The Newsroom

Sky News

Sky News HD Launches 9pm tonight (February 2009)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
LJ
Live at five with Jeremy
Perhaps she could present alongside JT on Live at Five, with a view to her being his replacement when he retires. There's a number of slightly less well-known anchors who could takeover the News at Ten slot - Jayne Secker or Mark Longhurst for example. It's been mentioned that Martin Stanford is underused at Sky; it'd be good if he went back to Sky News Today (possibly with Anna Jones), but as I've said before I guess there's a reason why he only does half an hour per day.

That said, I imagine Sky will do the obvious thing and change nothing though, so it's all slightly pointless speculation.


Im not sure if you know that Martin also has a ten minute slot on the live desk so he does have quite a long day if you were referring to him having a shorter day by just doing a half hour slot. Sky should scrap NSW but he is suited to that format as he did prior to .com
UK
ukjds
Ah, fair enough then. I guess he must be busy preparing for SkyNews.com, strange though that he never appears on Afternoon Live or Live at Five, although I know he did cover the latter a few years ago.
DA
David

What would you have liked him to ask about it?


Are you unaware of the news, or don't you find it noteworthy at all?

He thinks its the right of hoteliers to turn away guests based on their sexual orientation - in a way that would never be allowed on the grounds of race or religion.



No he doesn't. He was talking about people running a bed and breakfast in their own homes, not hotels. He specifically said he didn't think it would be right for hotels to turn people away.

EDIT: In answer to you, the question could be, "how far do you think this "right to discriminate" for business owners should be extended? No gays and lesbians allowed in restaurants or bars? Where's the difference?"


Why go over old ground? This was a 'story' kicked up by a newspaper a few weeks ago. I don't think interview questions on Sky News should be based on the agenda of a newspaper if there is nothing new to be gained from it.

BTW, here is what he said. Doesn't seem so bad without all the misleading headlines does it?

Quote:
"I personally always took the view that... if you look at the case of 'Should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from their hotel?'
"I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home.
"If they are running a hotel on the High Street, I really don't think that it is right in this day and age that a gay couple should walk into a hotel and be turned away because they are a gay couple, and I think that is where the dividing line comes."
LJ
Live at five with Jeremy
Ah, fair enough then. I guess he must be busy preparing for SkyNews.com, strange though that he never appears on Afternoon Live or Live at Five, although I know he did cover the latter a few years ago.


Yes you can always see him on Live at Five as .com team are positioned behind Jeremy and Martin comes into shot, who seems to be preparing for .com
BR
breakingnews
Adam Boulton managed to get an interview with the elusive Chris Grayling earlier, but rather disappointingly failed to ask him about the controversy's surrounding him (B&B comments etc)


Unlike Nicholas Owen who questioned him rather rigorously about it the other day on the BBC News Channel.


The guy just looked like an idiot after it. It's a legitimate question given the fact that he hasn't clarified his position. I'm surprised that Boulton didn't raise the matter, I don't want to mention bias but...
PE
Pete Founding member
he was referring to Christian individuals who own B&B's and welcome guests in their own home and not 'hoteliers'. He was merely stating he believes people in their own homes have a right to chose who enters into such a personal space


The "own home" thing holds no weight with me. It stops being your own home once you convert it to a B&B and install the fire doors, smoke alarms, ramps, extra ensuites, separate doors for your own backrooms and fancier kitchen. In which sense it becomes living above the shop, so should people be allowed to prevent gays shopping in a corner shop if they live above it.

The issue is something that is on the edge of a very slippery slope and holds no reason. One person on the Mail's site suggested that its "no different from refusing to let a filthy person with muddy clothes in", because we all know gays emit an acid that turns kids into poofs.

Not least that, but if he doesn't believe in the law, why the hell did he then try and claim it was correct?

And that is why he should be questionned on it by someone who is meant to be a heavyweight interviewer.

[edit: oh and gav made most of this argument earlier, but I'm going to leave it anyhow]

and on another angle, mr lees, since when should TV news not follow newspaper stories. Every day they do exactly that and vice versa. Plus given that said politician has been MIA for the last week or so and was missing from the manefesto launch it's clearly an embarrassment to the party so there IS something new to be gained.
GS
Gavin Scott Founding member

What would you have liked him to ask about it?


Are you unaware of the news, or don't you find it noteworthy at all?

He thinks its the right of hoteliers to turn away guests based on their sexual orientation - in a way that would never be allowed on the grounds of race or religion.



No he doesn't. He was talking about people running a bed and breakfast in their own homes, not hotels. He specifically said he didn't think it would be right for hotels to turn people away.

EDIT: In answer to you, the question could be, "how far do you think this "right to discriminate" for business owners should be extended? No gays and lesbians allowed in restaurants or bars? Where's the difference?"


Why go over old ground? This was a 'story' kicked up by a newspaper a few weeks ago. I don't think interview questions on Sky News should be based on the agenda of a newspaper if there is nothing new to be gained from it.

BTW, here is what he said. Doesn't seem so bad without all the misleading headlines does it?

Quote:
"I personally always took the view that... if you look at the case of 'Should a Christian hotel owner have the right to exclude a gay couple from their hotel?'
"I took the view that if it's a question of somebody who's doing a B&B in their own home, that individual should have the right to decide who does and who doesn't come into their own home.
"If they are running a hotel on the High Street, I really don't think that it is right in this day and age that a gay couple should walk into a hotel and be turned away because they are a gay couple, and I think that is where the dividing line comes."


I refer you to my full reply at the bottom of the previous page.

A B&B is not an individual's "home" for the purposes of law - and never has been.
BN
Breakfast News
What about Penny Smith? Afterall, she is a former Sky host, and a fairly 'big' name...if Eamonn were to go, they could do worse than Penny!
PE
Pete Founding member
What about Penny Smith? Afterall, she is a former Sky host, and a fairly 'big' name...if Eamonn were to go, they could do worse than Penny!


Nobody is suggesting Penny Smith be barred form B&Bs.
UK
ukjds
Yes you can always see him on Live at Five as .com team are positioned behind Jeremy and Martin comes into shot, who seems to be preparing for .com


I meant presenting, as a relief for Jeremy or Kay.
TH
Thomas
I think in the evenings they should scrap NSW and instead have Martin Stanford/Matt Smith presenting Sky Evening News or Sky News on the Hour, before the News at Ten presenter replaces him.
FU
fusionlad Founding member
What about Penny Smith? Afterall, she is a former Sky host, and a fairly 'big' name...if Eamonn were to go, they could do worse than Penny!


Nobody is suggesting Penny Smith be barred form B&Bs.


hehe made me snigger.

Talk about going from one subject to the other.

Newer posts