Baffled by the Minto decision, truly baffled. Not in anyway surprised Tommo & Charlie are out but why hasn’t Kammy gone too? As I personally think he’s been awful the last two seasons, like his hearts just not in it.
I have no issues with a refresh but this just seems to be pandering to an agenda.
Laura Woods is very very good. Plus she’s an absolute rocket.
Dont get the fuss over Alex Scott. She seems pleasant enough but her analysing is like that of an u10’s coach. Will ramble on for a minute without actually saying much. Very basic.
I don't fully get his point. Is he giving out that people think they only got sacked so they could get replaced by Scott, Richards and Morrison?
I think his point is more that people are saying it is because Sky want to replace them with black pundits when it is more likely they want to evolve the show with younger pundits. That isn't fair on a black pundit or pundits that take over where ability or profile is the driver rather than race. I think it is a well argued point.
Baffled by the Minto decision, truly baffled. Not in anyway surprised Tommo & Charlie are out but why hasn’t Kammy gone too? As I personally think he’s been awful the last two seasons, like his hearts just not in it.
I have no issues with a refresh but this just seems to be pandering to an agenda.
Kammy has elevated himself unto a higher level and will be seen as an asset. He is likeable but I think he plays to the image, which many do in this 'celebrity world' that I detest.
If Sky are going down the route I think they are - which they shouldn't, because it's a move to appease people who do not watch the show -
Who do you mean?
I would argue the people they are trying to appeal too would prefer to have a live 3PM (all Premier league matches) on TV to watch. Thus, they wouldn’t even to choose watch this type of programme if they had their initial option.
I'm not sure I understand. I was just asking @PaddyP17 who he meant when he said the people sky are trying to appease don't even watch the show? What people?
My suspicion is that they're thinking Soccer Saturday is a bit too "white middle-aged male" and want to get ahead of the curve/control the diversity narrative by ensuring there is adequate minority and female representation before people truly kick up a stink.
But anyone who does kick up a stink won't have actually watched Soccer Saturday - or won't be a regular viewer. And the USP of Soccer Saturday was the chemistry between "the boys", which has been removed in one fell swoop (why not phase this stuff out, or have guests/rotate every so often?), so I find this a strange move by Sky from all angles.
For the record, my own view is that yes it's middle-aged white men, but that's fine at the minute. It will naturally change soon enough, and I think getting rid of so many people at the same time is a bad idea. I rarely watch Soccer Saturday as I'd rather follow Charlton, though.
Another angle is that they're going to try and appeal to the 30-40 year old age group, who now have disposable income and can choose to buy Sky Sports, and they will therefore get pundits who were players when said people were young (so for instance anyone notable from the 90s to the early 00s).
If Sky are going down the route I think they are - which they shouldn't, because it's a move to appease people who do not watch the show -
Who do you mean?
I would argue the people they are trying to appeal too would prefer to have a live 3PM (all Premier league matches) on TV to watch. Thus, they wouldn’t even to choose watch this type of programme if they had their initial option.
I'm not sure I understand. I was just asking @PaddyP17 who he meant when he said the people sky are trying to appease don't even watch the show? What people?
My suspicion is that they're thinking Soccer Saturday is a bit too "white middle-aged male" and want to get ahead of the curve/control the diversity narrative by ensuring there is adequate minority and female representation before people truly kick up a stink.
But anyone who does kick up a stink won't have actually watched Soccer Saturday - or won't be a regular viewer. And the USP of Soccer Saturday was the chemistry between "the boys", which has been removed in one fell swoop (why not phase this stuff out, or have guests/rotate every so often?), so I find this a strange move by Sky from all angles.
For the record, my own view is that yes it's middle-aged white men, but that's fine at the minute. It will naturally change soon enough, and I think getting rid of so many people at the same time is a bad idea. I rarely watch Soccer Saturday as I'd rather follow Charlton, though.
