it's repeated on their web site or on ABC 2, if you can see it you should, it was damning.


----------



## moXJO (3 August 2009)

sex orientated for a breakfast show you be the judge 
But thats what made it popular

http://www.2dayfm.com.au/shows/kyleandjackieo


----------



## MrBurns (3 August 2009)

Julia said:


> Oh, please, Mr Burns!   Of course the station showed zero responsibility but what sort of mother would offer up her child for a publicity stunt like that???
> Of course she's responsible.




Read what I said Julia, the radio station is responsible for putting the child in that position on air, the mother couldnt do it without them and they are a licensed broadcaster with heavy responsibilities, do you think they should just do what any idiot parent will agree to ?


----------



## MrBurns (3 August 2009)

moXJO said:


> sex orientated for a breakfast show you be the judge
> But thats what made it popular
> 
> http://www.2dayfm.com.au/shows/kyleandjackieo




Yeah but not pedophilia.


----------



## moXJO (3 August 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Yeah but not pedophilia.




Yes, I guess RockSpider FM won't catch on


----------



## MrBurns (3 August 2009)

moXJO said:


> Yes, I guess RockSpider FM won't catch on




If it was legal they'd probably do it.


----------



## Julia (3 August 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Read what I said Julia, the radio station is responsible for putting the child in that position on air, the mother couldnt do it without them and they are a licensed broadcaster with heavy responsibilities, do you think they should just do what any idiot parent will agree to ?



Of course the station is responsible, but no decent mother would ever, ever expose her child to such appalling exploitation.


----------



## moXJO (3 August 2009)

Julia said:


> Of course the station is responsible, but no decent mother would ever, ever expose her child to such appalling exploitation.




docs would be tearing her a new one. Surley her wanting to broadcast her daughters privite life was a red flag in itself.
 I think that was beginning to be the normal mindset for a lot of Kyle and O fans though. That it was fine to go to what ever extremes in the name of entertainment. Often the dirtier the better.


----------



## jono1887 (3 August 2009)

I personally don't think its fair that he's been sacked from idol and possibly from 2day fm as this wasn't completely his fault.


----------



## Savoy Special (4 August 2009)

jono1887 said:


> I personally don't think its fair that he's been sacked from idol and possibly from 2day fm as this wasn't completely his fault.




As far as being sacked from idol goes, whether he was at fault or not, he has brought to much heat on himself and it's become nearly bigger than the show itself!

Idol is a family show and the fans would be booing him as soon as he opens his mouth,which would deter from the program.

Controversy got him fame and now it has just taken it away.

He will be back .I'm not sure if that is a good thing! I like straight shooters but he sometimes starts talking without putting the brain into gear!


----------



## Aussiest (4 August 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I just saw Media Watch - It's worse than I thought, Sandilands is a contemptuous lowlife and the station should lose it's license it's as simple as that.




Hmm, that Media Watch segment did show a sickening side. I've changed my view on Kyle now. And that blonde female producer should be ashamed of herself shoving the microphone in the girl's face and ramping her up.

I still maintain that the radio station should take more responsibility and that the mother was stupid. the poor girl is probably in post shock trauma now... Then again, mother probably manipulated by the station.

Never did like commercial radio. I don't find those cliquey "in" people funny at all. And, what is it with Hamish & Andy? Three cheers for Richard Stubbs, ABC, PBS and JJJ.


----------



## Prospector (4 August 2009)

Aussiest said:


> Then again, mother probably manipulated by the station.




Wot, ya mean that commercial media didnt really care about the mother and daughter and used their 'story' to raise their ratings?

Blame is not like a 100% apportionment and when you get to 100% then no-one else needs 'punishment'.  The radio station should have to plead its case to some broadcasting tribunal; the mother should be thoroughly scrutinised by DOCS; and Kyle should be dumped.  No-one will touch him now.  Perhaps he was just shocked and didnt react properly, and as I didnt see the ABC expose I dont actually know what has been said about him.  But I see he refuses to have the 7 second dump button - what does that say about him! (It's 15 seconds here in SA - we are obviously a little slower on the uptake!)

Thankfully there is a new era in media now; well, at least on TV.  And as evidenced by Master Chef.  People are sick and tired of being belittled, they seek positivity and reassurance.  Shock jocks who dont realise that are dead.  Bye Kyle.


----------



## waz (4 August 2009)

Just something else to think about in regards to the media and using other peoples misfortune to increase ratings.

I found it funny watching the Channel 9 news making a big thing about the 2DAY FM incident a few days back as their headline storey.

What ws the next storey that Channel 9 gave us????
They followed a 15 year old girl who had her entire family murdered and tried to record as much as they could of her when clearly she did not want to be filmed.

What I dont get, is how one media source will try to make another media source look bad, when they are just as guilty themselves of exploiting peoples misfortunes. 

Channel 7 is no angel either, the blind guy on dancing with the stars is purely there for ratings.

The entire industry needs a kick up the bum, whats the point in blaming one individual.

On the whole 7 second delay, didn't Channel 9 believe for a couple of hours that a famous actor died in NZ? Did anyone get sacked for that garbage? nope


----------



## Aussiest (4 August 2009)

Prospector said:


> But I see he refuses to have the 7 second dump button




That's a disgrace, that he didn't use the 7 second "button". 

Waz, the whole industry is a disgrace. I can barely stand watching commercial tv anymore and when i do, i stay away from the "news".


----------



## Prospector (4 August 2009)

One of the Sydney newspapers ran two different stories about the Master Chef winner - one was that Poh had one (complete with 'interviews') and the other was that Julie had one (with interviews).  Only problem was, that for a few hours, both stories were running online!


----------



## Timmy (4 August 2009)

Prospector said:


> But I see he refuses to have the 7 second dump




There is a joke in there somewhere ...


----------



## MrBurns (4 August 2009)

The whole industry is a disgrace and it's the fault of the Govt or the authorities at some level, there's no accountability, you can use the "F" word whenever you like, standards have just gone down the toilet in recent years and I dont know why.


----------



## Tink (4 August 2009)

waz said:


> What I dont get, is how one media source will try to make another media source look bad, when they are just as guilty themselves of exploiting peoples misfortunes.




Yep I agree

as Prospector said, lets hope its a start to a clean out of this sort of thing for ratings..


----------



## Timmy (4 August 2009)

How much of this bottom-of-the-barrel 'news' and 'entertainment' is driven by customer demand?  Are the media organisations serving up what the public want or is the supply of the drivel creating the demand for it?


----------



## moXJO (4 August 2009)

Timmy said:


> How much of this bottom-of-the-barrel 'news' and 'entertainment' is driven by customer demand?  Are the media organisations serving up what the public want or is the supply of the drivel creating the demand for it?




A little of both I think. The more they feed into it the worse it gets, and the more accepted as the norm it becomes


----------



## waz (4 August 2009)

I don't think its what the public want.

Traditional media newspapers/radio/free to air TV has been loosing out to new forms of media internet/pay tv/bit torrents/ ipods (mp3s), hay we can even include forums like this.

The good thing about the new forms of media is that you can choose what to you want to listen/watch/read. Whereas with traditional media you get what ever they give you.

The last few years they have been DESPERATE to make money. They are in a dying industry, so each night they tell us about some new scandal/controvesy/ and how tonights episode of some show is the BIGGEST ONE EVER !!!!

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Have any of you noticed that boob size seems to have increased in recent years and that when on screen the camera man conveniently manages to capture them.

Even on the morning shows, they are made to wear short skirts and sit on a couch, exactly why do we need to see their legs??? Pure desperation.


