steve wilkos goes too far

[conbott]

over the past few months i have watched the steve wilko show. let me start by saying i've no time for paedophiles,rapists, murderers or any other form of low life. i have NEVER seen it before but this man single handedly manages to turn a perpetrator into a victim. he stumbles over his words, gets facts wrong and makes it difficult for his guests to leave when things get too much. i've also noticed that one low life will get away with more than another. a recent one was where a woman (wrongly so) terminated her pregnancy by taking crack cocaine. now that is horrific enough but when the boyfriend came on and she told him the truth of what she'd done steve wilkos then made the boyfriend stand up and threw his chair because he himself didn't like the fact that the boyfriend didn't react in a more, let's say, violent manner when she told him.
we need more done about drugs, murder, etc, but in my opinion this man is more of a menace and to me something bad is going to happen through this show. jeremy kyle has his moments but at least he puts positive in with the negative and he's not spitting in peoples faces whilst he's trying to get the last word.
i just wondered how anyone else felt about it?

[hellyp]

He's a total twat. His main objectives seem to be to shout at people as loudly as possible, to ridicule people and to make himself out to be the perfect man/husband/father. He invites people to hit him and them berates them when they don't take him up on it, presumably because they are at some level capable of understanding that to do so publically would get them locked up. Apparently this is abhorrent to Stevie boy. IMO his outbursts could easily do more harm than good. The people he attacks need either help or proper punishment, not trial by baboon.

One word - thug.

[aelwyn]

Not a fan. Of course, since he came from the Jerry Springer show, I expected no better.

[conbott]

i'm glad you agree hellyp and aelwyn. one of the things that really annoys me is that he came from a show that degraded, humiliated and dehumanised people in the worst possible way. mr righteous forgets that a mans death was caused directly through the springer show and people tried to remove the utter garbage from tv, sadly they didn't succeed. he comes on tele trying to seem so "faultless" believing he knows best when all he is is a bi-product of jerry springer. you'd think no one else loved their kids as much as he does which is totally wrong. apparently though people like ourselves are "belly rubbers" and "morons". i''m glad there are level headed people that can see what he is, who is the belly rubber and moron now?

[hellyp]

What's the story with the Springer death, out of interest?

[conbott]

several years ago jerry springer hosted a show that went something on the lines of unknown admirers. a man appeared on the show and was told he had a secret admirer. the guy assumed this was a woman but when the admirer came on stage he then realised it was a man. he wasn't gay himself . sometime after leaving the show, i'm not sure whether it was hours or days later, he found the guy who'd brought him on the show and shot him. he was furious over being misled and sadly switched his anger to the man brought him to the show. obviously he had some kind of mental problem and this situation fuelled it. it's a while ago but i'm sure that's near enough the story behind the murder. i also believe it went to court but i don't think the springer show was held accountable. things may have been very different if it had.

[bobdezon]

Funny how the mind plays tricks on you isnt it? You remember this happening on The Jerry Springer show, you watched it all and paid close attention. Yet It was never on the Jerry Springer show. It was actually an unaired episode of the Jenny Jones show.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Amedure

[conbott]

whoops i'm just opening my mouth to change my feet. there was a death can someone enlighten me. i daren't put the one i'm thinking of i'm already gagging.

[hellyp]

Ah now that I have heard of. The fact that it didn't happen on Springer actually strengthens my belief that they're all actors paid to behave like rabid hillbillies. Must be, otherwise I'm sure that due to the nature of some of the subjects covered (I'm sleeping with my daughter/brother/son, my fiancé doesn't know I'm a dude and so on), surely there would have been several violent attacks over the years.

[hellyp]

Oh, found this...

In 2000, Springer was given a five-year, $30 million contract extension paying him $6 million per year.[23] The same year, a married couple, Ralf and Eleanor Panitz, were guests on an episode of the show entitled "Secret Mistresses Confronted" with Mr. Panitz's ex-wife, Nancy Campbell-Panitz, in which they complained about Ms. Campbell-Panitz's behavior and accused her of stalking them. Hours after it was broadcast on July 24, 2000, Ms. Campbell-Panitz was found dead in a home that the three were fighting over, and Florida police soon confirmed that they were treating the death as homicide.[24] It was then reported that Mr. Panitz, having been issued a first-degree murder warrant for the death, was trying to flee to Canada to avoid prosecution.[25] Upon news of the 52-year old woman's murder, a spokeswoman for the program issued a statement saying it was "a terrible tragedy"[26]

In August 2000, Springer himself appeared on CNN's Larry King Live to discuss the incident, claiming that it "had nothing to do with the show" and that his talk show does not glamorize deviant behavior.[27] On March 27, 2002, after 18 hours of deliberating from jurors, Mr. Panitz was convicted of the murder after a 10-day trial and sentenced to life.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jerry_Springer_Show

[conbott]

thanks hellyp, i'm new to this and still don't know how to put websites on my quote. so i researched on the CBS NEWS website and found the same as you just written differently. i do apologise, i get carried, have all this information but obviously haven't filed it in the right drawer. a good brain cleaner could be useful.

i'm surprised how many wrong things have happened with this show and yet they've got away with it.

it isn't right that steve wilkos bombards people with verbal abuse and name calling. there's got to be a better way of stopping these low lifes. all he does is fuel an underlying rage. i just hope that no one pays for it in the long run. perpetrators should never become victims ever. they get enough help and luxuries as it is.

