C4 call in security following Peterson debate

[BritGHOWParticipant 2566]

Following the interview discussed here:

Jordan Peterson Channel 4 Debate

Channel 4 have apparently called in security protection for Cathy Newman following abuse and threats against her.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5291581/Channel-4-gets-security-Cathy-Newman-abuse.html

Surely a sign of the times that my thought process was:
“Why the hell would anyone need to make threats against her? Peterson already comprehensively destroyed her position during the debate, surely such threats just serve to make a martyr out of her and distract from… oh, of course”

Such transparent bulls~~~, but the sheep as always will lap it all up.

[LandmineParticipant 644]

Timely I literally just watched this interview every minute of it.

She was beyond transparent with her method of questioning him and demonstrated an unwillingness to separate his direct and unemotional presentation of facts and research from her obvious agenda Weakly refuting his answers supported by emotions.

He completely got her at the end, that hamster wheel spun so fast it was sending smoke signals to eject.

Putting being female aside, she demonstrated that as a journalist she does not operate professionally, to possess the ability to approach a subject rationally, unemotionally, or impartially.

We are the awakened. We are MGTOW

[FragmentedParticipant 2758]

I wouldn’t be surprised if the “threats” are an inside job to make red pill men look “dangerous”. Take a look at how dishonest the media is. Could be wrong, but you never know when we’re talking about the corrupt media.

http://register-her.net/web/guest/home

[qeeqoParticipant 1168]

I watched that debate. He ate her lunch and left her with the dishes.

[rightturnclydeParticipant 705]

I have been looking at different sites to get their take on the interview and apparently not one commenter on any site has yet to see any threat posted, anywhere. Lots of criticism and the usual troll crap calling her a bitch etc. but that is not the same as a threat. Looks like Channel 4 may want to be deflecting the conversation away from “our presenter Cathy Newman is an incompetent interviewer” to “Cathy Newman is a victim”

[Anonymous 0]

They are using REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY to make men look DANGEROUS!
This is how they MANUFACTURE their VICTIMHOOD.
Using FALSE FLAG ATTACKS to gain public support.

[FragmentedParticipant 2758]

Anonymous wrote:

They are using REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY to make men look DANGEROUS!
This is how they MANUFACTURE their VICTIMHOOD.
Using FALSE FLAG ATTACKS to gain public support.

Bingo !

http://register-her.net/web/guest/home

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

Here are the horrible f~~~ing s~~~ people have been saying about this c~~~ as quoted in the article. And if you listen to the interview, she’s really is a ball breaking f~~~ing idiot.

Twitter trolls had called Newman a ‘c***’, a ‘b****’, a ‘f***ing idiot’ and said she was ‘not attractive to look at’.

F~~~ing slag.

Notice the job opportunity boys. Internet security risk assessment is a profession according to the article.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[ChristopherParticipant 2478]

There seems to be widespread reaction to this interview right across society judging by the reaction posted on many websites correctly identifying that newman came across as an bombastic feminist ideologue and not a journalist and that peterson calmy won the debate by conversing politely and rationally in comparison to newman.

Its pretty obvious the security risk story is an double down attempt to turn newman into a victim and distract from peterson clearly winning the socalled interview.

Regardless of whether i agree with all petersons points its refreshing to see feminist bulls~~~ being exposed on live TV.

Feminism was funded by bankers/politicians to create more taxpayers. MGTOW IS FREEDOM https://archive.org/details/mgtowisfreedomblurayready

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

She is a victim. She was mansplained in a clear sign of misogyny by Peterson right in front of every one on tv.

She has her “lived life” reality and there is no excuse for him to use the patriarchal rules of logic and reason to alienate this women’s views.

Via her ownership of a vagina, her opinions are just as valid as Peterson’s and add to the discussion by bringing in the female point of view.

-Brought you you by N.O.W. the organization that will f~~~ your government, boss and husband for you.

A must have for a modern woman.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[Anonymous 42]

Landmine wrote:

He completely got her at the end, that hamster wheel spun so fast it was sending smoke signals to eject.

I knew I smelled burning hair!

[iMickey503Participant 12465]

Any guy ever wanting to “FIX” the problem.. Just watch this. And you will see what the solution really is.

I really hate to be the one to say this, But I have this really bad suspension that all these women are going to look at some very hard lives in the future. What I mean by that, I think you know what I mean.

You are all alone. If you have been falsely accused of RAPE, DV, PLEASE let all men know about the people who did this. http://register-her.net/web/guest/home

[OldBillParticipant]

Given the BBC’s behavior towards this site, those “threats” made against Cathy Newman were nothing but a false flag action by the BBC intended to divert attention away from the fact that she got her ass handed to her by Dr. Peterson.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[It’sallbsParticipant]

The interview was on Channel 4 not the BBC.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[SkeptiskParticipant 3679]

It’sallbs wrote:

The interview was on Channel 4 not the BBC.

Channel 4, BBC, it’s all Fake News Britain…

And calling somebody a bitch isn’t a threat, but an assessment of a person. Besides, threats are useless, so I think the MSM needs to work more on their false-flag operation to be more credible. It’s all lies, of course, like that muslim c~~~ in Canada.

"Expecting to find a decent woman on a dating site is like dumpster diving and expecting to come out with a gourmet meal." Won'tGetFooledAgain

[OldBillParticipant]

It’sallbs wrote:

The interview was on Channel 4 not the BBC.

That’s like saying ABC and ESPN are different.

I’m surprised that a rabid conspiracy theorist like yourself doesn’t perceive BBC1, BBC2, and Channel 4 as different fingers on the same glove.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[It’sallbsParticipant]

OldBill wrote:

’m surprised that a rabid conspiracy theorist like yourself doesn’t perceive BBC1, BBC2, and Channel 4 as different fingers on the same glove.

I do.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

It’sallbs wrote:

OldBill wrote:

’m surprised that a rabid conspiracy theorist like yourself doesn’t perceive BBC1, BBC2, and Channel 4 as different fingers on the same glove.

I do.

The BBC is actually a governmnet department although they try to disguise it.

Technically Channel 4 is independent as is ITV, Channel 5 etc

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

OldBill wrote:

That’s like saying ABC and ESPN are different.

No, I was just pointing out you were factually incorrect about which channel it was.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[It’sallbsParticipant]

Skeptisk wrote:

Channel 4, BBC, it’s all Fake News Britain…

I know that.

http://www.leavemeansleave.eu

[Author]

Posts