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
-
The listenership raised concerns via the BBC about him not being very good. How could you not have recognised this theme running all the way through every single article around this wholly sorry sequence of events? The BBC always acts on such comments and always removes someone that a handful of overly sensitive types claim isn't very good. It's only right that they act in such a swift and honourable way.MrOneLung said:Where has the bbc stated he is not very good?
If you can't read between the lines of the reports, and see Chizz's views over and above the facts outlined in the articles, then more fool you.7 -
This new thing of turning the "offended" or "snowflake" label onto people who aren't offended by the original subject, ain't really working, is it?
1 -
I'm on the left in terms of my views but a lot of this guff about wanting to stifle debate, use of language and being constantly offended over nothing will just in the end piss off the majority across the political spectrum.
It all smacks of totalitarianism and will invite ridicule. Sadly some people will lose their jobs or have to sit in silence in certain workplace environments for fear of the consequences from a minority who won't allow their opinions. This is not the way forward.
9 -
Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻5 -
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.0 -
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.0 -
It has in certain workplace environments some of which have been highlighted on this thread. If the 'loons' didn't have any influence or power it wouldn't be a concern.BR7_addick said:
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.
Thankfully the majority haven't been impacted and can just ignore it or laugh it off.1 -
Those 'few loons' control the narrative to the point where if every sane person stays silent and shrugs their shoulders then said loons have a free rein to shut down anyone they want to shout and cry about. There needs to be a sensible, counter argument from normal folk. If that means pointing out the lunacy of the loons then so be it. The loons will chip away at anything that doesn't fully subscribe to their ideology and will make sure anyone out of kilter with their thought policing must, and will, be taken down.BR7_addick said:
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.
It's a very slippery slope.5 -
Perhaps he is happy working with Radio Lincolnshire?Chizz said:
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?1 -
Well I guess that’s where we differ, I don’t see it as a concern, you do, and that’s fine.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It has in certain workplace environments some of which have been highlighted on this thread. If the 'loons' didn't have any influence or power it wouldn't be a concern.BR7_addick said:
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.
Thankfully the majority haven't been impacted and can just ignore it or laugh it off.
My work place environment, which has over 200 people and 60 different nationalities, is one of don’t be a bellend and you’ll be fine.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Because, left unchecked, these things slowly become the normBR7_addick said:
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.1 -
Again, I’m not trying to arguing with anyone I just don’t see it like that. The few loons are exactly that, a few loons, and if they stop the word faggot being aired on the radio I couldn’t care less, that’s not a slippery slope, it’s just stopping the word faggot.Big_Bad_World said:
Those 'few loons' control the narrative to the point where if every sane person stays silent and shrugs their shoulders then said loons have a free rein to shut down anyone they want to shout and cry about. There needs to be a sensible, counter argument from normal folk. If that means pointing out the lunacy of the loons then so be it. The loons will chip away at anything that doesn't fully subscribe to their ideology and will make sure anyone out of kilter with their though policing must, and will, be taken down.BR7_addick said:
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.
It's a very slippery slope.0 -
F***** him there Afka, well done.AFKABartram said:It’s interesting @Chizz how you focus your defence on this on the angle of him not being very good (in your opinion), rather than on the central part of the issue.1 -
What would be the norm? Give me an example of what and how it would become the norm?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Because, left unchecked, these things slowly become the normBR7_addick said:
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.0 -
According to the report, the BBC was responding to 'listener complaints', so it seems 'Thommo' was a 'victim' of outraged wokeists who are looking to take offence at any time, at the slightest opportunity and in any way they can, the poor dears. 'Thommo' as a pundit is no worse that many on the main BBC radio networks and the report stated that 'he will be back in the new year after a break'. We will see0
-
He'll be unhappy until the new year then.ElfsborgAddick said:
Perhaps he is happy with working with Radio Lincolnshire?Chizz said:
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 -
.....and that's a different thread. One in which I agree with removing the word, and have stated such.BR7_addick said:
Again, I’m not trying to arguing with anyone I just don’t see it like that. The few loons are exactly that, a few loons, and if they stop the word faggot being aired on the radio I couldn’t care less, that’s not a slippery slope, it’s just stopping the word faggot.Big_Bad_World said:
Those 'few loons' control the narrative to the point where if every sane person stays silent and shrugs their shoulders then said loons have a free rein to shut down anyone they want to shout and cry about. There needs to be a sensible, counter argument from normal folk. If that means pointing out the lunacy of the loons then so be it. The loons will chip away at anything that doesn't fully subscribe to their ideology and will make sure anyone out of kilter with their though policing must, and will, be taken down.BR7_addick said:
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.
