Anthony Joshua and Louis Theroux

[big lennox]

Paul Theroux is my favourite author. A really interesting & intelligent man. He brought back modern day travel writing.

Happy Isles of Oceania is my personal favourite book of his.

He is a beautiful writer. I love The Kingdom by the Sea and The Great Railway Bazaar. His essays are really wonderful, too.

Have you read Living in 'Sir.Vidia's Shadow', where he tears into V.S.Naipaul? It's an epic takedown.

I feel like I’ve inadvertently stumbled upon an old episode of Newsnight Review

Paul Theroux is definitely worth a read. One of the great writer's of the 20th and 21st centuries.

[golden_labrador]

i think most people are past it and just don't really care much anymore tbh. 3 years ago he said to shop in black owned businesses, it's not comparable to decades worth of allegations of sexually abusing children

Basically, the press have buried it, and that's saved him, because they could ruin you. As I mentioned about Fury, if he'd made comparable comments he'd be finished and Fury knows it. Joshua has had a bit of good fortune, a bit like his boxing career. It must be remembered that speech was made during a highented part of UK's history and he should have known better. Parts of it were definitely Inflammatory. I agree Theroux should have addressed it, and it's not Joshua's fault he didn't. I think we may have seen a different side to the interview if he did, and that is balance. That speech was not minor, it happened and it was said. I would say to Joshua don't take my hard earned money paying for tickets and PPV's and insult people. That's a fair analogy.

I think most would agree that Fury made worse comments than AJ has yet clearly isn’t finished.

agreed

[jtourettes]

i think most people are past it and just don't really care much anymore tbh. 3 years ago he said to shop in black owned businesses, it's not comparable to decades worth of allegations of sexually abusing children

Basically, the press have buried it, and that's saved him, because they could ruin you. As I mentioned about Fury, if he'd made comparable comments he'd be finished and Fury knows it. Joshua has had a bit of good fortune, a bit like his boxing career. It must be remembered that speech was made during a highented part of UK's history and he should have known better. Parts of it were definitely Inflammatory. I agree Theroux should have addressed it, and it's not Joshua's fault he didn't. I think we may have seen a different side to the interview if he did, and that is balance. That speech was not minor, it happened and it was said. I would say to Joshua don't take my hard earned money paying for tickets and PPV's and insult people. That's a fair analogy.

I'm not an AJ fan but didn't disagree with his comment, Malcolm X said the same thing. The most successful historically immigrant communities do the same. Keeping the money within your community helps lift everybody in said community.

As for Fury, he's made some pretty controversial comments himself but they're mostly overlooked since he became a mental health champion.

[Callowland]

i think most people are past it and just don't really care much anymore tbh. 3 years ago he said to shop in black owned businesses, it's not comparable to decades worth of allegations of sexually abusing children

Basically, the press have buried it, and that's saved him, because they could ruin you. As I mentioned about Fury, if he'd made comparable comments he'd be finished and Fury knows it. Joshua has had a bit of good fortune, a bit like his boxing career. It must be remembered that speech was made during a highented part of UK's history and he should have known better. Parts of it were definitely Inflammatory. I agree Theroux should have addressed it, and it's not Joshua's fault he didn't. I think we may have seen a different side to the interview if he did, and that is balance. That speech was not minor, it happened and it was said. I would say to Joshua don't take my hard earned money paying for tickets and PPV's and insult people. That's a fair analogy.

I'm not an AJ fan but didn't disagree with his comment, Malcolm X said the same thing. The most successful historically immigrant communities do the same. Keeping the money within your community helps lift everybody in said community.

As for Fury, he's made some pretty controversial comments himself but they're mostly overlooked since he became a mental health champion.

As I keep saying, if Fury had made a contrived, comparable statement in a preordained speech, his life would have been made a misery.
I seem to recall before Fury went down the mental health route, after beating Klitschko, he did make some statements and the media went after him, more virulently than what they did with Joshua.
If people on here want to gloss over what was said in a predetermined speech, with no apology made for it, fair enough.
However, I would say he should have thought twice about provoking people who have essentially made him a multi millionaire, and he should count his lucky stars the media got off his back, and gave him teflonesque immunity.