----------



## Timmy (4 August 2009)

waz said:


> I don't think its what the public want.




Good points waz and moxjo.  (And waz, lay off the networks on the boobs and legs, OK?  SOme trends are worth continuing )

I wrote this before your post waz, you have already answered it in part but will put it up anyway:

I can’t help but ask the impossible to answer question, how much is demand driven, and how much is supply driven?  I know there will not be a definitive answer, but cant help asking nonetheless.

Take ‘news’ for example.  Compare the Channel 9 ‘news’ (LOL) with the SBS news.  Most would agree that the SBS version is of much higher quality (I might be wrong on this, but will go with that assumption for the time being).  Now look at the ratings.  No contest.  Or, compare ABC ‘news’ with Channel 9’s.  Again, quality would be awarded to the ABC but ratings in a knockout to Channel 9.

Is this not a very strong indication that the plunge towards the lowest common denominator, and below, is driven by what out community wants?


----------



## Prospector (4 August 2009)

Timmy said:


> How much of this bottom-of-the-barrel 'news' and 'entertainment' is driven by customer demand?  Are the media organisations serving up what the public want or is the supply of the drivel creating the demand for it?




I dont think there is much of a consumer demand for it.  The media keeps us telling us there is, but that is the media telling us because that is all they want to give us.  For instance, who really gives a chokito what that stupid woman Amy Winehouse keeps getting up to.  How many of us have actually heard her sing.  Yet almost every day, we get an update on her heroin overdose.  Same with stupid Hollywood Actors, and celebrities.  None of us could give a toss!  

The media now fill up the space with cheap trash because good stories require skills of journalism and are expensive.  But we dont want the cheap stuff anymore!


----------



## trainspotter (4 August 2009)

MrBurns said:


> The whole industry is a disgrace and it's the fault of the Govt or the authorities at some level, there's no accountability, you can use the "F" word whenever you like, standards have just gone down the toilet in recent years and I dont know why.




The moral fabric of society lays in tatters on the floor. Obscenities in a public forum (tick) gutter media portrayed as mainstream consumption (tick) vulgarity and lewd acts on TV at 7.30pm (tick) Shock Jocks getting more shocking (tick) ... I could go on and on .. but I will not.


----------



## sam76 (4 August 2009)

you should watch this...

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/

The last 4 minutes are full on...


----------



## MrBurns (4 August 2009)

sam76 said:


> you should watch this...
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/




Well done that link is out quick,

I agree everyone should watch this


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

Timmy said:


> How much of this bottom-of-the-barrel 'news' and 'entertainment' is driven by customer demand?  Are the media organisations serving up what the public want or is the supply of the drivel creating the demand for it?



teenagers will follow this sort of nonsense - 
let's face it they walk down the street listening to the same bludy ipod music they've been listening to for the last month ...  ask em what today's news is, they wouldn't have a clue !

For that matter, the average adult isn't much more discerning -  the commercial TV channels openly admit that their "news coverage" is intended to 
a) entertain (first) and 
b) inform (second)


----------



## trainspotter (4 August 2009)

Dumbing the nation down with telecommunications is the new black.


----------



## MrBurns (4 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Dumbing the nation down with telecommunications is the new black.



KRudd is right into it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Dumbing the nation down with telecommunications is the new black.



and racism is the new red under the bed


----------



## gamefisherman (4 August 2009)

Here Here,cuttlefish did imo sum it up succinctly!

Personally I cant find any words to describe how disgraceful this was. What has the Australian media come to when something like this is allowed to go to air, regardless of whether there was or wasnt any permission given by others/parents.  A 12yr old girl is exteremly vulnerable, ........Shame on those involved.  More heads at the station should role. Healing vibes to those affected........which by the way would be many others including some listerners.................


QUOTE=cuttlefish;467460]I think this woman has summed it up pretty well:

_Karen Willis, manager at the NSW Rape Crisis Centre, said the segment was "appalling on a number of levels".

"First, an adult person asking a child about their sexual experiences is not on, and to do that in a public arena is quite frankly harassment of a child," she said.

"Then when [the girl's] answer came, to glibly ask whether she'd had any other experiences, rather than getting her off air as soon as possible … it's abuse of a child really."_


(full article here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/enetertainment/articles/2009/07/29/1248546762075.html)[/QUOTE]


----------



## sam76 (4 August 2009)

ha ha!


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

:topic
Apparently he will appear as a judge in the early elimination rounds of the next "Aussie Idol"  - too late to pull the plug there .....
 but not for the final series.

The advertisers have spoken !! 
(thanks god)


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

gamefisherman said:


> .. regardless of whether there was or wasnt any permission given by others/parents.  A 12yr old girl is exteremly vulnerable, ........Shame on those involved.



PS ... I agree with Julia and others  - *for the specific case in the media spotlight (as against media watch)*- the mother had to be a seriously sad individual...

to ask your child on public radio had she had sex !!!!!

knowing the history of a RAPE (as a 12 year old!!!)

sheesh  - indefensible


----------



## Ato (4 August 2009)

I hope he gets put in a cell with Chopper Reid, and the authorities tell Chopper that pretty boy wants a piece of him.


----------



## gamefisherman (4 August 2009)

The Universe has an interesting way of working..........

Simply..........do good and good happens to you, do bad and bad things happen to you.

Simple.

Thats my take on things anyway


----------



## MrBurns (4 August 2009)

gamefisherman said:


> The Universe has an interesting way of working..........
> 
> Simply..........do good and good happens to you, do bad and bad things happen to you.
> 
> ...




Agree.........


----------



## cuttlefish (4 August 2009)

While I have little sympathy for Kyle or his current plight, given that he appears to have had litle remorse or regard for any of the antics he's carried out over the years, you'd have to say that the producers of the show must be held accountable as well for what went on.  

In this recent situation there were plenty of responsible adults apart from Kyle that were involved in putting the show to air, who all allowed and presumably supported them proceeding with the segment in spite of the girl clearly not wanting to be there.   Also the show wouldn't have been able to repeatedly mistreat and abuse people for entertainment purposes over an extended period of time without the support and/or encouragement of the shows producers.


----------



## MrBurns (4 August 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> While I have little sympathy for Kyle or his current plight, given that he appears to have had litle remorse or regard for any of the antics he's carried out over the years, you'd have to say that the producers of the show must be held accountable as well for what went on.
> 
> In this recent situation there were plenty of responsible adults apart from Kyle that were involved in putting the show to air, who all allowed and presumably supported them proceeding with the segment in spite of the girl clearly not wanting to be there.   Also the show wouldn't have been able to repeatedly mistreat and abuse people for entertainment purposes over an extended period of time without the support and/or encouragement of the shows producers.




EXACTLY - the entire radio station management are reponsible, getting rid of Sandilands is just a bonus.


----------



## moXJO (4 August 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> While I have little sympathy for Kyle or his current plight, given that he appears to have had litle remorse or regard for any of the antics he's carried out over the years, you'd have to say that the producers of the show must be held accountable as well for what went on.
> 
> In this recent situation there were plenty of responsible adults apart from Kyle that were involved in putting the show to air, who all allowed and presumably supported them proceeding with the segment in spite of the girl clearly not wanting to be there.   Also the show wouldn't have been able to repeatedly mistreat and abuse people for entertainment purposes over an extended period of time without the support and/or encouragement of the shows producers.