It's a very slippery slope.
This is about someone being suspended (others sacked or cancelled outright) for using an accepted term in football for men acting with huge amounts of bravado and having no end product to such bravado.
People complained about the use of the word 'handbags' a presenter not being very good and the BBC jumped in to action, as not being very good in the eyes of a few of its listenership is most definitely grounds for a suspension so that the individual concerned can have a think about being better in future.0 -
People getting sacked for using the term handbags?BR7_addick said:
What would be the norm? Give me an example of what and how it would become the norm?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Because, left unchecked, these things slowly become the normBR7_addick said:
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.0 -
I suppose you agree with baa baa black sheep not being used in nursery schools.Chizz said:
He'll be unhappy until the new year then.ElfsborgAddick said:
Perhaps he is happy with working with Radio Lincolnshire?Chizz said:
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 -
Looking down your nose at the region's? If only there was a term for metropolitans like you 😄.Chizz said:
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 - Sponsored links:
-
You suppose wrong.ElfsborgAddick said:
I suppose you agree with baa baa black sheep not being used in nursery schools.Chizz said:
He'll be unhappy until the new year then.ElfsborgAddick said:
Perhaps he is happy with working with Radio Lincolnshire?Chizz said:
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 -
I take your point but it doesn’t change the fact that I’m not worried at all about the “slippery slope”. I’m 100% sure my company won’t sack me for using that term, I wish the geeza well in getting another job, but I’m not gonna sit here and get wound up cos “PC gone mad” etc.Big_Bad_World said:
.....and that's a different thread. One in which I agree with removing the word, and have stated such.BR7_addick said:
Again, I’m not trying to arguing with anyone I just don’t see it like that. The few loons are exactly that, a few loons, and if they stop the word faggot being aired on the radio I couldn’t care less, that’s not a slippery slope, it’s just stopping the word faggot.Big_Bad_World said:
Those 'few loons' control the narrative to the point where if every sane person stays silent and shrugs their shoulders then said loons have a free rein to shut down anyone they want to shout and cry about. There needs to be a sensible, counter argument from normal folk. If that means pointing out the lunacy of the loons then so be it. The loons will chip away at anything that doesn't fully subscribe to their ideology and will make sure anyone out of kilter with their though policing must, and will, be taken down.BR7_addick said:
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.
It's a very slippery slope.
This is about someone being suspended (others sacked or cancelled outright) for using an accepted term in football for men acting with huge amounts of bravado and having no end product to such bravado.
People complained about the use of the word 'handbags' a presenter not being very good and the BBC jumped in to action, as not being very good in the eyes of a few of its listenership is most definitely grounds for a suspension so that the individual concerned can have a think about being better in future.0 -
Okay so you’re worried you might get sacked for using that at work? I’m not.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
People getting sacked for using the term handbags?BR7_addick said:
What would be the norm? Give me an example of what and how it would become the norm?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Because, left unchecked, these things slowly become the normBR7_addick said:
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.0 -
Nobody is getting wound up and claiming such doesn't help the debate. People are debating the issue. Nothing more.BR7_addick said:
I take your point but it doesn’t change the fact that I’m not worried at all about the “slippery slope”. I’m 100% sure my company won’t sack me for using that term, I wish the geeza well in getting another job, but I’m not gonna sit here and get wound up cos “PC gone mad” etc.Big_Bad_World said:
.....and that's a different thread. One in which I agree with removing the word, and have stated such.BR7_addick said:
Again, I’m not trying to arguing with anyone I just don’t see it like that. The few loons are exactly that, a few loons, and if they stop the word faggot being aired on the radio I couldn’t care less, that’s not a slippery slope, it’s just stopping the word faggot.Big_Bad_World said:
Those 'few loons' control the narrative to the point where if every sane person stays silent and shrugs their shoulders then said loons have a free rein to shut down anyone they want to shout and cry about. There needs to be a sensible, counter argument from normal folk. If that means pointing out the lunacy of the loons then so be it. The loons will chip away at anything that doesn't fully subscribe to their ideology and will make sure anyone out of kilter with their though policing must, and will, be taken down.BR7_addick said:
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.