[jtourettes]

Basically, the press have buried it, and that's saved him, because they could ruin you. As I mentioned about Fury, if he'd made comparable comments he'd be finished and Fury knows it. Joshua has had a bit of good fortune, a bit like his boxing career. It must be remembered that speech was made during a highented part of UK's history and he should have known better. Parts of it were definitely Inflammatory. I agree Theroux should have addressed it, and it's not Joshua's fault he didn't. I think we may have seen a different side to the interview if he did, and that is balance. That speech was not minor, it happened and it was said. I would say to Joshua don't take my hard earned money paying for tickets and PPV's and insult people. That's a fair analogy.

I'm not an AJ fan but didn't disagree with his comment, Malcolm X said the same thing. The most successful historically immigrant communities do the same. Keeping the money within your community helps lift everybody in said community.

As for Fury, he's made some pretty controversial comments himself but they're mostly overlooked since he became a mental health champion.

As I keep saying, if Fury had made a contrived, comparable statement in a preordained speech, his life would have been made a misery.
I seem to recall before Fury went down the mental health route, after beating Klitschko, he did make some statements and the media went after him, more virulently than what they did with Joshua.
If people on here want to gloss over what was said in a predetermined speech, with no apology made for it, fair enough.
However, I would say he should have thought twice about provoking people who have essentially made him a multi millionaire, and he should count his lucky stars the media got off his back, and gave him teflonesque immunity.

To you it's a big deal, to me it wasn't even a storm in a teacup, friends in your point of view. He did get shit for it at the time iirc

[SeanBrennan]

i think most people are past it and just don't really care much anymore tbh. 3 years ago he said to shop in black owned businesses, it's not comparable to decades worth of allegations of sexually abusing children

Basically, the press have buried it, and that's saved him, because they could ruin you. As I mentioned about Fury, if he'd made comparable comments he'd be finished and Fury knows it. Joshua has had a bit of good fortune, a bit like his boxing career. It must be remembered that speech was made during a highented part of UK's history and he should have known better. Parts of it were definitely Inflammatory. I agree Theroux should have addressed it, and it's not Joshua's fault he didn't. I think we may have seen a different side to the interview if he did, and that is balance. That speech was not minor, it happened and it was said. I would say to Joshua don't take my hard earned money paying for tickets and PPV's and insult people. That's a fair analogy.

I think most would agree that Fury made worse comments than AJ has yet clearly isn’t finished.

I don't take umbrage with what either have said, if we were all in the public light and our worst statements were quoted, we'd all be buggered. It's weirdo behaviour to obsess over a boxing's comments about non boxing matters, years afterwards.

[Callowland]

Basically, the press have buried it, and that's saved him, because they could ruin you. As I mentioned about Fury, if he'd made comparable comments he'd be finished and Fury knows it. Joshua has had a bit of good fortune, a bit like his boxing career. It must be remembered that speech was made during a highented part of UK's history and he should have known better. Parts of it were definitely Inflammatory. I agree Theroux should have addressed it, and it's not Joshua's fault he didn't. I think we may have seen a different side to the interview if he did, and that is balance. That speech was not minor, it happened and it was said. I would say to Joshua don't take my hard earned money paying for tickets and PPV's and insult people. That's a fair analogy.

I think most would agree that Fury made worse comments than AJ has yet clearly isn’t finished.

I don't take umbrage with what either have said, if we were all in the public light and our worst statements were quoted, we'd all be buggered. It's weirdo behaviour to obsess over a boxing's comments about non boxing matters, years afterwards.

I think it's 'weirdo behaviour' to object to someone having a perfectly legitimate opinion about deliberate controversial comments about people who have helped make him a multi millionaire. I genuinely thought Theroux would have raised it as I have seen him ask similarly incisive questions previously without any qualms. I am a bit surprised he didn't, because with other points he made, like Joshua's previous criminal convictions, you can see he'd done his research. Tell me, what's the problem with stating the glaringly obvious.

[1328613]

I think most would agree that Fury made worse comments than AJ has yet clearly isn’t finished.

I don't take umbrage with what either have said, if we were all in the public light and our worst statements were quoted, we'd all be buggered. It's weirdo behaviour to obsess over a boxing's comments about non boxing matters, years afterwards.

I think it's 'weirdo behaviour' to object to someone having a perfectly legitimate opinion about deliberate controversial comments about people who have helped make him a multi millionaire. I genuinely thought Theroux would have raised it as I have seen him ask similarly incisive questions previously without any qualms. I am a bit surprised he didn't, because with other points he made, like Joshua's previous criminal convictions, you can see he'd done his research. Tell me, what's the problem with stating the glaringly obvious.

