Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
«13456

Comments

  • I can absolutely guaranteed you that the BBC did this to stir things up. 
  • The plebs need to be told, again.
  • This is pathetic....some fans were offend.  Dear God how fragile are these listeners.  I am a for proper language but this is taking being offended to far..PC , the policeman of the airwaves it .seems.
  • Get your act together please BBC . This action is well over the top this is a football term which everyone knows. Coming from a hardman of football as Steve Thompson was it shows you what football has become in this day and age.
  • Oggy Red said:
    " ...... after listeners complained".

    After 500 years of football terminology, a handful of snowflakes who've never kicked a ball in their life, decide they are offended.



    I am offended, truly offended that he didn't also make some reference to shoes as well.
  • Sponsored links:


  • I have rewritten the story for those who don't like Daily Mail clickbait 

    BBC strives to improve football output 


    The BBC continues to improve its football coverage by getting rid of some of its poorer commentators. 

    65-year old Steve Thompson will not appear again on the BBC for a few weeks, after a cliché-ridden commentary on BBC Radio Lincolnshire.  During the match between Lincoln City and Swindon Town, he used phrases about the referee, including "I think the referee’s wife’s in…" and “[he's] being a bit of a drama queen….. he’d have been better wearing a skirt.”  These comments were untrue and failed to convey accurately or helpfully what was happening on the pitch. 

    In a statement, the BBC confirmed that Thompson is taking a break for a few weeks.  "We are continuing to improve our commentary at all levels.  So, when a freelance commentator falls below an acceptable standard, we stop using them." 
  • bobmunro said:
    Oggy Red said:
    " ...... after listeners complained".

    After 500 years of football terminology, a handful of snowflakes who've never kicked a ball in their life, decide they are offended.



    I am offended, truly offended that he didn't also make some reference to shoes as well.
    They censored the kitchens bit
  • It would be interesting to see how many listeners did complain. 

  • Chizz said:
    I have rewritten the story for those who don't like Daily Mail clickbait 

    BBC strives to improve football output 


    The BBC continues to improve its football coverage by getting rid of some of its poorer commentators. 

    65-year old Steve Thompson will not appear again on the BBC for a few weeks, after a cliché-ridden commentary on BBC Radio Lincolnshire.  During the match between Lincoln City and Swindon Town, he used phrases about the referee, including "I think the referee’s wife’s in…" and “[he's] being a bit of a drama queen….. he’d have been better wearing a skirt.”  These comments were untrue and failed to convey accurately or helpfully what was happening on the pitch. 

    In a statement, the BBC confirmed that Thompson is taking a break for a few weeks.  "We are continuing to improve our commentary at all levels.  So, when a freelance commentator falls below an acceptable standard, we stop using them." 
    For those that haven't clicked on the link to avoid Daily Mail "clickbait", this re-write is a parody (one might also say fake news)...
  • Pathetic. Takes a lot more than that to offend Lincoln dorisses.
  • Bunch of suits with nothing better to do.

    To think we have to pay for that shit whether you watch the BBC or not, joke company.
  • Leuth said:
    At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
    No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
    Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned? 

    Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened. 
  • Chizz said:
    Leuth said:
    At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
    No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
    Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned? 

    Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened. 
    There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?

    I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.




  • Sponsored links:


  • Chizz said:
    Leuth said:
    At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
    No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
    Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned? 

    Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened. 
    There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?

    I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.




    No-one has taken offence. 

    A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill. 

    The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof. 
  • Leuth said:
    At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
    No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
    TV and radios idea of balance these days is to have a liar for every expert on a subject.
  • Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Leuth said:
    At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
    No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
    Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned? 

    Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened. 
    There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?

    I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.




    No-one has taken offence. 

    A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill. 

    The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof. 
    He's not been temporarily dropped for being mediocre or incompetent though, but as a punishment for specific things he said
  • edited November 2020
    Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Leuth said:
    At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
    No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
    Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned? 

    Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened. 
    There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?

    I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.




    No-one has taken offence. 

    A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill. 

    The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof. 
    You seem very well briefed on this.

    So if no-one took offence why did the BBC say "After listeners raised concerns, Steve acknowledged some of his comments on air didn't meet the standards we expect."

    Or were the BBC lying about that?
  • How much more pathetic are the woke snowflake BBC going to get? Thank goodness I stopped buying a licence years ago.
    Steve is one of my all time fave players, hopefully he can find a better job than giving his time to the BBC.
  • Off_it said:
    Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Leuth said:
    At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
    No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
    Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned? 

    Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened. 
    There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?

    I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.




    No-one has taken offence. 

    A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill. 

    The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof. 
    You seem very well briefed on this.

    So if no-one took offence why did the BBC say "After listeners raised concerns, Steve acknowledged some of his comments on air didn't meet the standards we expect."

    Or were the BBC lying about that?
    Raising concern is different from being offended. But you know that.
  • Boom said:
    Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Leuth said:
    At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
    No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
    Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned? 

    Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened. 
    There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?

    I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.




    No-one has taken offence. 

    A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill. 

    The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof. 
    How do you know he’s mediocre? 

    Do you listen to Radio Lincs much?

    If he’s not good enough, why’s he only been dropped until new year?
    If he were better than mediocre, he would be broadcast on an even bigger broadcast medium than Radio Lincolnshire. That's how meritocracy works. Radio Lincolnshire may well be one of the best stations in the whole of the Lincolnshire area, but it's not the pinnacle to which broadcasters aim. 
  • Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Leuth said:
    At times the BBC does like shooting itself in the foot
    No but it really does. Like much of the rest of the establishment media, it sustains itself through sowing division and trolling the public. This is completely deliberate and part of BBC policy. I won't be persuaded otherwise. There's no other explanation for why it constantly invites yer Laurence Foxes onto its discussion panels, and yet makes pointedly nonsensical decisions like this.
    Isn't that a bit of an over reaction to a freelancer you weren't listening to, commentating on a match you have no interest in, not being sacked or banned? 

    Would you react in the same way if the BBC said they weren't going to use him again for a while, because he's not very good and people were starting to notice? Because that's what's happened. 
    There are an awful lot of mediocre people in the BBC but if your face fits the mediocrity doesn't matter. Have you watched some of the painful garbage on BBC3?

    I believe in diversity and equality of opportunity but you have to stop this constant need to take offence. In the end it benefits nobody, trivialises serious issues and pisses off an awful lot of people.




    No-one has taken offence. 

    A mediocre football pundit has been told he's not good enough. That's all. Despite the Mail's best mountain constructing with regards to this particular molehill. 

    The only "issue" is Thompson's competence or lack thereof. 
    He's not been temporarily dropped for being mediocre or incompetent though, but as a punishment for specific things he said
    Yes, that's exactly the line the Daily Mail would have you believe. 

    Using hackneyed cliches, some of which may have misogynist flavour is why he's being replaced. If he used hackneyed cliches which had no underlying misogyny, he'd still have been replaced. But you wouldn't read about that in the Mail.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!