It's a very slippery slope.
This is about someone being suspended (others sacked or cancelled outright) for using an accepted term in football for men acting with huge amounts of bravado and having no end product to such bravado.
People complained about the use of the word 'handbags' a presenter not being very good and the BBC jumped in to action, as not being very good in the eyes of a few of its listenership is most definitely grounds for a suspension so that the individual concerned can have a think about being better in future.1 -
What is your opinion on our ex player Paul Elliott's involvement with Charlton after his problems with Richard Rufus?Chizz said:
You suppose wrong.ElfsborgAddick said:
I suppose you agree with baa baa black sheep not being used in nursery schools.Chizz said:
He'll be unhappy until the new year then.ElfsborgAddick said:
Perhaps he is happy with working with Radio Lincolnshire?Chizz said:
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 -
I don’t think you’d have to go far to find someone wound up by such issues.Big_Bad_World said:
Nobody is getting wound up and claiming such doesn't help the debate. People are debating the issue. Nothing more.BR7_addick said:
I take your point but it doesn’t change the fact that I’m not worried at all about the “slippery slope”. I’m 100% sure my company won’t sack me for using that term, I wish the geeza well in getting another job, but I’m not gonna sit here and get wound up cos “PC gone mad” etc.Big_Bad_World said:
.....and that's a different thread. One in which I agree with removing the word, and have stated such.BR7_addick said:
Again, I’m not trying to arguing with anyone I just don’t see it like that. The few loons are exactly that, a few loons, and if they stop the word faggot being aired on the radio I couldn’t care less, that’s not a slippery slope, it’s just stopping the word faggot.Big_Bad_World said:
Those 'few loons' control the narrative to the point where if every sane person stays silent and shrugs their shoulders then said loons have a free rein to shut down anyone they want to shout and cry about. There needs to be a sensible, counter argument from normal folk. If that means pointing out the lunacy of the loons then so be it. The loons will chip away at anything that doesn't fully subscribe to their ideology and will make sure anyone out of kilter with their though policing must, and will, be taken down.BR7_addick said:
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.
It's a very slippery slope.
This is about someone being suspended (others sacked or cancelled outright) for using an accepted term in football for men acting with huge amounts of bravado and having no end product to such bravado.
People complained about the use of the word 'handbags' a presenter not being very good and the BBC jumped in to action, as not being very good in the eyes of a few of its listenership is most definitely grounds for a suspension so that the individual concerned can have a think about being better in future.0 -
Calling someone names isn't great but running off with someone's money is far, far worse. Anyone who equates the two has lost their sense of perspective.ElfsborgAddick said:
What is your opinion on our ex player Paul Elliott's involvement with Charlton after his problems with Richard Rufus?Chizz said:
You suppose wrong.ElfsborgAddick said:
I suppose you agree with baa baa black sheep not being used in nursery schools.Chizz said:
He'll be unhappy until the new year then.ElfsborgAddick said:
Perhaps he is happy with working with Radio Lincolnshire?Chizz said:
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?1 -
Good for you mate, fuck everyone elseBR7_addick said:
Okay so you’re worried you might get sacked for using that at work? I’m not.i_b_b_o_r_g said:
People getting sacked for using the term handbags?BR7_addick said:
What would be the norm? Give me an example of what and how it would become the norm?i_b_b_o_r_g said:
Because, left unchecked, these things slowly become the normBR7_addick said:
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.0 -
This might not be the right thread to discuss that issue, because it's about an article written in the Daily Mail, suggesting the reasons that a freelance journalist isn't going to be covering games on Radio Lincolnshire for a few weeks.ElfsborgAddick said:
What is your opinion on our ex player Paul Elliott's involvement with Charlton after his problems with Richard Rufus?Chizz said:
You suppose wrong.ElfsborgAddick said:
I suppose you agree with baa baa black sheep not being used in nursery schools.Chizz said:
He'll be unhappy until the new year then.ElfsborgAddick said:
Perhaps he is happy with working with Radio Lincolnshire?Chizz said:
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?