I agree he has taken all the heat. Honestly I didn't mind the guy. If adults want to go on a radio station and make an idiot out of themselves then good luck to them. But I think there were too many yes men in a race to the bottom in this situation. Too many blinded in the seedy atmosphere they had created, and too many fans egging them on.
If the young girl had not of mentioned rape, would the whole episode have even rated a mention? 
Would anyone have questioned them about exploiting a 14yo for ratings?

So while it sucks for Kyle, at least the broader community will think twice for a while. I bet Matty Johns is glad the spotlight is off him.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 August 2009)

MrBurns quoting gamefisherman said:


> Agree.........




ditto - mr burns
PS on this lol 

probably on nothing else - but hey - even a clock that is stopped tells the correct time now and again


----------



## Ato (4 August 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> While I have little sympathy for Kyle or his current plight, given that he appears to have had litle remorse or regard for any of the antics he's carried out over the years, you'd have to say that the producers of the show must be held accountable as well for what went on.
> 
> In this recent situation there were plenty of responsible adults apart from Kyle that were involved in putting the show to air, who all allowed and presumably supported them proceeding with the segment in spite of the girl clearly not wanting to be there.   Also the show wouldn't have been able to repeatedly mistreat and abuse people for entertainment purposes over an extended period of time without the support and/or encouragement of the shows producers.




Put them all in a cell with Chopper Reid and have at it, then?


----------



## Bafana (5 August 2009)

After being away from Aussie for sometime I have no idea who Kyle Sandilands is and must admit I find nothing wrong with him (apart from his shocked stumble at the girls allegations) after listening to the interview a number of times. I think its pretty clear the mother deserves all the blame as she ignored her daughters plight, allowed her to be hooked up to a machine , etc.

If anything, the show producers should have vetted the questions to be asked first and cull anything deemed inappropriate.

Storm - Tea Cup. Poor girl


----------



## GumbyLearner (5 August 2009)

Sandilands

Who is this guy?

He just not does register on my radar?

Is he a radio people person OR a ratbag?

I have NO IDEA! What's with this fella? I first learned about him from ASF?

Any Advice?


----------



## scanspeak (11 August 2009)

See ACA tonight?
Well, surprise surprise. It turns out the girl was lying and it was a case of regret about a drunken sexual encounter with a 14 year old boy rather than rape. But just say the "r" word and you are guaranteed to whip up the all too predictable hysteria. What fools believe the statements of a 14 year old, or anyone else for that matter on face value.
Just like the Mathew Johns affair, this is another case of a female lying and playing the rape/victim card to manipulate a situation.


----------



## moXJO (11 August 2009)

scanspeak said:


> See ACA tonight?
> Well, surprise surprise. It turns out the girl was lying and it was a case of regret about a drunken sexual encounter with a 14 year old boy rather than rape. But just say the "r" word and you are guaranteed to whip up the all too predictable hysteria. What fools believe the statements of a 14 year old, or anyone else for that matter on face value.
> Just like the Mathew Johns affair, this is another case of a female lying and playing the rape/victim card to manipulate a situation.




I think you missed the point with the kyle saga


----------



## MrBurns (11 August 2009)

scanspeak said:


> See ACA tonight?
> Well, surprise surprise. It turns out the girl was lying and it was a case of regret about a drunken sexual encounter with a 14 year old boy rather than rape. But just say the "r" word and you are guaranteed to whip up the all too predictable hysteria. What fools believe the statements of a 14 year old, or anyone else for that matter on face value.
> Just like the Mathew Johns affair, this is another case of a female lying and playing the rape/victim card to manipulate a situation.




Changes nothing, the fact they had the girl there, asked her the question and reacted the way they did hasn't changed.

Funny how this turns up now , trying to get the slime ball back on the air no doubt.


----------



## sam76 (11 August 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Changes nothing, the fact they had the girl there, asked her the question and reacted the way they did hasn't changed.
> 
> Funny how this turns up now , trying to get the slime ball back on the air no doubt.




Agreed.

I can't see anything about trumped up accusations of rape anywhere in the press (and you would imagine it would be front page stuff)

I would take anything said by ACA with a grain of salt.

Careful editing can sway opinion quite easily... especially with the dumbed down nation we all live in now..


----------



## MrBurns (11 August 2009)

sam76 said:


> Agreed.
> ... especially with the dumbed down nation we all live in now..




That particular subject is a topic for a whole new thread, I reckon thats a bigger threat than the financiial crisis and climate change combined.


----------



## Julia (11 August 2009)

scanspeak said:


> See ACA tonight?
> Well, surprise surprise. It turns out the girl was lying and it was a case of regret about a drunken sexual encounter with a 14 year old boy rather than rape. But just say the "r" word and you are guaranteed to whip up the all too predictable hysteria. What fools believe the statements of a 14 year old, or anyone else for that matter on face value.
> Just like the Mathew Johns affair, this is another case of a female lying and playing the rape/victim card to manipulate a situation.



Given that there are now multiple investigations into this, it seems somewhat odd that only ACA has come up with 'the truth'.
It was discussed on ABC Radio this evening and no mention was made of any such revelations.

Still, I guess if you watch stuff like ACA, you are already of the mindset to believe something like that.


----------



## scanspeak (12 August 2009)

I suspected it was a false cry of rape from the start. Thats why her own mother had no qualms bringing her on the talkback show.
ACA showed 2 of the girls Aunties saying that the girl hadadmitted to them it was consensual, albeit drunken, sex, and the girl has a long history of trouble with the school, police, etc.


----------



## Tink (12 August 2009)

Scanspeak, so you are saying its ok to bring a 14yo on TV or radio and talk about their sex life??

You are all FOR that are you?

What is this world coming to....


----------



## gooner (12 August 2009)

scanspeak said:


> I suspected it was a false cry of rape from the start. Thats why her own mother had no qualms bringing her on the talkback show.
> ACA showed 2 of the girls Aunties saying that the girl hadadmitted to them it was consensual, albeit drunken, sex, and the girl has a long history of trouble with the school, police, etc.




12 year olds can not consent to sex - that is why 16 is called the age of consent. Effectively it is statutory rape.


----------



## scanspeak (12 August 2009)

gooner said:


> 12 year olds can not consent to sex - that is why 16 is called the age of consent. Effectively it is statutory rape.




The boy is 14. It isnt statutory rape if the other person is also under age.


----------



## scanspeak (12 August 2009)

Tink said:


> Scanspeak, so you are saying its ok to bring a 14yo on TV or radio and talk about their sex life??
> 
> You are all FOR that are you?
> 
> What is this world coming to....




I think its in very bad taste. 
I'm just saying that this would not have been in the news had it not been for the "rape" comment, which turned out to be a lie.
I'm not sure if the media/public are offended by that talkback show or are just over-reacting to the idea that teenagers DO have sex?


----------



## scanspeak (12 August 2009)

Watch the video here http://video.ninemsn.com.au/video.aspx?mkt=en-au&brand=ninemsn&tab=m164&mediaid=224456&from=39&vid=4EA58975-C402-4E1C-9905-1E8A4E05DBB5&playlist=videoByTag:mk:en-AU:vs:0:tag:aunews_auaca:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cats:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A#::4ea58975-c402-4e1c-9905-1e8a4e05dbb5


----------



## Tink (12 August 2009)

well I am glad to hear you think its in bad taste, Scanspeak

ACA and Kyle should be sitting on the same bench in my opinion, they are as bad as each other, all for ratings

As for the adults in this thing, the mother, the aunties, the producers etc, they should all be shot, for forcing a child against her will to come on a show and talk about this

If she called out rape, she had reason to.. think about it..


----------



## moXJO (12 August 2009)

scanspeak said:


> I'm just saying that this would not have been in the news had it not been for the "rape" comment, which turned out to be a lie.




