Burnsy's done one...

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gone For A Walk said:
Integration might not be the best word, others might come up with better, but it was the one I thought of to describe how I see what is happening.
However, what we are having shoved in our faces these days so to speak is certainly NOT being driven by an agenda of 'not relying on the same old ex PL and England boys club .....'.!! And that is a FACT.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drew
Mckechnie Orange said:
Dunno, think women's RU and cricket do have a professional profile.

Personally I don't give a **** whether commentators are male of or female as long as they're good at what they do and have a professional perspective on the sport they're commentating on.

I'm actually happy to see less PL-centric coverage and see the profile of the women's game and lower leagues increased. It's basically why Wrexham going global is a positive for me.

Banging on about specifically women commentators does allude to a certain bias on your part don't you think?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gone For A Walk said:
Integration might not be the best word, others might come up with better, but it was the one I thought of to describe how I see what is happening.
However, what we are having shoved in our faces these days so to speak is certainly NOT being driven by an agenda of 'not relying on the same old ex PL and England boys club .....'.!! And that is a FACT.
Click to expand...

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.
 
spesupersydera said:
Tanya Arnold was a very good RL presenter, she was quite knowledgeable on several sports.
Click to expand...

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.... <doh>
 
steverico said:
You might never have to go to the doctors or indeed the hospital, you might never go to the library, you want to get down the utterly selfish way of pay if you use it route , just like the **** system the yanks have, and wake up, YouTube isn’t free, it is a subscription channel if you don’t want to see adverts, which are then paid for by you in the cost of the products they are advertising.
**** me there’s some thick ****s on here
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
originallambrettaman said:
The BBC produce the best nature programmes, the best comedy programmes, the best drama programmes, the best factual programmes and the best news output, there's a reason the BBC is by far the most watched channel in the UK.

We now have around 480 channels in the UK, yet the BBC retain over 30% market share, that's incredible and all for about £13 a month (Radio is even more impressive, the BBC still have a 47% market share, though they seem to be doing their best to reduce that on local radio).
Click to expand...
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 .
 
  • Like
Reactions: dennisboothstash, PLT, Drew and 2 others
Heimdallr said:
Steady on with accusations of sexism, buddy. I wrote she was a looker, so worth her salary and you ought to turn down the sound if you don't like her opinions or voice. I'd write the same about a man or a transexual if I felt that way.

Not sure why anyone needs to be talked through a game they're watching, but that's my opinion as I don't analyse the game really having never played it at any level beyond childhood or think about it that much after, just enjoy it in the moment. Appreciate crowd noise improves a game.
Click to expand...
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 .
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwoWrights
Edelman said:
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 .
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: springtiger, HHH, Drew and 2 others
i dont use things if it has adverts
despise them with the upmost possibility
 
spesupersydera said:
It's full of adverts too - unless you pay of course?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Drew
Shark Sports said:
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.
Click to expand...
****s sake, why do I bother
You must log in or register to see images
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwoWrights
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back