You know what the problem is…

[jwfg]

I think most would agree that Fury made worse comments than AJ has yet clearly isn’t finished.

I don't take umbrage with what either have said, if we were all in the public light and our worst statements were quoted, we'd all be buggered. It's weirdo behaviour to obsess over a boxing's comments about non boxing matters, years afterwards.

I think it's 'weirdo behaviour' to object to someone having a perfectly legitimate opinion about deliberate controversial comments about people who have helped make him a multi millionaire. I genuinely thought Theroux would have raised it as I have seen him ask similarly incisive questions previously without any qualms. I am a bit surprised he didn't, because with other points he made, like Joshua's previous criminal convictions, you can see he'd done his research. Tell me, what's the problem with stating the glaringly obvious.

I don't know about you, but if someone was interviewing me about my life, there are some bits that I wouldn't want to talk about. You?

[Callowland]

I don't take umbrage with what either have said, if we were all in the public light and our worst statements were quoted, we'd all be buggered. It's weirdo behaviour to obsess over a boxing's comments about non boxing matters, years afterwards.

I think it's 'weirdo behaviour' to object to someone having a perfectly legitimate opinion about deliberate controversial comments about people who have helped make him a multi millionaire. I genuinely thought Theroux would have raised it as I have seen him ask similarly incisive questions previously without any qualms. I am a bit surprised he didn't, because with other points he made, like Joshua's previous criminal convictions, you can see he'd done his research. Tell me, what's the problem with stating the glaringly obvious.

I don't know about you, but if someone was interviewing me about my life, there are some bits that I wouldn't want to talk about. You?

AJ's fan club has turned up today. Yes, you make a good point. However, the fault lies with Theroux and the BBC for not asking the question. I didn't say it was Joshua's fault. However, I am sure Joshua got paid for his time, and I helped pay for it with my licence fee. I therefore feel I have been short changed. Theroux has asked much tougher questions before and seemingly suffers from amnesia on that issue.

[jwfg]

I think it's 'weirdo behaviour' to object to someone having a perfectly legitimate opinion about deliberate controversial comments about people who have helped make him a multi millionaire. I genuinely thought Theroux would have raised it as I have seen him ask similarly incisive questions previously without any qualms. I am a bit surprised he didn't, because with other points he made, like Joshua's previous criminal convictions, you can see he'd done his research. Tell me, what's the problem with stating the glaringly obvious.

I don't know about you, but if someone was interviewing me about my life, there are some bits that I wouldn't want to talk about. You?

AJ's fan club has turned up today. Yes, you make a good point. However, the fault lies with Theroux and the BBC for not asking the question. I didn't say it was Joshua's fault. However, I am sure Joshua got paid for his time, and I helped pay for it with my licence fee. I therefore feel I have been short changed. Theroux has asked much tougher questions before and seemingly suffers from amnesia on that issue.

We all have a past of some kind. It must be nice to be perfect.

[margaret thatcher]

you just seem to think it's a bigger deal than most people do. not everyone is so fixated on that issue. i dont think it's a huge oversight that louis didnt mention it

[Callowland]

I don't know about you, but if someone was interviewing me about my life, there are some bits that I wouldn't want to talk about. You?

AJ's fan club has turned up today. Yes, you make a good point. However, the fault lies with Theroux and the BBC for not asking the question. I didn't say it was Joshua's fault. However, I am sure Joshua got paid for his time, and I helped pay for it with my licence fee. I therefore feel I have been short changed. Theroux has asked much tougher questions before and seemingly suffers from amnesia on that issue.

We all have a past of some kind. It must be nice to be perfect.

Is that an admission Joshua isn't perfect.

[Callowland]

you just seem to think it's a bigger deal than most people do. not everyone is so fixated on that issue. i dont think it's a huge oversight that louis didnt mention it

I have merely pointed out that Theroux and the BBC have omitted that 'insignificant' detail but virtually covered everything else. I dare say Joshua got paid and the public broadcaster, in my opinion, had a duty to cover all major features of his life, which they did, excluding that one. To point it out, rightfully so, doesn't make you fixated. I feel the whole of the media has silently dropped it because they seem happy to bring up his criminal convictions but neglect that one. Again, to point that out doesn't make you fixated. It does make me feel questionable as to why, when an opportunity was provided in that interview to ask for his explanation.