Another angle is that they're going to try and appeal to the 30-40 year old age group, who now have disposable income and can choose to buy Sky Sports, and they will therefore get pundits who were players when said people were young (so for instance anyone notable from the 90s to the early 00s).
I feel like it's probably the latter. I'm in that age group and the Soccer Saturday team seemed like a bunch of boring old farts to me.
Re: your first bit, I guess you're saying that the audience is mostly white men so changing to women/ethnic minority pundits won't appeal to the audience? I wouldnt really agree that diversity only appeals to 'diverse' people.
If Sky are going down the route I think they are - which they shouldn't, because it's a move to appease people who do not watch the show -
Who do you mean?
I would argue the people they are trying to appeal too would prefer to have a live 3PM (all Premier league matches) on TV to watch. Thus, they wouldn’t even to choose watch this type of programme if they had their initial option.
I'm not sure I understand. I was just asking @PaddyP17 who he meant when he said the people sky are trying to appease don't even watch the show? What people?
My suspicion is that they're thinking Soccer Saturday is a bit too "white middle-aged male" and want to get ahead of the curve/control the diversity narrative by ensuring there is adequate minority and female representation before people truly kick up a stink.
But anyone who does kick up a stink won't have actually watched Soccer Saturday - or won't be a regular viewer. And the USP of Soccer Saturday was the chemistry between "the boys", which has been removed in one fell swoop (why not phase this stuff out, or have guests/rotate every so often?), so I find this a strange move by Sky from all angles.
For the record, my own view is that yes it's middle-aged white men, but that's fine at the minute. It will naturally change soon enough, and I think getting rid of so many people at the same time is a bad idea. I rarely watch Soccer Saturday as I'd rather follow Charlton, though.
Another angle is that they're going to try and appeal to the 30-40 year old age group, who now have disposable income and can choose to buy Sky Sports, and they will therefore get pundits who were players when said people were young (so for instance anyone notable from the 90s to the early 00s).
I feel like it's probably the latter. I'm in that age group and the Soccer Saturday team seemed like a bunch of boring old farts to me.
Re: your first bit, I guess you're saying that the audience is mostly white men so changing to women/ethnic minority pundits won't appeal to the audience? I wouldnt really agree that diversity only appeals to 'diverse' people.
That's a part of what I'm saying. I think people watch it for the banter. And removing three of the prime guys involved in said banter at once is a silly decision.
I'm not saying diversity only appeals to diverse people at all. It's more that those who are watching won't really care about it and care more about what "the lads" bring to the table, and will be unhappy at the potentially sterile atmosphere from a lack of chemistry.
If Sky are going down the route I think they are - which they shouldn't, because it's a move to appease people who do not watch the show -
Who do you mean?
I would argue the people they are trying to appeal too would prefer to have a live 3PM (all Premier league matches) on TV to watch. Thus, they wouldn’t even to choose watch this type of programme if they had their initial option.
I'm not sure I understand. I was just asking @PaddyP17 who he meant when he said the people sky are trying to appease don't even watch the show? What people?
My suspicion is that they're thinking Soccer Saturday is a bit too "white middle-aged male" and want to get ahead of the curve/control the diversity narrative by ensuring there is adequate minority and female representation before people truly kick up a stink.
But anyone who does kick up a stink won't have actually watched Soccer Saturday - or won't be a regular viewer. And the USP of Soccer Saturday was the chemistry between "the boys", which has been removed in one fell swoop (why not phase this stuff out, or have guests/rotate every so often?), so I find this a strange move by Sky from all angles.
For the record, my own view is that yes it's middle-aged white men, but that's fine at the minute. It will naturally change soon enough, and I think getting rid of so many people at the same time is a bad idea. I rarely watch Soccer Saturday as I'd rather follow Charlton, though.
Another angle is that they're going to try and appeal to the 30-40 year old age group, who now have disposable income and can choose to buy Sky Sports, and they will therefore get pundits who were players when said people were young (so for instance anyone notable from the 90s to the early 00s).