I agree with this. If it was not for the rape trigger, then the fact she was only 14 and should not be used for entertainment would have been glossed over. Media outlets pushing for ratings by sexualizing children all need to be shot. The fact this incident blew up in their face would hopefully be a lesson.... but somehow I doubt it.

A teenage girl lying who would have thought
And now the media trying to vilify her even more


----------



## Prospector (12 August 2009)

scanspeak said:


> The boy is 14. It isnt statutory rape if the other person is also under age.




It is actually.


----------



## jono1887 (12 August 2009)

Tink said:


> well I am glad to hear you think its in bad taste, Scanspeak
> 
> ACA and Kyle should be sitting on the same bench in my opinion, they are as bad as each other, all for ratings
> 
> ...




she could have just been attention seeking.... just like all adolescents! think about it...


----------



## scanspeak (12 August 2009)

> It is actually.




Well then since he's also a minor, I guess she's also guilty of statutory rape.

Guilt, anger, regret, revenge, attention, not wanting to get in trouble .... there are many reasons why people lie about being raped.


----------



## Prospector (12 August 2009)

scanspeak said:


> Well then since he's also a minor, I guess she's also guilty of statutory rape.




Yup.  Which is why it is rarely (if ever) prosecuted when both 'offenders' and both 'victims' are under the age of consent (16 years generally across Australia).  But technically, still rape as it makes the assumption that boys/girls under the age of 16 cannot provide informed consent to sex.  

Therefore, *any sex, whether 'consensual' or otherwise, in kids under 16 is rape. * Regardless of the circumstances.  Because they are deemed by law not to be able to consent.


----------



## Mr J (12 August 2009)

sam76 said:


> Careful editing can sway opinion quite easily... especially with the dumbed down nation we all live in now..




2000 years ago you would have said the same thing. The masses are easily swayed, and probably always will be.


----------



## MrBurns (12 August 2009)

Mr J said:


> 2000 years ago you would have said the same thing. The masses are easily swayed, and probably always will be.




No it's worse now, people cant spell or add up and 4 letter words are on TV and radio all the time now, the mainstream media control what kids think and do and it's all low grade rubbish, they then sell to these dumbed down people.

It's so bad now some people think getting a 14 year old girl on live radio to quiz her about her sex life on a lie detector is OK.

I don't understand why everyone can't see the decadence in this.


----------



## scanspeak (12 August 2009)

I don't quite see it that way.

I see it as a frustrated and concerned (though misguided) mother wanting to know whether her troublesome teenage daughter was skipping class, drinking and having sex. It was not a voyeuristic "tell us the details of your sexual encounter" type of interrogation.

By the way, I wonder if we'd be having this discussion if the child was male. I doubt it.


----------



## MrBurns (12 August 2009)

scanspeak said:


> I don't quite see it that way.
> I see it as a frustrated and concerned (though misguided) mother wanting to know whether her troublesome teenager daughter was skipping class, drinking and having sex. It was not a voyeuristic "tell us the details of your sexual encounter" type of interrogation.
> By the way, I wonder if we'd be having this discussion if the child was male.




You've missed the point entirely - 

The mother has no right to do that to her child and the freeking radio station DOES know better but pushed the envelope for ratings, forget about the mother it's not her fault a witless radio station management decided to go with this it's the stations fault and the brainless presenters who didnt see anything wrong with it.

The station should have a change of management or lose their license, this is just not on but the overseeing body won't do anything because they are either stupid, inept or corrupt.


----------



## MrBurns (12 August 2009)

scanspeak said:


> By the way, I wonder if we'd be having this discussion if the child was male. I doubt it.





Yes we would.


----------



## nomore4s (12 August 2009)

scanspeak said:


> I don't quite see it that way.
> 
> I see it as a frustrated and concerned (though misguided) mother wanting to know whether her troublesome teenage daughter was skipping class, drinking and having sex. It was not a voyeuristic "tell us the details of your sexual encounter" type of interrogation.
> 
> By the way, I wonder if we'd be having this discussion if the child was male. I doubt it.




Why not take the child to counciling then instead of a radio station? Seeking professional help would have been better for everyone instead of trying to grandstand on a radio show.


----------



## MrBurns (12 August 2009)

nomore4s said:


> Why not take the child to counciling then instead of a radio station? Seeking professional help would have been better for everyone instead of trying to grandstand on a radio show.




Because this wasnt about the welfare of the child this was about ratings for a low grade radio show with presenters and management failing in their moral duty to be mindfull of a childs rights.


----------



## moXJO (12 August 2009)

nomore4s said:


> Why not take the child to counciling then instead of a radio station? Seeking professional help would have been better for everyone instead of trying to grandstand on a radio show.




Because it was a competition and they would win tickets to a concert. So obviously great parenting there 

Someone should have had the decency to say "bugger off".


----------



## moXJO (12 August 2009)

Kyle and O are back on air on the 17th of this month


----------



## MrBurns (12 August 2009)

moXJO said:


> Kyle and O are back on air on the 17th of this month




Of course they are ...the regulatory bodies are gutless impotent and useless.

I hope their ratings dive.


----------



## Timmy (13 August 2009)

Kyle and Jackie O. continue to do a great job for their employer:

Kyle, Jackie hold on to top FM breakfast spot


----------



## Kez180 (13 August 2009)

Prospector said:


> Yup.  Which is why it is rarely (if ever) prosecuted when both 'offenders' and both 'victims' are under the age of consent (16 years generally across Australia).  But technically, still rape as it makes the assumption that boys/girls under the age of 16 cannot provide informed consent to sex.
> 
> Therefore, *any sex, whether 'consensual' or otherwise, in kids under 16 is rape. * Regardless of the circumstances.  Because they are deemed by law not to be able to consent.




http://www.afao.org.au/library_docs/policy/Age_of_consent_briefing_paperJune06.pdf

As you can see it differs state to state, your both right...


----------



## Prospector (13 August 2009)

Kez180 said:


> http://www.afao.org.au/library_docs/policy/Age_of_consent_briefing_paperJune06.pdf
> 
> As you can see it differs state to state, your both right...




Ah, but only in Tasmania and the ACT my version doesnt apply.  Do they count?   Where does Kyle hail from?


----------



## MrBurns (13 August 2009)

Here's a comment from a wordsmith on the ABC web site, I think it sums it up nicely - 



> What a shame.
> Shame on an industry with no moral or ethical boundaries, where they exploit the vulnerable, and money and ratings are more important than integrity. Shame on the advertisers and execs who mix money with slime and send it on the airwaves as some monevelant form of entertainment.
> Perish in Shame you brood of vipers.


----------



## Timmy (13 August 2009)

What does monevelant mean?


----------



## MrBurns (13 August 2009)

Timmy said:


> What does monevelant mean?




Has some obscure meaning too sophisticated for me and you it seems.


----------



## Julia (13 August 2009)

I had never heard of it either.  Here is what Wiki says:



> Monovalent may refer to:
> 
> * In chemistry, valence is a measure of the number of chemical bonds formed by the atoms of a given element. Monovalent is a synonym of univalent.
> * Monovalent ions contain one valence electron.
> ...




All clear now?


----------



## Timmy (13 August 2009)

You're a great help thanks Julia.

As mud.


----------



## MrBurns (8 September 2009)

Get rid of this fool - I'm almost embarrassed to be Australian these days - 



> Put Magda 'in concentration camp', says Kyle
> 
> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/859439/put-magda-in-concentration-camp-says-kyle
> 
> ...


