The name of the walrus man in the photo is Tom Bennett and we at HatCityBLOG want him and his co-hosts' contracts with Comcast Local Access terminated for repeated violations of the rules and guidelines of public access.
For as long as I can remember, this individual (known to the YouTube community as BigT(urd)) has somehow been able to get away with using some of the most disgusting, indecent, profane, racist, homophobic language I've ever heard on the airwaves (those from Danbury know what I'm talking about).
Now with the advent of digital video, we have the power to expose the violations of the rules and regulations of Comcast public access by Bennett and his co-hosts and place pressure on Comcast to enforce their rules and IMMEDIATELY terminate Bennett's contract and everyone associated with the show and being an end to indecent programming on the public's airwaves.
THE EVIDENCE
What I'm going to do is work backwards from the most recent outrageous remark and go backwards to my earliest video footage of Bennett's show and document EVERY disgusting remark that has gone unchecked on his show. I'll also provide contact information on how to contact at Comcast and express your outrage as well as other organizations you can call on the state and national level (F.C.C.). For now, I don't want to wait any longer as Bennett's days as a talk show host HAS TO COME TO AN END as soon as possible.
Let's start things off with a video clip from last Friday's show where Bennett has a exchange with a 15 year-old girl over homosexuality. When you read the transcript and watch the video, ask yourself this question: Would you allow an adult to talk to your daughter like this?
Make note of Bennett's arrogance after it's revealed that the person he's talking to is a minor (WHICH IS PAINFULLY OBVIOUS TO ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN).
WARNING: the following exchange has explicit language
Tom Bennett: Why would you okay a girl...why would you okay another girl eating another girl or another girl sexing another girl? [...] How would you approve that?
15 year old caller: Excus... Bennett: How would you approve a man sucking another man's p-? How would you approve that? 15 year old caller: Excuse me, excused me, by the way I'm 15 so I appreciate that you don't say those things.
Bennett: Hey I have a doctor right here with me. I'm talking medical terms. I'm talking medical terms here. You called me, I didn't call you.
15 year old caller: That's not medical terms. Bennett: "penis" is not a medical term?
Bennett's arrogance in this clip alone should get him a phone call from the Danbury police department.
Not only does he NOT use medical terminology, he has the arrogance to get flippant with a minor who was offended with his choice of words (hmm...I don't remember the term "eating" being used as a medical term in my sex-ed class).
Now, if you're a father and you learned that an adult talked to your child using this language, what would you do?
Again, take a look at Comcast's own rules and guidelines regarding content on public access (note the section in bold).
Section E: Program Content: numbers 3-5.
3. No libelous, slanderous or illegal material.
4. No obscene material, sexually explicit conduct, or material soliciting or promoting unlawful conduct.
Trust me, I'm just scratching the surface here folks...
No matter what your views are, we can all agree that this person needs to be yanked off the air pronto and the sooner the better. PLEASE contact Comcast and tell them public access is not the place to use this type of language (note: It's important to know that this show comes on between the hours of 9-10 P.M.).
Dave King, Head Public Access Coordinator: Phone: 203-792-1265 Email: Dave_King@cable.comcast.com
Candiann_Roswell: Public Access Coordinator: Phone: 203-792-1265 Email: Candiann_Roswell2@cable.comcast.com
When emailing, please cc: hatcityblog@yahoo.com so we can place your message of outrage on our blog (privacy will be honored).
Help bring an end to this disgusting television show and remove this man and his associates from the airwaves.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
Okay, here comes the main course.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
