UKC

Hilarious Sarah Olney interview, cannot deal with questions re Brexit, has to be pulled off air by her press team.

Basically, she is asked when the second by election would be as less than the 50% of the electorate had voted, same premise the Lib gems use for demanding another Brexit vote....

http://talkradio.co.uk/news/new-richmond-park-mp-sarah-olney-dragged-air-pr...

In reply to Jim 1003:

What's your vision for our revised relationship with the EU and how does it improve our lives Jim? At least the 6th time of asking you what should be a really simple question given you're such a fan of leaving.
jk

In reply to Jim 1003:

Are they asking for another vote? I thought they were asking for a vote on the terms of any agreement, in which case it is a nonsense question, to which she gave a very weak answer.

In reply to Jim 1003:
It came over to me as a poor attempt by the interviewer to try to distort the discussion as she felt fit and based on a false premise. That's exactly why I wouldn't ordinarily listen to such a radio station or presenter: they think they're smart and that listeners want to hear them rather than a decent, objective interview.

Edit: I heard the first half or so, then gave up, once the interviewee had done likewise.

In reply to Jim 1003:


It was a pisspoor interview by her. There were several obvious answers with regards to the byelection eg you get one in 4 years or pointing out the libdems support for PR or indeed quoting Saint Farage in that he wouldnt consider a 52-48 response the end if it went against him.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Talksport.

As of June this year part of Murdock empire. Say no more

In reply to Jim 1003:

Hmmm, in a referendum there are two voting choices, very easy to get a majority.

An election vote splits multiple directions.

Ridiculous premise by the interviewer.

In reply to Jim 1003:

Very poor interview on behalf of the station. The presented sounded aggressive and frustrated... and to annoy your interviewee by dogging them so much that the PR guy stops the interview is a massive fail!

In reply to Jim 1003: They were meaningless questions that bore no relevance to the referendum. In that, there were two choices, in the by-election there were 6 or 7. It was pisspoor journalism. Being pulled off (so to speak) by the PR guy was a pretty obvious thing to do in the face of such nonsense.

In reply to David Martin:


Would you really expect anything else from Julie Hartley-Brewer.

In reply to The New NickB:

That should of course be Julia Hartley-Brewer, I would call her Julia Heartless-Bastard as she is known by many, but I understand she likes is, so I won't.

In reply to The New NickB:

Agreed, hardly a grilling, more like a hot air blower. How can a news outlet expect us to take them seriously when interviewers like J H-B have such strong public views on a subject.

In reply to Jim 1003:

What did you have in mind when you voted, how did you see the future being brighter?

In reply to Frank the Husky:


Actually, it showed Olney as inept...simple questions, no answers....

In reply to Jim 1003:

Talk about pots and kettles. A couple of people have asked you a simple question on this thread and you have provided . . . . no answer. In which case, are you an inept voter?

In reply to Jim 1003:

There is some irony in you berating Olney for having no answers whilst simultaneously ignoring the questions put to you repeatedly in this thread...

EDIT: snap, with Hugh J's response

In reply to Jim 1003: She should have certainly exposed the interviewer for the plonker she was, which was inept on her part. Like I say, the questions were foolish and meaningless, even if the politician wsn't quick witted enough to cotton on to that fact.

In reply to Hugh J:


False premise, Jim has never claimed to be the representative of a party or electorate, and therefore should not be held o or have the same expectation of, someone whose election win was trumped as a resurgence of the Limp Dems.

In reply to Big Ger:

That's never stopped you from opening your mouth.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


There is no irony, I haven't agreed to be interviewed, nor am I a politician, but I am pleased Big Ger defended me.
Anyway, back to the point, do we need another by election because 50% of the electorate didn't vote, or does that just apply to Brexit?
After her performance, which is only marginally worse than Jeremies ramblings, nobody will ever vote Liberal again.
Does Jeremy need a better press manger to pull him off air more often when he says stupid things or refuses to wear a poppy?

In reply to Hugh J:


To quote a sage; "Finally (and this applies to many others too), do you actually have anything to say on the actual subject of the thread?"

Loving your hypocrisy there...

In reply to Jim 1003:

If that's your philosophy I wouldn't open yourself up to criticism by posting on here, let alone starting threads on here if you do not want to answers responses.

You and Big Ger are just barrack room lawyers.

I might vote Lib Dem again or I might vote Labour again and I might vote Tory at some stage but doubtful, I will never vote UKIP.

In reply to Big Ger:

That was a series of relevant replies to posts within this thread, unlike the reply you gave on my thread, which had nothing to do with the subject matter.

In reply to Jim 1003:


Talking of ineptitude, simple questions and no answers Jim...

What is your vision for our new relationship with the EU, what did you vote for and how will it make life better?
jk

In reply to Jim 1003:


Turnout was over 50% in both cases.

In reply to Big Ger:


I think this line of questioning started before this particular thread.

In reply to Jim 1003:



Constituencies vote for MPs every 5 years, or less if they resign / die. Maybe we should have had membership of the EU under such constant review? Or isn't that what you meant?

In reply to Fraser:


Thats the thing. It's a station aimed at a particular baying mob demographic who are better at witch burning than any semblance of critical thought.