Racism Part two

[Davkaus]

3 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Lets wait and see who the replacements are and see if they improve the show and then discuss.

 

I'd probably have given you that advice for nothing 24 hours ago  

[cyrusr]

5 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Lets wait and see who the replacements are and see if they improve the show and then discuss.

Don goodman has been on the efl show for many years and is a regular. It might not be ssn but jt doesnt hode the fact that there are regulars on the show.  As @cheltenham_villa pointed out. A key point is what direction the show wants to go. Do they want to go down the more serious route without all the banter?

Not sure if anyone has seen the bt version but man it is dreadful. Boring unispiring and lame. 

I still don’t think you are getting the point which I made but @villa4europe made far better and your response to that sums it up really.

[villa4europe]

You don't need to see who the replacements are

The "outrage" has come without the replacements 

That shows you what the problem is, the very notion of a black presenter is being attacked because of racism 

[tonyh29]

I’m fairly sure on any other day most people find Phil Thompson bloody annoying , suddenly we lament his replacement ?

i don’t know who will get the job but they can be black , green , Chinese, Indian , white   or a woman for all I care I don’t even know why it’s a thing and people are getting uptight about it .

Micah Richards wasn’t one of my most favourite people  during his time at Villa , but he’s an infectious character and would be a great addition, if you don’t think so have a google on yahoo for his reaction to Roy Sour puss Keane ... give me him over Phil Thompson or Charlie Nicholas any day .

 

 

Edited August 29, 2020 by tonyh29

[chrisp65]

I’d have to confess, I’ve never watched the programme. It sounds ghastly.

I might watch it if there was a segment where Dion Dublin told us about the stairs up to the bedrooms.

[Demitri_C]

47 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

You don't need to see who the replacements are

The "outrage" has come without the replacements 

That shows you what the problem is, the very notion of a black presenter is being attacked because of racism 

Its not racist at all. Matter of opinion. 

[villa4europe]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Its not racist at all. Matter of opinion. 

Saying you are unhappy that theyve gone because you think le tis is a better presenter than Richards then no it's not

But that's not what people are saying, if you go in to social media you will see far too many people saying "worlds gone mad, will be replaced by a black man, a woman or a homosexual" and that is a widely accepted statement and is also incredibly racist, sexist and homophobic

The response to this news in general has been shockingly racist 

[JB]

5 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Well lets be real here minto le tisser thompson and nicholas all white guys sacked.  If four black pu dits were sacked you know everyone will be saying it was racially motivated. Same if four women were sacked it would be screamed sexist.

Lets not kid ourselves that that would not happen

I just don’t know where to start with this. It doesn’t seem to have been thought through in the slightest. Unless I’ve missed some context, you’re comparing the sacking of four white British pundits to the hypothetical sacking of four black pundits. **** hell. 

[Stevo985]

This is such a non story. It’s straight out of the comments section on the daily mail. 
 

3 pundits have been sacked. People are getting annoyed because they MIGHT get replaced by black and/or female pundits. 
 

Whether or not you think that’s a good or bad thing, it hasn’t happened. There’s no suggestion that it will happen or that that’s why the 3 pundits got sacked. Why are people annoyed by it?

[Demitri_C]

15 minutes ago, JB said:

I just don’t know where to start with this. It doesn’t seem to have been thought through in the slightest. Unless I’ve missed some context, you’re comparing the sacking of four white British pundits to the hypothetical sacking of four black pundits. **** hell. 

Yeah ok ignored the other points but that's fine

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

Saying you are unhappy that theyve gone because you think le tis is a better presenter than Richards then no it's not

But that's not what people are saying, if you go in to social media you will see far too many people saying "worlds gone mad, will be replaced by a black man, a woman or a homosexual" and that is a widely accepted statement and is also incredibly racist, sexist and homophobic

The response to this news in general has been shockingly racist 

See those i havent seen i cant comment on those.

My opinion is what happens next. If they replace them with black white green asian etc and they do a shitter job analysing or making soccer Saturday what it was then it seems they are trying to make the show more diversified hence why they were hired.

But as i have said lets wait and see who the confirmed replacements are and continue the discussion then. As micah Morrison or whoever might not even be them.

I hope big dion is one as he is genuinely a very good pundit and biased towards villa

[blandy]

3 hours ago, villa4europe said:

The point is slightly being missed

A white man loses his job, there has been no comment or suggestion from sky as to who will replace him or a reason as to why

There has been a large and very vocal criticism that he has been sacked solely for the purpose of replacing him with a black person

It is in your face unopposed racism that is so accepted within society that a large portion of the people making the criticism don't even realise that they are being racist or worse than that they claim it as racism against the white person 

Its nonsense, they have not lost their job because they're white, the new presenter will not get the job because they are black 

Probably.

Is it too much to wonder whether (particularly in the light of the BLM protests highlighting the disadvantages Black people suffer) Sky might  have had a moments reflection and thought to themselves "Y'know what - our telly programme on Saturday afternoons is maybe a bit, y'know, all white, all male, all middle aged and that doesn't really reflect our audience's make up, which is not all white, not all male, not all middle aged, and besides, not only has society woken up to the preponderance of  male, white, middle aged presenters, but other channels have already changed, and given the programme is now at the point of being a parody of itself, perhaps we could take the opportunity to reset some aspects of it - maybe change the mix of people to be a bit more contemporary, a bit more mixed in terms of race and gender?"