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (8 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Get rid of this fool - I'm almost embarrassed to be Australian these days -



A radio guy has an opinion and you are ashamed to be Australian?

Please help me understand this logic.


----------



## springhill (8 September 2009)

> Put Magda 'in concentration camp', says Kyle
> 
> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertain...camp-says-kyle
> 
> ...




Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, don't think i'd like to see Kyle in just a pair of Y-fronts.


----------



## MrBurns (9 September 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> A radio guy has an opinion and you are ashamed to be Australian?
> 
> Please help me understand this logic.




I'll explain it to you.

If you put ugly ignorant Australians on public show it makes one cringe, if you're Australian that is.


----------



## insider (9 September 2009)

I think Kyle is a star, a big gassy object which you can see from miles away. Who is he to comment on someone else's weight. Kick him out. Jackie too. The lie detector thing was flawed. Polygraphs aren't reliable and aren't consider by the scientific community as reliable evidence. You can cheat the test by clenching your bum hole. No kidding


----------



## Mr J (9 September 2009)

Yet another case of society being over-sensitive. The joke may have been in bad taste, but people should be able to take it for what it is and get over it. I dream of the day this politically correct nonsense ceases.


----------



## explod (9 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I'll explain it to you.
> 
> If you put ugly ignorant Australians on public show it makes one cringe, if you're Australian that is.




He speaks his mind and the way a lot of people in society now think.  He came up as a youth the hard way and is far from ingnorant, the drop in ratings of Idol attest to that.   In the first infringement it was more the management of the show than Kyle's fault.  He does shoot off a bit quick at the mouth but again so do most of us, just an aussie trait.

One thing in the long run about not being purattanical is that there is room to move, if you are perfect there is none.   Maybe the new generation want more space in which to discuss the underlying that the Victorian era buried.  In such an improved world then the 90% of rapes and cases of paedophilia that go unreported may come to be reported


----------



## dbcok (9 September 2009)

Never listened to this bloke,but from a distance ,it seems he came to close to offending powerful ethnic interests.
His jibe about people's weight was very mild.


----------



## moXJO (9 September 2009)

dbcok said:


> Never listened to this bloke,but from a distance ,it seems he came to close to offending powerful ethnic interests.
> His jibe about people's weight was very mild.




Yes, seems the media has tried to get the Jewish community on side, WTF for? Because he made light of the fact fatties would lose weight in a concentration camp. Worse has been said of Bombars in the past, and I doubt any malice was intended for the Jews. He should of just said fat camp.

While I thought his lie detector stunt was off, I think this is just an attempt by the media to rail him out of existence.


----------



## MrBurns (9 September 2009)

explod said:


> He speaks his mind and the way a lot of people in society now think.  He came up as a youth the hard way and is far from ingnorant, the drop in ratings of Idol attest to that.




You're joking right ? he is indeed ignorant to make statements like that especially in public and his previous actions ie: 14 year old girl quizzed on sex  - attests to his low brow dumb personality.

A drop in ratings on idol ?, thats an indicator of nothing.



explod said:


> In the first infringement it was more the management of the show than Kyle's fault.  He does shoot off a bit quick at the mouth but again so do most of us, just an aussie trait.




He's on radio , we aren't, he should know better.



> One thing in the long run about not being purattanical




No ones being purtanical, it's just common decency.

The mans just a ********, nothing more.


----------



## explod (9 September 2009)

moXJO said:


> While I thought his lie detector stunt was off, I think this is just an attempt by the media to rail him out of existence.




And who is behind the mainstream media, on the world stage we have Bloomberg, CNBC, and of late the BBC  (without mentioning the ethnic group) a bit of a no brainer.

A strong hellaluya element to Idol seems apparent also.

Guess I'm a bit with Kyle and freedom of expression.


----------



## explod (9 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> No ones being purtanical, it's just common decency.
> 
> The mans just a ********, nothing more.




And lets look at the word decency

Is it decent that girls down to very young ages are taught to pose with legs wide apart in suggestive stances; or

the pelvic thrusts of dancers: or

the bartenders who are allowed to pump allready drunk teenages with so much grog that they then go and kick heads in; or

great sportstars who have ruined there own and the lives of others and yet still play a big part in the media.

Kyle is just a media icon who reflects the common standards of our day.  Get over it if you want to be in the real world.   If we have blown our chance to bring up the new society we have no one to blame but ourselves collectively.


----------



## MrBurns (9 September 2009)

explod said:


> And lets look at the word decency
> Is it decent that girls down to very young ages are taught to pose with legs wide apart in suggestive stances; or
> the pelvic thrusts of dancers: or
> the bartenders who are allowed to pump allready drunk teenages with so much grog that they then go and kick heads in; or
> ...




Do we have to endure offensive fools like Sandilands just because other things in the world arent right ? 

He is NOT reflecting common standards, society isnt that far gone yet.


----------



## Timmy (9 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> He is NOT reflecting common standards, society isnt that far gone yet.




I think you would find he is not too far away from his target demographic Mr B.


----------



## Mr J (9 September 2009)

explod said:


> And lets look at the word decency




An artificial construct.



> Is it decent that girls down to very young ages are taught to pose with legs wide apart in suggestive stances; or




I agree that bikini's on 8 year olds are wrong, but a 14 year old girl is at an age where she could easily be sexually active. I don't think talking to her about sex in public is wrong, provided she isn't forced to do so (which she was, but by the mother). Of course, many in society do have an issue with it, despite the fact that not so long ago girls would be married off at younger ages.



> the pelvic thrusts of dancers: or




We're sexual from a young age, pelvic thrusts don't change that. If anything, they may provide an example of better technique :.



> the bartenders who are allowed to pump allready drunk teenages with so much grog that they then go and kick heads in; or




And it is not legal to do so. The bar would become liable for the actions of those teenagers.



> Kyle is just a media icon who reflects the common standards of our day.  Get over it if you want to be in the real world.   If we have blown our chance to bring up the new society we have no one to blame but ourselves collectively.




Exactly - get over it. People make a fuss about someone who is just being liberal in their comments. Many people seem to feel the need to be dramatic about something, and just wait for these situations to come along.


----------



## nunthewiser (9 September 2009)

He certainly attracting more and more listeners to the radio station

a cunning plan ?


----------



## explod (9 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Do we have to endure offensive fools like Sandilands just because other things in the world arent right ?
> 
> He is NOT reflecting common standards, society isnt that far gone yet.





Of course you dont', dont' like it just turn the radio off.  Best self regulator of media standards we have.

Common standards are based on the average of community behaviour. LOL


----------



## MrBurns (9 September 2009)

Timmy said:


> I think you would find he is not too far away from his target demographic Mr B.




I agree, however his target demographic are the morons out there with whatever money they get given to them NOT the majority of the general public.


----------



## MrBurns (9 September 2009)

explod said:


> Of course you dont', dont' like it just turn the radio off.  Best self regulator of media standards we have.
> 
> Common standards are based on the average of community behaviour. LOL




Dont use that old argument "if you dont like it turn it off" thats the favourute of everyone who likes to put crap on the media for general display.

The average of community behaviour is not reflected by that buffoon.

The average person would not quiz a 14 year old girl on her sex life with a microphone in front of her.

The average person would not speak of concentration camps in a public forum in such a light manner, it's offensive as he has found out, fairly pathetic to be learning these things at his age.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (9 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> Yet another case of society being over-sensitive. The joke may have been in bad taste, but people should be able to take it for what it is and get over it. I dream of the day this *politically correct nonsense* ceases.