[jwfg]

AJ's fan club has turned up today. Yes, you make a good point. However, the fault lies with Theroux and the BBC for not asking the question. I didn't say it was Joshua's fault. However, I am sure Joshua got paid for his time, and I helped pay for it with my licence fee. I therefore feel I have been short changed. Theroux has asked much tougher questions before and seemingly suffers from amnesia on that issue.

We all have a past of some kind. It must be nice to be perfect.

Is that an admission Joshua isn't perfect.

AJ isn't perfect, far from it. Neither am I.

[BigDoofus]

AJ's fan club has turned up today.

There’s a handful of them on here who think they’re still in with a chance with the eligible bachelor.

[jwfg]

AJ's fan club has turned up today.

There’s a handful of them on here who think they’re still in with a chance with the eligible bachelor.

Female posters or are you insinuating that AJ is gay?

[maverick23]

you just seem to think it's a bigger deal than most people do. not everyone is so fixated on that issue. i dont think it's a huge oversight that louis didnt mention it

I have merely pointed out that Theroux and the BBC have omitted that 'insignificant' detail but virtually covered everything else. I dare say Joshua got paid and the public broadcaster, in my opinion, had a duty to cover all major features of his life, which they did, excluding that one. To point it out, rightfully so, doesn't make you fixated. I feel the whole of the media has silently dropped it because they seem happy to bring up his criminal convictions but neglect that one. Again, to point that out doesn't make you fixated. It does make me feel questionable as to why, when an opportunity was provided in that interview to ask for his explanation.

I don’t think many people would call what AJ said at the BLM rally a major feature of his life. Perhaps it is to you but I think you’re in the minority.

AJ went to the rally and wanted to be seen to be helping so read something written by someone else. He even said at the start of his speech who he was reading it for…



Fury on the other hand gave comments such as ‘a women’s best place is in the kitchen or on her back. Making me a nice cup of tea’. He also implied homosexuality shouldn’t be legal and put it in the same bracket as pedophilia.

Bit of a difference.

[Frostieballs]

If any heavyweight has been given a pass in recent years, it isn’t AJ.

Tyson has said some pretty discriminatory bits and pieces and largely went unchallenged (I appreciate he has had his demons).

By far the biggest lack of scrutiny, however, has been around the drug test situation.

I have no idea if he is guilty or not, but it largely goes unreported/uninvestigated.

[Callowland]

you just seem to think it's a bigger deal than most people do. not everyone is so fixated on that issue. i dont think it's a huge oversight that louis didnt mention it

I have merely pointed out that Theroux and the BBC have omitted that 'insignificant' detail but virtually covered everything else. I dare say Joshua got paid and the public broadcaster, in my opinion, had a duty to cover all major features of his life, which they did, excluding that one. To point it out, rightfully so, doesn't make you fixated. I feel the whole of the media has silently dropped it because they seem happy to bring up his criminal convictions but neglect that one. Again, to point that out doesn't make you fixated. It does make me feel questionable as to why, when an opportunity was provided in that interview to ask for his explanation.

I don’t think many people would call what AJ said at the BLM rally a major feature of his life. Perhaps it is to you but I think you’re in the minority.

AJ went to the rally and wanted to be seen to be helping so read something written by someone else. He even said at the start of his speech who he was reading it for…



Fury on the other hand gave comments such as ‘a women’s best place is in the kitchen or on her back. Making me a nice cup of tea’. He also implied homosexuality shouldn’t be legal and put it in the same bracket as pedophilia.

Bit of a difference.

I don't disagree Fury made comments to which got him into trouble. That's fact and there was media outrage at the time.
Of course your interpretation of Joshua's comments are liberal. I take a different view because part of that speech in my opinion had a 1930's feel to it, asking people to abstain from spending money in 'their' shops and economies and invest in Black owned businesses. That to most people is a fairly highly charged segregationist statement. Joshua is a very well known celebrity and should have known better. If Fury had said to deliberately avoid Black and Asian businesses do you really think he would get off scot free. I think he would have been prosecuted and imprisoned.
I am comfortable with my interpretation of that speech.

[jwfg]

If Fury had said to deliberately avoid Black and Asian businesses do you really think he would get off scot free.

But Joshua didn't get away with it scot-free. It was in the media at the time and people like you are still banging on about it.