I mean if I was a satellite TV channel, then that's what I'd be thinking and doing. I wouldn't want tokenism, or positive discrimination, but I'd be looking at the different people I could have on, who are of the necessary quality, personality, character, ease in front of a camera and so on, and seeing if I couldn't get a less monochromatic, mono-generational, mono-gender range of people to have on.

I dunno if that makes me a racist, a BLM snowflake, a libtard or a gammon, but it's kind of how I think about it. A stale, (for me unwatchable), Bantz-filled (gah!), pseudo-betting shop filler of programme needs a good coat of change.

The other thing is, have these people really been "sacked" or have they been made redundant, or not had contracts renewed. I mean I doubt they're being sacked for being white or male, more like most of them are past their best and are being replaced - like with players in a club. I though Scott Minto was good as a presenter, but other than that, the line up needs changing.

[Demitri_C]

It seems that sky are going to have rotating pundits as oppoosed to a set amount like they did.

Which still makes me wonder why they sacked them and just didnt use them as part of the rotation process?  Unless its all to do with money seems strange because the show is very popular you can see by comments all over social media. 

[Davkaus]

I think the biggest injustice about those 3 being sacked is that, as much I I loved him as a player, Paul "shit for brains" Merson will continue to spew his incoherent musings next season, making each viewer slightly less well informed each time he speaks.

[JB]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

Yeah ok ignored the other points but that's fine

I’m not sure what other points you made? The only one I could see was that sacking three pundits who happen to be white is comparable to sacking four BAME pundits. Which it isn’t at all. Surely you can see that. 

It’s really sad that this is even a story. It’s a complete non-issue. 

[Genie]

51 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I think the biggest injustice about those 3 being sacked is that, as much I I loved him as a player, Paul "shit for brains" Merson will continue to spew his incoherent musings next season, making each viewer slightly less well informed each time he speaks.

I saw the story that he considered walking out over the sacking of his friends... I bet it lasted about 5 minutes until he remembered he is skint because he blew all his money on booze, gambling and divorces.

[sharkyvilla]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

It seems that sky are going to have rotating pundits as oppoosed to a set amount like they did.

Which still makes me wonder why they sacked them and just didnt use them as part of the rotation process?  Unless its all to do with money seems strange because the show is very popular you can see by comments all over social media. 

I assume Sky have gravitated towards freelance pundits to save money, you definitely see more of them showing up on all the different channels whereas BBC example always used to have theirs like Lawro, Hansen, Shearer etc, Sky had their own like Gray, Redknapp, Souness, Henry etc.  They will probably keep Neville and Carragher as they are supposedly their best pundits but Le Tissier, Nicholls and Thompson they are probably overpaying for what they offer just to appear on Soccer Saturday. They can just hire and rotate and yes this will end up in a more diverse panel as a result.  I assume the original three would have had to take a big pay cut to stay on under those terms.  Sky cricket did the same thing with Gower and Botham recently for similar reasons and I prefer the coverage now tbh. 

[Follyfoot]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Probably.

Is it too much to wonder whether (particularly in the light of the BLM protests highlighting the disadvantages Black people suffer) Sky might  have had a moments reflection and thought to themselves "Y'know what - our telly programme on Saturday afternoons is maybe a bit, y'know, all white, all male, all middle aged and that doesn't really reflect our audience's make up, which is not all white, not all male, not all middle aged, and besides, not only has society woken up to the preponderance of  male, white, middle aged presenters, but other channels have already changed, and given the programme is now at the point of being a parody of itself, perhaps we could take the opportunity to reset some aspects of it - maybe change the mix of people to be a bit more contemporary, a bit more mixed in terms of race and gender?"

I mean if I was a satellite TV channel, then that's what I'd be thinking and doing. I wouldn't want tokenism, or positive discrimination, but I'd be looking at the different people I could have on, who are of the necessary quality, personality, character, ease in front of a camera and so on, and seeing if I couldn't get a less monochromatic, mono-generational, mono-gender range of people to have on.

I dunno if that makes me a racist, a BLM snowflake, a libtard or a gammon, but it's kind of how I think about it. A stale, (for me unwatchable), Bantz-filled (gah!), pseudo-betting shop filler of programme needs a good coat of change.

The other thing is, have these people really been "sacked" or have they been made redundant, or not had contracts renewed. I mean I doubt they're being sacked for being white or male, more like most of them are past their best and are being replaced - like with players in a club. I though Scott Minto was good as a presenter, but other than that, the line up needs changing.

football isn't it, long way from jumpers for goalpost, 21 - 20, Billy come in for your tea, 'not now Mum im rushback goalie'

Edited August 29, 2020 by Follyfoot

[Kuwabatake Sanjuro]

London today, the rise of fascism linked to Qanon and other luntatic fringes continues to grow worldwide by the week.

[Vive_La_Villa]

10 hours ago, villa4europe said:

You don't need to see who the replacements are

The "outrage" has come without the replacements 

That shows you what the problem is, the very notion of a black presenter is being attacked because of racism 

That’s not true at all. It’s the timing that people are questioning.  Nobody has a problem with black presenters. They have a problem with sacking white presenters to replace them with black presenters for the sake of diversity. Now I’m not for a second saying this is what is happening and personality I do not think it is. But sky maybe could have gone about things differently to prevent this issue.