Mr J, many would agree.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (9 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Dont use that old argument "if you dont like it turn it off" thats the favourute of everyone who likes to put crap on the media for general display.
> 
> The average of community behaviour is not reflected by that buffoon.
> 
> ...




Mr Burns,

I agree with this.
Just on another topic, do you think the Nats should split from the Libs?


----------



## MrBurns (9 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> Yet another case of society being over-sensitive. The joke may have been in bad taste, but people should be able to take it for what it is and get over it. I dream of the day this politically correct nonsense ceases.




People will take that joke in private but not on radio or television likes lots of other stuff.

Frankly the issue here is only partly what he said it's mainly about people disliking the beady eyed little creep, he's insulting ignorant and irritating, anything to get him off the air would be good for society as a whole.


----------



## MrBurns (9 September 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Mr Burns,
> 
> I agree with this.
> Just on another topic, do you think the Nats should split from the Libs?




I'm not too sure whats your view on global warming ?


----------



## Mr J (9 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> People will take that joke in private but not on radio or television likes lots of other stuff.
> 
> Frankly the issue here is only partly what he said it's mainly about people disliking the beady eyed little creep, he's insulting ignorant and irritating, anything to get him off the air would be good for society as a whole.




I'm not asking people to like it, just to ignore it. Regardless of whether or not I like the guy, I do like the idea that someone controversial can be on air.


----------



## Prospector (9 September 2009)

Well, I dont listen to Kyle but because he is controversial I am forced to hear his comments as it gets replayed on the radio, tv and internet news.  There is no escaping him by simply 'turning off his programme'.  Hard to ignore it Mr J, it surrounds us.

Anyone who has either been in a concentration camp or prison camp would be grossly offended by his comments.  It had nothing to do with Magda or her weight, he knew when he said that he was taking on the Jewish community in their most vulnerable period.

I wonder what he has to do to get fired.  He thinks he is just being a shock jock and I hope one day Karma will come to him.


----------



## nunthewiser (9 September 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> He certainly attracting more and more listeners to the radio station
> 
> a cunning plan ?





i wouldnt be sacking him if he worked at my station 

not until it became costly to my business at least ..... its only being costly to his own personaL Standing currently 

cunning plan?


----------



## Mr J (9 September 2009)

Prospector said:


> Hard to ignore it Mr J, it surrounds us.




Not ignoring in the sense of changing the station, but being able to hear the comments and then ignore them - something many can't seem to do.



> Anyone who has either been in a concentration camp or prison camp would be grossly offended by his comments.  It had nothing to do with Magda or her weight, he knew when he said that he was taking on the Jewish community in their most vulnerable period.




And many of them are probably mature enough to ignore him. I imagine that most who experienced the camps would do just that, and that few who show public outrage experienced those events. We can't say anything without offending anyone anymore, I'm surprised we all don't just walk around apologising to each other.


----------



## Prospector (9 September 2009)

Mr J said:


> And many of them are probably mature enough to ignore him. I imagine that most who experienced the camps would do just that, and that few who show public outrage experienced those events. We can't say anything without offending anyone anymore, I'm surprised we all don't just walk around apologising to each other.




What does maturity have to do with comments that are offensive?  Are you suggesting that those who express their disdain with Kyle's methods are somehow immature?  And how do you know how these people would react, when their relatives and representatives are saying the opposite?

It isnt hard not to offend people.  That is a cop-out.


----------



## MrBurns (9 September 2009)

I think he's finished anyway ,the sponsors are now getting more flak than they are comfortable with.

He's gone from here on - if he revises his way of broadcasting he wont even have the bogan audience he has now and if he doesnt he's gone anyway, every word he says will be under the microscope from now on.


----------



## gooner (9 September 2009)

I remember someone cracking a joke on TV along the lines of "no fat people in Ethiopia". This was recently after the famines.

The point that was being made, very accurately, was that fat people only have themselves to blame for being obese. All the stuff about genes, being big boned is crap. Reality is you get fat because you eat and drink too much and don't move your fat ass enough. And Ethiopia demonstrated this.

IMHO, Kyle was making the same point.

Can't stand Kyle Sandilands. But personally think the criticism is overdone on this one. Torturing that girl was altogether different


----------



## Mr J (9 September 2009)

Prospector said:


> What does maturity have to do with comments that are offensive?  Are you suggesting that those who express their disdain with Kyle's methods are somehow immature?




Yes, because they can't ignore the little things in life.



> And how do you know how these people would react, when their relatives and representatives are saying the opposite?




Those kind of experiences tend to reveal trivial matters for what they are, and if you read my comment again you'll see that I never said that I knew how they'd react, just that that's how I imagine most of them would react.



> It isnt hard not to offend people. That is a cop-out.




It is if we are blunt.


----------



## adobee (9 September 2009)

I cant believe the up roar about this... the guy makes a poor taste comment and everyone wants his job.. i could roll through tape of radio jocks am & fm and find 1000s of worse and more distastful comments...

*The forumal here is very simple .. if people dont like kyle they wont listed to the radio station.. if people dont listen to the radio station .. boom .. his gone..*

but guess what ... people do like the radio station and they do want to listen.. and guess what more people than not...

if he didnt rate he would be gone in a week.. try Ugly Phill on MMM the duo before them.. the other shows they run for six weeks..

no ratings no job..

but getting rid of him for making a distastful comment ???!?!!?!!?? seriously..

this comment was not antisemetic it wasnt aimed at jews nazis or anyone aside from saying the bird could loose more weight ... and guess what she could.. *she is still  FAT ... big boned my ass .. try FAT *.. 


People think he should loose his job for this comment ... Hang on a minute your the same people who listen to *Allen Jones*... The host who has been *taken to task by the industry watch dog for "Inciting Rasim & Violence" and for fueling the Cronulla Riots but... leave him on air thats fine*.. lets go crazy about kyle on a show geared at boguns who you dont need to listen to for making comments that some one needs to loose more weight..

If he looses his job because people dont listed to the station fine.. axe him.. but for the out cry of some other so called journalists doing a beat up please..
these people arent even journalists.. at least Kyle & Jackie promote themselves as a trashy, non news, jerry springer style program.. whilst the haters promote themselves as Jouornalists ... get real.. they are just as bad looking for the next beat up.. try getting some real news in the paper..  Weve got troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, A democracy leader in house arrest in Burma, North Korean nut bags with Nuclear missiles, a sh&t house state government, Joe Tripodi approving Marina constructions to lebanese boys afloat mates, huge corruption in property developement, the sale of nsw lotteries, roads which are a joke, $1000 gold prices and what do we get , we get front page news of Kyle making a comment that a fat woman is fat...


----------



## trainspotter (9 September 2009)

I agree with the post above me ! He is a paid SHOCK JOCK! That is his job!  adobee has my vote.


----------



## Mr J (9 September 2009)

adobee said:


> we get front page news of Kyle making a comment that a fat woman is fat...




Think this says it all.



> I cant believe the up roar about this




Let the little people have their time with the mic, keeps them busy.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 September 2009)

I must admit I wouldn't know this bloke Lyle Bandiballs if I fell over him trying to get a rum and coke at the bar at the Townsville Races.

Who is this pissant.

Why all the posts about him.

He sounds like a bit of a pillock.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (9 September 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must admit I wouldn't know this bloke Lyle Bandiballs if I fell over him trying to get a rum and coke at the bar at the Townsville Races.
> 
> Who is this pissant.
> 
> ...




He's nothing really but landed a job making big bucks annoying everybody by being insulting and ignorant.