But, since you asked the question, I will answer it. I felt hugely let down by the off-field behaviour of two of my favourite players that played for Charlton, after they left the club. Elliott rightly stood down after he made racist comments in texts - it's abhorrent and unnecessary. However, he didn't broadcast his comments - that's important, because, other than the person to whom they were aimed, they were not intended for wider consumption. He made a stupid mistake, he's culpable, but he's acknowledged he was wrong.
As for him having an involvement in Charlton now, I will only say that he's the only Paul Elliott I would want anywhere near Charlton these days.1 -
Reckon Phil Thompson might be a bit wound upBR7_addick said:
I don’t think you’d have to go far to find someone wound up by such issues.Big_Bad_World said:
Nobody is getting wound up and claiming such doesn't help the debate. People are debating the issue. Nothing more.BR7_addick said:
I take your point but it doesn’t change the fact that I’m not worried at all about the “slippery slope”. I’m 100% sure my company won’t sack me for using that term, I wish the geeza well in getting another job, but I’m not gonna sit here and get wound up cos “PC gone mad” etc.Big_Bad_World said:
.....and that's a different thread. One in which I agree with removing the word, and have stated such.BR7_addick said:
Again, I’m not trying to arguing with anyone I just don’t see it like that. The few loons are exactly that, a few loons, and if they stop the word faggot being aired on the radio I couldn’t care less, that’s not a slippery slope, it’s just stopping the word faggot.Big_Bad_World said:
Those 'few loons' control the narrative to the point where if every sane person stays silent and shrugs their shoulders then said loons have a free rein to shut down anyone they want to shout and cry about. There needs to be a sensible, counter argument from normal folk. If that means pointing out the lunacy of the loons then so be it. The loons will chip away at anything that doesn't fully subscribe to their ideology and will make sure anyone out of kilter with their though policing must, and will, be taken down.BR7_addick said:
Has it? I’m not saying there aren’t individual cases of injustice, what I am saying is that a few loons who are offended by petty things to the point of complaining are no threat to me or what I do in anyway at all, so why should it concern me?hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
It's gone a bit further than that sadly in terms of its implications hence the debate.BR7_addick said:Predictable how this one has ended in taking sides.The sooner the masses realise that every story about gender neutral gingerbread people/censoring of naughty words/Individuals who criticise Churchill/a sacking for something not “PC” and all the rest of it, are simply to keep everyone arguing and taking sides and clicking on the next outrage story, paid up mouth pieces on both sides of the argument will become insignificant if we all stopped clicking and watching.
I mean seriously it’s a weekly thing, there’ll be another story not to dissimilar popping up on your news feed maybe today or tomorrow for us to get irate about this week, your dad will take one side and your niece who goes to uni will take another and the cycle begins again.Alternatively you could ignore all the toxic shite and focus on news about things that actually might affect your life or things you actually enjoy. 👍🏻
Obviously it affects some more than others.
It's a very slippery slope.
This is about someone being suspended (others sacked or cancelled outright) for using an accepted term in football for men acting with huge amounts of bravado and having no end product to such bravado.
People complained about the use of the word 'handbags' a presenter not being very good and the BBC jumped in to action, as not being very good in the eyes of a few of its listenership is most definitely grounds for a suspension so that the individual concerned can have a think about being better in future.0
