I would have never guessed. Why not say so in simple non derogatory terms, - as opposed to being abusive about her looks and intellect ? There's a simple measure of your popularity (meaning liking & appreciation of you position on various topics) for all to see on here. Stop crowing about how hard done by you are with responses to your position on certain topics. Think about why you may be viewed that way. It ain't brain surgery - as you put it "brain sciencery". Ingrained prejudicies can be ameliorated somewhat with time.
Le Tissier’s tweets might not actually have had any bearing at all, three of them were sacked and only one of them had upset anyone on Twitter. Scott Minto has also now been sacked.
All apart from Le Tissier were garbage pundits anyway. Especially Nicholas. Sky will probably go with a box ticking exercise and have a more diverse pundit panel. Alex Scott is pretty decent in my opinion. Richards is alright but doesn’t seem to be much depth to his analysis. Clinton Morrison is an absolute moron, thickest person to ever give his opinion on football and that’s a pretty large pool to choose from! At the end of the day though, they’ll probably end up with a better informed and more relatable line up, which will in turn make the show better. Who gives a **** about their race or sex if the show improves?
Because she looks like she spends her free time bothering billy goats as they attempt to cross the bridge whose shade she calls home I just wondered why a handful of people were so quick to decry me as being wrong, yet rarely offered any breakdown of who, what, why, where, when and how that might be I think you mean 'alleviate'
Just in case you ever disappear off here Erik, I appreciate your individual views, it would be a totally boring forum if everyone thought the same. Some have sadly left this place over the years and made it largely pretty monotone.
I assume he wasn’t sacked for that, or the sacking would have happened when he said something. However whichever way you look at it an employer who has someone on a fixed term contract can simply choose not to give them a new contract. If you really want your contract extending then you work hard, and try not to do anything that makes your employer look daft. If you choose to do or say things that you know will be controversial or clash with your employers view that’s fine, you can say them, but similarly you live with the fact you might not get a new contract. They might just think he’s not very good of course, or that he is past it, but TV presenters know full well that what they say gets scrutinised
I'm not offended. It takes more than that, but in my opinion some of the personal comments being made are OTT and unnecessary I disagree with the above. I admit she did seems a bit 'awkward' at first .... just like anyone starting a new job. I'm very happy to have to see her face on TV!
Does anyone actually know Sky's official position on this?As far as I'm aware they haven't released an official statement yet but conjecture points towards a cost cutting/streamlining exercise. If that is the case then why the speculation over replacements,why would they be replaced?And if so,irrespective of who replaced them,this could be construed as constructive dismissal as per the employment rights act 1996.
Looking forward to see who at the almighty bbc is going to get sacked for deciding not to have the lyrics sung at the last night of the proms of land of hope and glory and rule Britannia. Bated breath
I dismissed myself from employment(ie resigned) and successfully sued my employer for constructive dismissal.So I was actually dismissed.
My point was and is.You can't go around telling people to leave their job then replace them like for like,it's against the law. This all very much depends on Sky's official stance on why they were removed anyway.
She hasn't even been offered the job yet, she's not been officially linked, and when you look at the wealth of crap that's been posted all over social media it is patently obvious that people en masse do care about the colour and sex of potential presenters.
Well how about that ? When I attempted to unravel the meaning of your second point, I thought you might think I might mean something else ! Now where's that bloody rabbit hole ?
Making someone redundant and then appointing someone to do the same job is against the law, getting rid of a TV presenter to replace them with another one isn't remotely against the law.