Some people actually support him because they think being annoying and ignorant is everybody's right and they also have the right to inflict themselves on others.

He is.


----------



## moXJO (9 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> He's nothing really but landed a job making big bucks annoying everybody by being insulting and ignorant.
> 
> Some people actually support him because they think being annoying and ignorant is everybody's right and they also have the right to inflict themselves on others.
> 
> He is.




Are you talking about Rudd or Kyle

Biker groups being threatened with legal action
Internet censorship
Police can detain you without charge
And now you can't crack a joke about a fat chick so I guess the media makes up for free speech (not that we really have that in Australia) 

The media seems to be unsatisfied they didn't get their scalp the first time (as was in the Matty Johns case).
When did they Jews claim sole rights to concentration camp grief? I don't see the Russians, Vietnamese, Cubans or countless others jumping up and down about it.

He is an idiot, but this is a media wichhunt.


----------



## MrBurns (9 September 2009)

moXJO said:


> Are you talking about Rudd or Kyle.




Goes for both doesnt it.

.







> The media seems to be unsatisfied they didn't get their scalp the first time (as was in the Matty Johns case).
> When did they Jews claim sole rights to concentration camp grief? I don't see the Russians, Vietnamese, Cubans or countless others jumping up and down about it.
> 
> He is an idiot, but this is a media wichhunt.




I agree, doesnt matter how they do it just get rid of him.


----------



## explod (9 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Goes for both doesnt it.
> 
> .
> 
> I agree, doesnt matter how they do it just get rid of him.




They wont be able to, a large audience of listeners love it, the greater the controversy and attention the greater his stature will grow.

Any publicity is good publicity.


----------



## MrBurns (9 September 2009)

explod said:


> They wont be able to, a large audience of listeners love it, the greater the controversy and attention the greater his stature will grow.
> Any publicity is good publicity.




Like I said before, he cant do this again so he wont be entertaining, he's toast.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 September 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Like I said before, he cant do this again so he wont be entertaining, he's toast.




Sounds like he is pushing the banknote.

gg


----------



## Whiskers (9 September 2009)

adobee said:


> I cant believe the up roar about this... the guy makes a poor taste comment and everyone wants his job.. i could roll through tape of radio jocks am & fm and find 1000s of worse and more distastful comments...
> 
> *The forumal here is very simple .. if people dont like kyle they wont listed to the radio station.. if people dont listen to the radio station .. boom .. his gone..*
> 
> ...




Not quite that simple... the owner/s have the right to set standards on their programing and more important than ratings is the advertisers. If the advertisers don't like their products being associated with a certain image/attitude/behaviour, and pull their adds... well then it's trouble for the owner/s.

Heard a roumour that he's pretty close to being cut loose for good this time.


----------



## nunthewiser (9 September 2009)

long time no see whiskers . hope all is well


----------



## Stan 101 (9 September 2009)

Some things in this world just shouldn't be on the radar of those in the industry of making public comment for amusement unless they have lived through it; Auschwitz and death camps like it should be high on the list. 
I went to Auschwitz once as I needed to comprehend how people could be so evil toward other people. To this day I wish I never went. Two things struck me about Auschwitz. 
The first was how innocent it was in its facade and location. From outside the compound, if one removed the barbed wire the place could be confused for a school. It was just a couple of KM from the local town's high street and train station.
The second was not the furnace lots where people were burned. It wasn't the area where people were lined up and shot. It wasn't the terrible conditions of the sleeping quarters. It was the staircases. 
The stair treads were made of solid stone and had been worn down nearly an inch from the countless people walking on them knowing they were soon to be at their death. That realization covered me in a sadness I'd never known before. Facts and numbers in history books are just that. Seeing the result of so many weary trapsing a well beaten path in just a few years had me begin to realise the sheer extent of the holocaust.
u

That, in my opinion, is the reason that people such as Kyle Sandilands should not be allowed to offhandedly speak in the way he did. People who survived that terrible tragedy are still alive as are people who had to pick up the pieces after the war. In years when they have all passed and generations only learn of the holocaust second hand should still keep it sacred to remind all of humanity that we as a race are only ever a few short steps from true mass evil.

If Sandilands can't understand that, he should be removed from our airways by the governing authority.


cheers,


----------



## MrBurns (9 September 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> Some things in this world just shouldn't be on the radar of those in the industry of making public comment for amusement unless they have lived through it; Auschwitz and death camps like it should be high on the list.
> I went to Auschwitz once as I needed to comprehend how people could be so evil toward other people. To this day I wish I never went. Two things struck me about Auschwitz.
> The first was how innocent it was in its facade and location. From outside the compound, if one removed the barbed wire the place could be confused for a school. It was just a couple of KM from the local town's high street and train station.
> The second was not the furnace lots where people were burned. It wasn't the area where people were lined up and shot. It wasn't the terrible conditions of the sleeping quarters. It was the staircases.
> ...




Interesting insight there Stan, thanks for that.

Sandilands conversation and actions belong in a pub , one that I'm not at.


----------



## Julia (9 September 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> He certainly attracting more and more listeners to the radio station
> 
> a cunning plan ?






explod said:


> They wont be able to, a large audience of listeners love it, the greater the controversy and attention the greater his stature will grow.
> 
> Any publicity is good publicity.



Disagree with both the above.
In "PM" this evening it was reported that advertisers are deserting the station, not wishing to be associated with Sandilands' insensitivity.

Personally, I find him very boring and actually a bit pathetic.


----------



## Prospector (9 September 2009)

I wonder too, how influential the Jewish community is in the financial backing of the media.


----------



## trainspotter (10 September 2009)

Suspended for 10 days for saying that Magda Szubanski would lose more weight if she was in a concentration camp. The world has gone MAD!


----------



## adobee (10 September 2009)

Whiskers said:


> Not quite that simple... the owner/s have the right to set standards on their programing and more important than ratings is the advertisers. If the advertisers don't like their products being associated with a certain image/attitude/behaviour, and pull their adds... well then it's trouble for the owner/s.
> 
> Heard a roumour that he's pretty close to being cut loose for good this time.




Guess what the advertisers want there adverts to be heard..  have you heard who advertises on this show ?????

- lemon detox diet, AMI Erections, some caryard taken over by some chick ..

Seriously will this really impact there sales ..... ?!!?!?!?

This is a witch hunt .. they should be chasing Alan Jones or Jason Morrison for comments this morning about ethnics in Auburn this morning and that the best way to deal with them is for Aussies to show them whos boss ?!!?!?!?

seriously ...


----------



## adobee (10 September 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> Some things in this world just shouldn't be on the radar of those in the industry of making public comment for amusement unless they have lived through it; Auschwitz and death camps like it should be high on the list.
> I went to Auschwitz once as I needed to comprehend how people could be so evil toward other people. To this day I wish I never went. Two things struck me about Auschwitz.
> The first was how innocent it was in its facade and location. From outside the compound, if one removed the barbed wire the place could be confused for a school. It was just a couple of KM from the local town's high street and train station.
> The second was not the furnace lots where people were burned. It wasn't the area where people were lined up and shot. It wasn't the terrible conditions of the sleeping quarters. It was the staircases.
> ...




*Have you listed to the tape / blurb ..??* he is not aiming at this comment at holocaust survivors or relatives.. he didnt mention Germany or Auschwitz..

I think this part of history is an abomination ..  but pulling it out on someone using the word concentration camp is not reasonable ..  especially in australia.. 

This is so ludicrous..

If he had said ..