[Callowland]

If Fury had said to deliberately avoid Black and Asian businesses do you really think he would get off scot free.

But Joshua didn't get away with it scot-free. It was in the media at the time and people like you are still banging on about it.

He did get away with it. There was a mild discussion about it in the press, but no probing on the point I made which is segregationist in my opinion. There was a lot of dancing around the subject. No comments from any politician, the Police or BBBofC.
I do remember with Fury's comments that it did stir up a lot of debate at the time through its incomparability with modern 21st Century Britain.

[maverick23]

I have merely pointed out that Theroux and the BBC have omitted that 'insignificant' detail but virtually covered everything else. I dare say Joshua got paid and the public broadcaster, in my opinion, had a duty to cover all major features of his life, which they did, excluding that one. To point it out, rightfully so, doesn't make you fixated. I feel the whole of the media has silently dropped it because they seem happy to bring up his criminal convictions but neglect that one. Again, to point that out doesn't make you fixated. It does make me feel questionable as to why, when an opportunity was provided in that interview to ask for his explanation.

I don’t think many people would call what AJ said at the BLM rally a major feature of his life. Perhaps it is to you but I think you’re in the minority.

AJ went to the rally and wanted to be seen to be helping so read something written by someone else. He even said at the start of his speech who he was reading it for…



Fury on the other hand gave comments such as ‘a women’s best place is in the kitchen or on her back. Making me a nice cup of tea’. He also implied homosexuality shouldn’t be legal and put it in the same bracket as pedophilia.

Bit of a difference.

I don't disagree Fury made comments to which got him into trouble. That's fact and there was media outrage at the time.
Of course your interpretation of Joshua's comments are liberal. I take a different view because part of that speech in my opinion had a 1930's feel to it, asking people to abstain from spending money in 'their' shops and economies and invest in Black owned businesses. That to most people is a fairly highly charged segregationist statement. Joshua is a very well known celebrity and should have known better. If Fury had said to deliberately avoid Black and Asian businesses do you really think he would get off scot free. I think he would have been prosecuted and imprisoned.
I am comfortable with my interpretation of that speech.

At the start of the speech AJ made clear whose letter/speech he was reading. If those words had been his own then perhaps I’d have thought differently but they weren’t. It was probably the first time he’d even read those words as he didn’t even know if it was a speech or a poem and wasn’t even sure who wrote it.

His own words before the speech were more what I’d expect to hear from AJ.

I’d feel exactly the same if Fury had said those words if they weren’t his and he was referencing non-Gypsies.

[The Gratest]

Did someone say 'Nigel Farage' 3 times to get Shallowland to appear?

[Callowland]

I don’t think many people would call what AJ said at the BLM rally a major feature of his life. Perhaps it is to you but I think you’re in the minority.

AJ went to the rally and wanted to be seen to be helping so read something written by someone else. He even said at the start of his speech who he was reading it for…



Fury on the other hand gave comments such as ‘a women’s best place is in the kitchen or on her back. Making me a nice cup of tea’. He also implied homosexuality shouldn’t be legal and put it in the same bracket as pedophilia.

Bit of a difference.

I don't disagree Fury made comments to which got him into trouble. That's fact and there was media outrage at the time.
Of course your interpretation of Joshua's comments are liberal. I take a different view because part of that speech in my opinion had a 1930's feel to it, asking people to abstain from spending money in 'their' shops and economies and invest in Black owned businesses. That to most people is a fairly highly charged segregationist statement. Joshua is a very well known celebrity and should have known better. If Fury had said to deliberately avoid Black and Asian businesses do you really think he would get off scot free. I think he would have been prosecuted and imprisoned.
I am comfortable with my interpretation of that speech.

At the start of the speech AJ made clear whose letter/speech he was reading. If those words had been his own then perhaps I’d have thought differently but they weren’t. It was probably the first time he’d even read those words.

I’d fee exactly the same if Fury had said those words if they weren’t his and he was referencing non-Gypsies.

At best, shouldn't he have checked and vetted what he was reading well in advance, and made a considered decision to withdraw from any participation in it, as it clearly in my opinion makes reference to segregation. I contend there's a strong possibility that he had a discussion about it well in advance, knew what he was going to read, and did it because he may have agreed with it. I can't believe that he turned up and read it off the cuff. That wouldn't make any sense.