[hellyp]

I don't blame you for getting them mixed up - they're all the bleeding same.

This latest one, Wilkos, is just more up-front as a total bully, though - no 'I'm the jovial, reasonable host' from him. And I hate the way the audience are so thick that they need a professional applause-starter to indicate when Wlikos has made a 'good' point. Or maybe that's for his beneft, to massage his massive ego.

[conbott]

it's a good job egos don't form into physicall mass because, wow, he'd have to live in a large open space. i've also noticed when a guest gets him tongue tied he yells at them to SHUT UP. i got the deaths mixed yesterday and felt a right burk, how can they not feel like crawling into a corner when their mistakes are televised nearly every day. and been told when to applaud is just laughable. i'm all for the bad guys getting their just desserts in effective way but what kind of policeman was he and does he have the law on his side, because of who he is, allowing him to act in the worst way possible?

[hellyp]

Springer's security was composed of off-duty Chicago policemen, which is what he was, and also a Marine - that's really all I know.

[conbott]

the reason why i query it is because i've never known anyone push the legal boundaries like he does. he constantly reminds viewers that he was a marine and policeman because he wants people to believe that what he does is right. he gives himself this power which makes me wonder why he feels safe to do what he does. for eg, when he baits someone to hit him, by turning his back and gesturing with his arms. if a guest did hit him surely any court, in fact, any logically thinking human being would see that steve wilkos had pushed he or she too far. that's what bothers me does he know something we don't? if he's allowed to continue more and more of this rubbish will appear on tv. i hate to think some one innocent would eventually pay dearly.

[hellyp]

I'm not sure how a court would see that, but from a purely personal point of view it smacks of provocation of 'vulnerable' or 'dysfunctional' people, and shows him up for a publicity-seeking bully. I can only think that his legal team is s*it hot, because it would be professional suicide to push things to the extent he does without making sure of the law first.

[conbott]

i totally agree, he takes advantage of the slower, desperate more vulnerable people. just the looks on some of their faces show how fazed they are. a woman the other week abandoned her kids (obviously she should suffer the consequences of that), but by the end of 50 minutes mr wilkos, her ex and new wife had literally, i'm not joking, cornered her to sign adoption papers. surely her signature if she decided against it would mean nothing. i was saying earlier today that wilkos makes me feel guilty because i start empathising for people like this. but my gut feeling tells me it's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong. there's a few examples like this and his aggression is building the cockier he gets.
i've seen others use aggressive tactics but somewhere a calmness usually comes in. unfortunately, it doesn't always save the day but to me it's going to help more vulnerable people than what mr wilkos does. you can imagine been in a dark room with a million watt bulb tanning your face. all of a sudden there's a presence, your heart races and beads of sweat appear. yesssss it's him. a few hours later shiny with saliva you emerge, but who are you?

[hellyp]

You won't get any arguments from me there. I saw one of his shows recently where a man had inadvertantly killed his son because he had run a red light and crashed the car. The man refused to accept responsibility for his son's death, because he claimed that his wife had told him it was OK to pull out. Of course Wilkos was right in his face, screaming at him to take some responsibility for his part in his son's death, at one point getting the man to look at a huge photograph of his son and explain to it. The man's wife was also there, accusing her (ex I think) husband of saying that he had deliberately pulled out in an attempt to kill her, Cue Wilkos again, an inch away from the man's face, asking over and over whether it was true. He denied it. Of course Old Faithful (a lie detector test) was employed, and when the results came back, it turned out that the wife had been lying. No apology from Wilkos.

Now the man may very well have been a lowlife, but the glaringly obvious point for me was that he had recently lost his own flesh and blood due to a careless act of his, and was understandably suffering terrible grief. And yet he was being screamed at over and over to admit responsibility, when one of the consequences of that grief may very well have been a denial of responsibility. It's feasible that emotionally and mentally, he simply was not ready to even approach that idea. God knows what something like that does to you. And then we have Stevie boy saying stuff like 'I love my kids, and I would never deny responsibility if anything happened to them.' Uh-huh, and how exactly does he know that? He doesn't. Just another day in the life of Steve 'I r greatest dad' Wilkos. I'm usually an 'if you don't like it don't watch it' kind of person, but even I think this is just one step too far. But it gets ratings I suppose and that's what it's all about.

[conbott]

yes you're right and on that episode he threw the chair so violently that it stuck in the steve wilkos sign at the back of the stage. this is where his lack of professionalism comes in to play again. he should have read the lie detector test first, but no, and to make someone talk to their dead child's picture in that way was appalling. mr wilkos looked such a fool when the results were read. why not rant and rave at people who aren't doing enough to stop uninsured drivers on the road, etc? they intimidate bullies you see so he picks on the slower and more vulnerable again.
there was an episode where he told a woman she should have slept on a park bench (risking rape, robbery and murder) rather than go back to the boyfriend who she hoped had changed. now that low life degraded his girlfriend by urinating on her when they'd had sex, for eg. a real sewer rat. but guess what? steve wilkos wouldn't bring him on stage. now in my mind he should get the same treatment as he gave to the girlfriend but he didn't seem to want a confrontation with him. that isn't the only time he hasn't confronted someone either. if he's so right all these scum bags should get the same abuse from him surely?

[hellyp]

You would have thought so. I'm just surprised at how an ex Springer security guard gets to the point where he knows everything about everything, and how knowing everything about everything qualifies you to intimidate, verbally abuse and humiliate dysfunctional people on TV.