Put her in a filthy Indonesian jail, or she looked like a imigrant boat person, or that she was an aboriginal so she was a scum bag, or they must be muslim lebs ..

then no one would make an uproar..

I do think people should be sensitive to others.. but I also think this is Australia and Australians should be able to take a knock or comment without going crazy and wanting someones job..  If we are going to have sensitive matters and words in this country they should relate to aboriginals, stolen generations, aboriginal genicide and the like.. At this point we cant even say sorry for these things but we are going to be protective of a single word not aimed at all at the persons involved in the holocaust...

I am sure that if people dug a bit deeper on Kyle Sandilands that behind the abbrupt jerk he plays as a shock jock (which is his job) the guy does a lot of good for charities etc.. alot more than many goody goody presenters..


----------



## Mr J (10 September 2009)

> I am sure that if people dug a bit deeper on Kyle Sandilands




Most people will judge him by these little controversies, and conclude he is a pig. I don't know him, he may be a pretty good guy.


----------



## jono1887 (10 September 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Suspended for 10 days for saying that Magda Szubanski would lose more weight if she was in a concentration camp. The world has gone MAD!




what would you have them do to him?


----------



## Mr J (10 September 2009)

jono1887 said:


> what would you have them do to him?




Less than suspend him for 10 days? If I ran the station, I'd be tempted to go on air and suggestion everyone get a life, but then I'd probably be suspended too .


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 September 2009)

Why do people give their attention to "sensationlised media". Tomorrow it wil be another "sensationalised media" story on everyones lips.

Come on people, there are more wholesome, educational and wisening events happening every day that are never known. 

I know I know, humans love trash talk.


----------



## awg (10 September 2009)

I once read a quote from an article on weight loss debunking the theory that certain body types made it impossible to lose weight.

the quotee, who from memory was an nutrition academic of some kind, debunked this theory with similar statement that Sandilands made.

ie that calorie restriction forces weight loss and concentration camps were proof of this.

I wonder if he ( Sandilands) read the same thing I did.


----------



## GumbyLearner (10 September 2009)

Ok now I know who this Sandilands guy is due to recent press reports.

How can a nobody get headlines like this?

Magda has always been a very funny and an entertaining lady.

*Kyle Sandilands is a nobody!!*


----------



## trainspotter (10 September 2009)

I note the lack of tone from Magda Zubanskis quarter as an equivocal endorsement of Kyle? Pulheeeasse people. HE IS A SHOCK JOCK. Paid to say such utterances that get people like us tapping away at a keyboard !! Goodness gracious me. Have we become such erudites that we can pass jusgement on such a character that society has spawned?


----------



## Stan 101 (10 September 2009)

adobee said:


> *Have you listed to the tape / blurb ..??*



Yes, hence my response.



> he is not aiming at this comment at holocaust survivors or relatives.. he didnt mention Germany or Auschwitz..



The term concentration camps are generally in reference to German extermination camps during world war two. That lead to my reference.



> I think this part of history is an abomination ..  but pulling it out on someone using the word concentration camp is not reasonable ..  especially in australia..



That's your opinion. He made a joke of and belittled premeditated mass murder based on belief, race and colour.


]


> If he had said ..
> 
> Put her in a filthy Indonesian jail, or she looked like a imigrant boat person, or that she was an aboriginal so she was a scum bag, or they must be muslim lebs ..
> 
> then no one would make an uproar..



Big difference to going to jail that being systematically slaughtered in my opinion. I'm happy for your opinion to differ.



> I do think people should be sensitive to others.. but I also think this is Australia and Australians should be able to take a knock or comment without going crazy and wanting someones job..




I agree that often we are too precious about individuals and minority groups in general. Some things should not be glazed over, though; again in just my opinion.

As for the guy being a "shock jock" and people wanting his job removed, have you ever thought that society may finally getting sick and tired of his useless drivel wasting airspace? Of course that's not something I can follow up with hard data.
Any one of his gaffs and poor taste would never be an issue in itself but the cumulative effect of this guy finally has people calling for change, obviously. Of course the print have decided to force the point for their agenda. He's not the first they've done it to and he won't be the last.

Insight can often (but not always) be gleaned from a person's peers and it seems this Kyle is the butt of many other comedian's jokes. 

cheers,


----------



## trainspotter (10 September 2009)

*nodding head sagely at Stan 101s print media message* His time is UP ! Remember what they did to Derryn Hinch? Ground hog day for sure !!


----------



## GumbyLearner (10 September 2009)




----------



## cuttlefish (10 September 2009)

adobee said:


> This is a witch hunt .. they should be chasing Alan Jones or Jason Morrison for comments this morning about ethnics in Auburn this morning and that the best way to deal with them is for Aussies to show them whos boss ?!!?!?!?
> 
> seriously ...




I think Kyle's a first class tool but in spite of that I find it difficult to get upset over the weight/concentration camp comment.

I agree - Jones' comments have far more negative impact than anything Kyle's capable of conjuring up.


----------



## GumbyLearner (11 September 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> I think Kyle's a first class tool but in spite of that I find it difficult to get upset over the weight/concentration camp comment.
> 
> I agree - Jones' comments have far more negative impact than anything Kyle's capable of conjuring up.




Sorry but cuttle seriously disagree with you here.

You have burnt to many bridges that were given to you on a platter!

F*** off the airwaves Kyle!


----------



## Boggo (5 October 2009)

Dunno if anyone saw Good News Week  on Sat night, where they sit around the trash can and have a whinge about whatever.

Magda Szubanski's whinge was about cyclists...

The problems with cyclists :
Wearing lycra
Riding on the road (when there are "taxpayer funded bike paths 1m away")
"Tippy tappy shoes" in cafes, "take the bloody shoes off".
Cyclists trackstanding
Cyclists going too slow

Then fat arsed Julia chimes in with "I'm sick of bullies on the road", then ... "on the cyclists - don't fine em, just [swerving motion] take 'em out". Completely blind to her own hypocrisy.

My opinion of Kyle has changed as far as comments on Magda are concerned.

Maybe these two need to spend some time on the bench with Kyle especially considering that Channel 10 is a sponsor of the Amy Gillet Foundation.

More flamin fodder for bogans 

By the way, Media Watch are very interested


----------



## Mr J (5 October 2009)

Boggo said:


> Then fat arsed Julia chimes in with "I'm sick of bullies on the road", then ... "on the cyclists - don't fine em, just [swerving motion] take 'em out".




She may not actually mean it, but there are many people who do. Ride any type of bike on the road, and you'll discover just how many homicidal loons there are these days. It's interesting that the suggestion of murder is acceptable, while calling a fat person fat is not.


----------



## Boggo (5 October 2009)

Looks like they are in damage control.

They are no different to Vyle and Jackie Ho really are they.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertai...on-cyclist-jibe/2009/10/03/1254418754842.html


----------



## SM Junkie (5 October 2009)

Looks like comedy is dead. Everything seems to be taken as truthful comments rather than humour. We are taking things far too serious.

I have no problem with Magna’s comments, it was generalised taking the piss and I really don't think she was encouraging people to run over cyclists, do you. 

Kyle's comment was more inflamatory because he attacked an individual, had he made similar comments about fat people in general, then I doubt there would have been so much objection.


----------



## moXJO (5 October 2009)

God... its Paul Keating era revisited for political correctness. Have we really become that precious?


----------



## sam76 (5 October 2009)

moXJO said:


> God... its Paul Keating era revisited for political correctness. Have we really become that precious?




I find your comment offensive to political leaders and I demand an apology...


----------



## jono1887 (5 October 2009)

any heard of what kyle is up to these days??


----------

