Burnsy's done one...

There seems to be a political agenda to grow the women's game after the 2012 olympics but I'd say that was being driven by DCMS. It's coordinated not just driven by one media organisation or another.

But I still don't see how that's particularly a bad thing.

 

More a case of some women getting their jobs as a result of box ticking. I don’t like most of the modern crop of male football pundit and commentators either.They have never hear of less is more.
Most people could not name a single women’s rugby union player. Though there are a couple of women involved in presenting union internationals who are pretty good. They haven’t played but are pretty knowledgeable as is shown by the deference shown to them by the male ex internationals on the programmes.

 

It would be better, and more than likely more entertaining, if they had ordinary fans who have never played the game doing the presenting and commentating.

 

Tanya Arnold was a very good RL presenter, she was quite knowledgeable on several sports.

 

Didn't Claire Balding present it at one point also?

Must have been some social engineering feminist conspiracy back then also.

I mean women can't possibly be competent to do sports media work without box ticking surely....

 

Enjoy.
Playa Blanca again?

 

Ahh yes, because entertainment is just as important as healthcare.

YouTube is free, completely free.

Yes, I do believe you should pay for what you use as we do with pretty much every other service/utility.

 

I think it's a jump on the bandwagon mentality to bash the BBC .
They have made plenty of cock ups lately that's for sure but the things you have listed above are spot on .
I'd say most of my viewing and listening did until recently come via The BBC before radio 2 list the plot .

 

Never understood why some listen to the pundits pre or post match .
Going on about body shapes and playing in the hole and all that nonesense .
They can even try and make the game you have watched seem totally different .
Watch the game and switch off the pundits .

 

Yup, the corporate press and neolibs want it privatised and they're doing everything to undermine it to achieve that goal.

Then it's the NHS and finally all our institutions will be for the profit of corporate shareholders.

 

It's full of adverts too - unless you pay of course?

 

i dont use things if it has adverts
despise them with the upmost possibility

 

So it's your choice whether you want the free option with ads or no ads and the offline download functionality of a sub.

But it's my main source of video content these days and I haven't paid a penny to use YouTube - though I do support some of the creators privately on other platforms - it's the choice I make.

I can't stand being forced to pay a sub and then also have ads to endure - like sky but they seem immune from flack frome those who love sticking the knife into the BBC.

Speaking of Sky, didn't Kelly Cates start on there? I wonder if that's diversity quota box ticking too, or just the fact her dad had a word to get her foot in the door?

 

So is Sky and you pay a premium for that so I don't really understand the point

 

which is a ****ing joke
paying a subscription and still getting adverts? yikes

 

So .... is Burnsy staying or going ?

 

****s sake, why do I bother

 

If he goes, there will be trouble and if he stays it will be double.

 

He's certainly got a lot to answer for if this thread is anything to go by, the **** him.

 

Either way they'll be a clash of views.



The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.