I feel like it's probably the latter. I'm in that age group and the Soccer Saturday team seemed like a bunch of boring old farts to me.
Re: your first bit, I guess you're saying that the audience is mostly white men so changing to women/ethnic minority pundits won't appeal to the audience? I wouldnt really agree that diversity only appeals to 'diverse' people.
That's a part of what I'm saying. I think people watch it for the banter. And removing three of the prime guys involved in said banter at once is a silly decision.
I'm not saying diversity only appeals to diverse people at all. It's more that those who are watching won't really care about it and care more about what "the lads" bring to the table, and will be unhappy at the potentially sterile atmosphere from a lack of chemistry.
But there can be chemistry between people who aren't male and white, right?
I think people are only aggrieved at the idea that three blokes have lost their jobs for the sake of diversity rather than the fact that the replacements won't be as good or won't gel together.
Pretty sure Caroline Barker did the Charlton v Millwall game and she was awful. If she replaces Minto, then it feels like it's based off a gender quota.
If Sky are going down the route I think they are - which they shouldn't, because it's a move to appease people who do not watch the show -
Who do you mean?
I would argue the people they are trying to appeal too would prefer to have a live 3PM (all Premier league matches) on TV to watch. Thus, they wouldn’t even to choose watch this type of programme if they had their initial option.
I'm not sure I understand. I was just asking @PaddyP17 who he meant when he said the people sky are trying to appease don't even watch the show? What people?
My suspicion is that they're thinking Soccer Saturday is a bit too "white middle-aged male" and want to get ahead of the curve/control the diversity narrative by ensuring there is adequate minority and female representation before people truly kick up a stink.
But anyone who does kick up a stink won't have actually watched Soccer Saturday - or won't be a regular viewer. And the USP of Soccer Saturday was the chemistry between "the boys", which has been removed in one fell swoop (why not phase this stuff out, or have guests/rotate every so often?), so I find this a strange move by Sky from all angles.
For the record, my own view is that yes it's middle-aged white men, but that's fine at the minute. It will naturally change soon enough, and I think getting rid of so many people at the same time is a bad idea. I rarely watch Soccer Saturday as I'd rather follow Charlton, though.
Another angle is that they're going to try and appeal to the 30-40 year old age group, who now have disposable income and can choose to buy Sky Sports, and they will therefore get pundits who were players when said people were young (so for instance anyone notable from the 90s to the early 00s).
I feel like it's probably the latter. I'm in that age group and the Soccer Saturday team seemed like a bunch of boring old farts to me.
Re: your first bit, I guess you're saying that the audience is mostly white men so changing to women/ethnic minority pundits won't appeal to the audience? I wouldnt really agree that diversity only appeals to 'diverse' people.
That's a part of what I'm saying. I think people watch it for the banter. And removing three of the prime guys involved in said banter at once is a silly decision.
I'm not saying diversity only appeals to diverse people at all. It's more that those who are watching won't really care about it and care more about what "the lads" bring to the table, and will be unhappy at the potentially sterile atmosphere from a lack of chemistry.
But there can be chemistry between people who aren't male and white, right?
I think people are only aggrieved at the idea that three blokes have lost their jobs for the sake of diversity rather than the fact that the replacements won't be as good or won't gel together.
Of course there can be, and I would never protest otherwise. That isn't my line of thinking whatsoever. I still think it's a stupid decision from Sky though.
Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see
Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine? Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say? Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway. You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob. For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt. These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.
Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions). How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?
Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct. He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months. There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example. However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out. I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!
All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully. It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.
This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want. The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries. Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.
I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO. But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism. Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII? Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit. Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together. When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them. Slow hand clap.....
Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.
Could it just be the show is stale, and it needs freshening up? The Jeff and his 4 drunks format has run out of steam, time for something new.
Also Sky are competing with a load of other broadcasters other then BT on a Saturday afternoon, they've seen the average age of viewing football on the channels is going up, and advertisers aren't too interested in them.
Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see
Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine? Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say? Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway. You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob. For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt. These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.
Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions). How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?
Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct. He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months. There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example. However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out. I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!
All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully. It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.
This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want. The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries. Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.
I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO. But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism. Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII? Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit. Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together. When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them. Slow hand clap.....
Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.
Dont worry its only going to get worse and will extend into normal jobs as well
My wife at work yesterday had her 121 which included a complaint her Manager had received after she'd had a conversation with a colleague over the rights and wrongs of children being "Gender Neutral" and how she intended to raise our Son as a little boy as thats what he is (Although if he were to like playing with dolls etc. then she wouldnt stand in his way)
A much younger colleague overheard the conversation (wasnt even involved in it), went to the Manager to complain and apparently wanted my wife fired as a result
Thankfully this Manager was sensible enough to turn around and say that she didnt have the right to take such action
wow that is difficult to comprehend. Feels like the sort of atmosphere you'd get in soviet Russia or fascist germany
Sorry to hear that Forever....the penalty for wrong-think is cancellation!
Terrifying and nasty in equal measure.
What I don't get is that we appear to have produced a generation of containing many youngsters who think that anyone who disagrees with them must be punished in some way because that obviously makes them evil. How can that do anything but further fracture society?
Whatever happened to people agreeing to disagree? There are people of varying political views on this site, for example, yet we accept this as a fact of life and do not allow it to get in the way of our united love for the one and only Charlton Athletic.
Live and let live surely has to be the way forward.
Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see
Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine? Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say? Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway. You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob. For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt. These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.
Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions). How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?
Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct. He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months. There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example. However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out. I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!
All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully. It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.
This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want. The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries. Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.
I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO. But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism. Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII? Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit. Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together. When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them. Slow hand clap.....
Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.
Dont worry its only going to get worse and will extend into normal jobs as well
My wife at work yesterday had her 121 which included a complaint her Manager had received after she'd had a conversation with a colleague over the rights and wrongs of children being "Gender Neutral" and how she intended to raise our Son as a little boy as thats what he is (Although if he were to like playing with dolls etc. then she wouldnt stand in his way)
A much younger colleague overheard the conversation (wasnt even involved in it), went to the Manager to complain and apparently wanted my wife fired as a result
Thankfully this Manager was sensible enough to turn around and say that she didnt have the right to take such action
I think it is only going to get worse/more extreme and become more divisive and divided. And make a lot of things worse for precisely those who are supposedly to benefit. Ironically the actions towards some people with the 'wrong view' is exactly what people say they are against! The work example is ridiculous and I am already concerned we are not able to speak freely and have opinions that by no stretch of the imagination are extreme. I am all for encouraging development in under represented groups but against appointing people who are not able to do the job in favour of those who can - it will only lead to resentment and a backlash. Also the view of the majority is not represented, rather the small minority of those in the microcosm of social media and those who shout loudest. And woe betide you if you disagree and even try to have a reasoned debate.
Scott Minto may be replaced by someone for reasons other than their colour.
It will be interesting to see who does replace them. And interesting that there is a delay before the replacements are announced.
Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see
Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine? Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say? Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway. You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob. For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt. These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.
Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions). How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?
Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct. He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months. There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example. However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out. I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!
All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully. It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.
This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want. The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries. Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.
I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO. But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism. Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII? Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit. Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together. When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them. Slow hand clap.....
Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.
Dont worry its only going to get worse and will extend into normal jobs as well
My wife at work yesterday had her 121 which included a complaint her Manager had received after she'd had a conversation with a colleague over the rights and wrongs of children being "Gender Neutral" and how she intended to raise our Son as a little boy as thats what he is (Although if he were to like playing with dolls etc. then she wouldnt stand in his way)
A much younger colleague overheard the conversation (wasnt even involved in it), went to the Manager to complain and apparently wanted my wife fired as a result
Thankfully this Manager was sensible enough to turn around and say that she didnt have the right to take such action
Sorry mate but I had to.
