Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
3 in 1 - An ex player, political correctness and the BBC...
Comments
-
I can absolutely guaranteed you that the BBC did this to stir things up.2
-
At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot8
-
The plebs need to be told, again.0
-
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.killerandflash said:At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot10 -
Worst thing about that story is that Tommo's now a pensioner.
Christ I'm getting on a bit.9 -
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.0
-
" ...... after listeners complained".
After 500 years of football terminology, a handful of snowflakes who've never kicked a ball in their life, decide they are offended.
9 -
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."
3 - Sponsored links:
-
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.5 -
They censored the kitchens bitbobmunro said:Oggy Red said:" ...... after listeners complained".
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.0 -
It would be interesting to see how many listeners did complain.
0 -
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)...Chizz said:I have rewritten the story for those who don't like Daily Mail clickbaitBBC 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."1 -
Pathetic. Takes a lot more than that to offend Lincoln dorisses.2
-
All sounds utterly bonkers.
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????
https://youtu.be/SgrZAPUvKyA
Bill Maher sums the 'woke' issue up beautifully..
9 -
Bunch of suits with nothing better to do.
To think we have to pay for that shit whether you watch the BBC or not, joke company.0 -
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?Leuth said:
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.killerandflash said:At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
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.1 -
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?Chizz said:
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?Leuth said:
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.killerandflash said:At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
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.
4 -
No-one has taken offence.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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?Chizz said:
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?Leuth said:
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.killerandflash said:At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
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.3 - Sponsored links:
-
TV and radios idea of balance these days is to have a liar for every expert on a subject.Leuth said:
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.killerandflash said:At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot2 -
How do you know he’s mediocre?Chizz said:
No-one has taken offence.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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?Chizz said:
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?Leuth said:
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.killerandflash said:At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
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.Do you listen to Radio Lincs much?If he’s not good enough, why’s he only been dropped until new year?11 -
He's not been temporarily dropped for being mediocre or incompetent though, but as a punishment for specific things he saidChizz said:
No-one has taken offence.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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?Chizz said:
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?Leuth said:
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.killerandflash said:At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
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.1 -
You seem very well briefed on this.Chizz said:
No-one has taken offence.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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?Chizz said:
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?Leuth said:
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.killerandflash said:At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
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?2 -
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.2 -
Raising concern is different from being offended. But you know that.Off_it said:
You seem very well briefed on this.Chizz said:
No-one has taken offence.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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?Chizz said:
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?Leuth said:
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.killerandflash said:At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
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?0 -
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.Boom said:
How do you know he’s mediocre?Chizz said:
No-one has taken offence.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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?Chizz said:
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?Leuth said:
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.killerandflash said:At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
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.Do you listen to Radio Lincs much?If he’s not good enough, why’s he only been dropped until new year?0 -
Yes, that's exactly the line the Daily Mail would have you believe.killerandflash said:
He's not been temporarily dropped for being mediocre or incompetent though, but as a punishment for specific things he saidChizz said:
No-one has taken offence.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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?Chizz said:
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?Leuth said:
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.killerandflash said:At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
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.
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.0 -
