At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
Get your act together please BBC . This action is well over the top this is a football term which everyone knows. Coming from a hardman of football as Steve Thompson was it shows you what football has become in this day and age.
I have rewritten the story for those who don't like Daily Mail clickbait
BBC strives to improve football output
The BBC continues to improve its football coverage by getting rid of some of its poorer commentators.
65-year old Steve Thompson will not appear again on the BBC for a few weeks, after a cliché-ridden commentary on BBC Radio Lincolnshire. During the match between Lincoln City and Swindon Town, he used phrases about the referee, including "I think the referee’s wife’s in…" and “[he's] being a bit of a drama queen….. he’d have been better wearing a skirt.” These comments were untrue and failed to convey accurately or helpfully what was happening on the pitch.
In a statement, the BBC confirmed that Thompson is taking a break for a few weeks. "We are continuing to improve our commentary at all levels. So, when a freelance commentator falls below an acceptable standard, we stop using them."
Steve Thompson is a fantastic guy, I loved watching him at Charlton when I was a small chap. I have exchanged a fair few tweets with him and he is always very pro Charlton and he always has time to talk to fans of all clubs. The BBC are in a real downward spiral.
I have rewritten the story for those who don't like Daily Mail clickbait
BBC strives to improve football output
The BBC continues to improve its football coverage by getting rid of some of its poorer commentators.
65-year old Steve Thompson will not appear again on the BBC for a few weeks, after a cliché-ridden commentary on BBC Radio Lincolnshire. During the match between Lincoln City and Swindon Town, he used phrases about the referee, including "I think the referee’s wife’s in…" and “[he's] being a bit of a drama queen….. he’d have been better wearing a skirt.” These comments were untrue and failed to convey accurately or helpfully what was happening on the pitch.
In a statement, the BBC confirmed that Thompson is taking a break for a few weeks. "We are continuing to improve our commentary at all levels. So, when a freelance commentator falls below an acceptable standard, we stop using them."
For those that haven't clicked on the link to avoid Daily Mail "clickbait", this re-write is a parody (one might also say fake news)...
How many complaints does the BBC need to take action and who in the BBC decides what to ban? Do they have any objective criteria that would stand up in a court of law?
All the huge problems in the world and someone chooses to get upset about this????
At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned?
Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened.
At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned?
Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened.
There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?
I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.
At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned?
Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened.
There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?
I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.
No-one has taken offence.
A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill.
The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof.
At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
TV and radios idea of balance these days is to have a liar for every expert on a subject.
At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned?
Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened.
There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?
I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.
No-one has taken offence.
A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill.
The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof.
How do you know he’s mediocre?
Do you listen to Radio Lincs much?
If he’s not good enough, why’s he only been dropped until new year?
At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned?
Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened.
There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?
I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.
No-one has taken offence.
A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill.
The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof.
He's not been temporarily dropped for being mediocre or incompetent though, but as a punishment for specific things he said
At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned?
Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened.
There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?
I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.
No-one has taken offence.
A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill.
The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof.
You seem very well briefed on this.
So if no-one took offence why did the BBC say "After listeners raised concerns, Steve acknowledged some of his comments on air didn't meet the standards we expect."
How much more pathetic are the woke snowflake BBC going to get? Thank goodness I stopped buying a licence years ago. Steve is one of my all time fave players, hopefully he can find a better job than giving his time to the BBC.
At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned?
Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened.
There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?
I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.
No-one has taken offence.
A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill.
The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof.
You seem very well briefed on this.
So if no-one took offence why did the BBC say "After listeners raised concerns, Steve acknowledged some of his comments on air didn't meet the standards we expect."
Or were the BBC lying about that?
Raising concern is different from being offended. But you know that.
At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned?
Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened.
There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?
I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.
No-one has taken offence.
A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill.
The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof.
How do you know he’s mediocre?
Do you listen to Radio Lincs much?
If he’s not good enough, why’s he only been dropped until new year?
If he were better than mediocre, he would be broadcast on an even bigger broadcast medium than Radio Lincolnshire. That's how meritocracy works. Radio Lincolnshire may well be one of the best stations in the whole of the Lincolnshire area, but it's not the pinnacle to which broadcasters aim.
At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned?
Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened.
There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?
I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.
No-one has taken offence.
A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill.
The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof.
He's not been temporarily dropped for being mediocre or incompetent though, but as a punishment for specific things he said
Yes, that's exactly the line the Daily Mail would have you believe.
Using hackneyed cliches, some of which may have misogynist flavour is why he's being replaced. If he used hackneyed cliches which had no underlying misogyny, he'd still have been replaced. But you wouldn't read about that in the Mail.
All hail @Chizz; the font of all knowledge and the one true voice, always on hand to correct mere mortals on their woefully misguided and out of date views.
All hail @Chizz; the font of all knowledge and the one true voice, always on hand to correct mere mortals on their woefully misguided and out of date views.
Comments
Christ I'm getting on a bit.
After 500 years of football terminology, a handful of snowflakes who've never kicked a ball in their life, decide they are offended.
I am offended, truly offended that he didn't also make some reference to shoes as well.
BBC strives to improve football output
The BBC continues to improve its football coverage by getting rid of some of its poorer commentators.
65-year old Steve Thompson will not appear again on the BBC for a few weeks, after a cliché-ridden commentary on BBC Radio Lincolnshire. During the match between Lincoln City and Swindon Town, he used phrases about the referee, including "I think the referee’s wife’s in…" and “[he's] being a bit of a drama queen….. he’d have been better wearing a skirt.” These comments were untrue and failed to convey accurately or helpfully what was happening on the pitch.
In a statement, the BBC confirmed that Thompson is taking a break for a few weeks. "We are continuing to improve our commentary at all levels. So, when a freelance commentator falls below an acceptable standard, we stop using them."
I have exchanged a fair few tweets with him and he is always very pro Charlton and he always has time to talk to fans of all clubs. The BBC are in a real downward spiral.
How many complaints does the BBC need to take action and who in the BBC decides what to ban?
Do they have any objective criteria that would stand up in a court of law?
All the huge problems in the world and someone chooses to get upset about this????
Bill Maher sums the 'woke' issue up beautifully..
To think we have to pay for that shit whether you watch the BBC or not, joke company.
Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened.
I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.
A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill.
The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof.
So if no-one took offence why did the BBC say "After listeners raised concerns, Steve acknowledged some of his comments on air didn't meet the standards we expect."
Or were the BBC lying about that?
Steve is one of my all time fave players, hopefully he can find a better job than giving his time to the BBC.
Using hackneyed cliches, some of which may have misogynist flavour is why he's being replaced. If he used hackneyed cliches which had no underlying misogyny, he'd still have been replaced. But you wouldn't read about that in the Mail.
Tiresome, very tiresome.