There's no way people like your wife should be allowed to express her own opinion about raising her own child in the way she thinks fit.
I've also just raised a complaint with the same manager about you coming on here and mouthing off about an issue that has nothing to do with you. Expect a letter from my lawyer shortly.
Sky have got rid of Scott Minto now. That one is mystifying to me. He's articulate, knowledgeable and works well with the guests. Plus he was actually pro-Charlton which was nice to see
Does anyone at any of these organisations have a brain, let alone a spine? Is being called racist by a tiny minority of social media half wits who consider everything from cereal to correct grammar to also be racist so bad that you have to cave in and do everything that they say? Anyone with any intelligence knows that if you appease the mob, then they will demand more and more until you are destroyed anyway. You can NEVER satisfy the woke mob. For them, you can never be pure enough - witness the Puritans turn on each other when they can't find any other easy victims for their pious witch-hunt. These people are pathetic, idiotic bullies and should be told where to go, IMHO.
Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions). How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?
Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct. He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months. There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example. However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out. I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!
All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully. It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.
This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want. The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries. Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.
I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO. But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism. Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII? Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit. Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together. When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them. Slow hand clap.....
Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.
Dont worry its only going to get worse and will extend into normal jobs as well
My wife at work yesterday had her 121 which included a complaint her Manager had received after she'd had a conversation with a colleague over the rights and wrongs of children being "Gender Neutral" and how she intended to raise our Son as a little boy as thats what he is (Although if he were to like playing with dolls etc. then she wouldnt stand in his way)
A much younger colleague overheard the conversation (wasnt even involved in it), went to the Manager to complain and apparently wanted my wife fired as a result
Thankfully this Manager was sensible enough to turn around and say that she didnt have the right to take such action
Sorry mate but I had to.
There's no way people like your wife should be allowed to express her own opinion about raising her own child in the way she thinks fit.
I've also just raised a complaint with the same manager about you coming on here and mouthing off about an issue that has nothing to do with you. Expect a letter from my lawyer shortly.
Comments
Alex Scott, Laura Woods and Emma Jones from Leeds United Tv
Not in anyway surprised Tommo & Charlie are out but why hasn’t Kammy gone too? As I personally think he’s been awful the last two seasons, like his hearts just not in it.
I have no issues with a refresh but this just seems to be pandering to an agenda.
Dont get the fuss over Alex Scott. She seems pleasant enough but her analysing is like that of an u10’s coach. Will ramble on for a minute without actually saying much. Very basic.
But anyone who does kick up a stink won't have actually watched Soccer Saturday - or won't be a regular viewer. And the USP of Soccer Saturday was the chemistry between "the boys", which has been removed in one fell swoop (why not phase this stuff out, or have guests/rotate every so often?), so I find this a strange move by Sky from all angles.
For the record, my own view is that yes it's middle-aged white men, but that's fine at the minute. It will naturally change soon enough, and I think getting rid of so many people at the same time is a bad idea. I rarely watch Soccer Saturday as I'd rather follow Charlton, though.
Another angle is that they're going to try and appeal to the 30-40 year old age group, who now have disposable income and can choose to buy Sky Sports, and they will therefore get pundits who were players when said people were young (so for instance anyone notable from the 90s to the early 00s).
Re: your first bit, I guess you're saying that the audience is mostly white men so changing to women/ethnic minority pundits won't appeal to the audience? I wouldnt really agree that diversity only appeals to 'diverse' people.
I'm not saying diversity only appeals to diverse people at all. It's more that those who are watching won't really care about it and care more about what "the lads" bring to the table, and will be unhappy at the potentially sterile atmosphere from a lack of chemistry.
I think people are only aggrieved at the idea that three blokes have lost their jobs for the sake of diversity rather than the fact that the replacements won't be as good or won't gel together.
Jacqui Oakley, Natalie Sawyer, Laura Woods, Faye Carruthers all excellent woman foootall presenters.
Kelly Cates the best in the business at presant.
Caroline Barker truly woeful
Change may be needed, but it is done in such a sweeping, cack-handed manner that it only serves to alienate the majority (remember, 90% odd people in this country still have the skin colour that is now openly despised by many British institutions, judging by their actions). How is 'I hate you whitey, please buy my product' a remotely sensible business strategy, let alone in a majority white country?
Ian Wright (a man that I have a lot of respect and affection for) is correct. He is replying to those who are showing a knee jerk reaction to the predictable 'diversity' (aka less white people) narrative that has become all consuming in the last few months. There is real anger now - the BBC appears to be a turkey voting for Christmas with its latest Proms debacle, for example. However, being a racist prick on Twitter is hardly an appropriate response in any situation, as if IW needed to point this out. I agree that Alex Scott and Micah Richards are good at their jobs, but if others such as Clinton Morrison get the gig, then it is clear that this is another ill judged, knee jerk response and the argument that positions have been filled due to talent rather than tokenism will be obliterated. Sacking Minto due to his skin colour (which is obviously the case, no matter what pathetic excuse is offered) means that whoever fills his shoes will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to only have been hired due their skin colour. Hooray for racism!
All decisions made by British institutions right now appear to be about supinely bowing to a Twitter online woke hate mob so that this tiny minority does not take aim at them and looks for someone else to bully. It may be an effective short-term strategy, but long term it is likely to be disastrous. Positive discrimination is still racism and if anyone thinks that the way to address racism is more racism, then they must be the kind of person that thinks a Gender Studies degree makes them intelligent.
This is one of the least racist places on Earth, but the backlash that will be caused by all of this wokery may ironically end up producing the opposite effect to which the woke folk purport to want. The next election will be interesting in this respect, I fear. If you keep labelling people 'far right' for having a sense of pride in their country and culture in such a 'cry wolf' fashion, then eventually actual far right politics will lose its stigma and the real thing will emerge; something that has been notably absent of late in comparison to other European countries. Not bad for a supposed racist hell hole.
I was raised to believe in the ideals of MLK - colour blindness is the only way that humanity can progress, IMHO. But now that has all been trashed by racist 'anti-racists' - I mean we are now seeing the re-instigation of colour based segregation in the US, for example. How is this progress? The concept of 'white guilt' for actions committed by long dead ancestors is the definition of racism. Should I get with the programme and go out and punch a German or Japanese because their forefathers tried to kill my Grandparents in WWII? Obviously not, because the concept is bullshit. Identity politics as a whole is divisive, dangerous bollocks which splits people up, rather than bringing them together. When the dust settles, it will be clear that it has inflamed racist sentiments on all sides, rather than decreasing them. Slow hand clap.....
Sorry for the rant, but this is another symptom of a general malaise; the whole thing is depressing, idiotic and counterproductive to me.
Also Sky are competing with a load of other broadcasters other then BT on a Saturday afternoon, they've seen the average age of viewing football on the channels is going up, and advertisers aren't too interested in them.
wow that is difficult to comprehend. Feels like the sort of atmosphere you'd get in soviet Russia or fascist germany
Terrifying and nasty in equal measure.
What I don't get is that we appear to have produced a generation of containing many youngsters who think that anyone who disagrees with them must be punished in some way because that obviously makes them evil. How can that do anything but further fracture society?
Whatever happened to people agreeing to disagree? There are people of varying political views on this site, for example, yet we accept this as a fact of life and do not allow it to get in the way of our united love for the one and only Charlton Athletic.
Live and let live surely has to be the way forward.
Scott Minto may be replaced by someone for reasons other than their colour.
It will be interesting to see who does replace them. And interesting that there is a delay before the replacements are announced.
Sorry mate but I had to.
There's no way people like your wife should be allowed to express her own opinion about raising her own child in the way she thinks fit.
I've also just raised a complaint with the same manager about you coming on here and mouthing off about an issue that has nothing to do with you. Expect a letter from my lawyer shortly.