This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
BBC (again)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
| W12 15 Jul 22 11.09pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
It's women's football. Who honestly cares? I am all for slating the BBC but we have to maintain some standards. All white, all black, all yellow, it is utterly irrelevant. The bigger issue is why it wastes money on covering women's football at all. The BBC is the enemy. End of story. Constantly banging on about petty examples of this does not actually achieve anything. This is just froth. Just curious as to what extent you believe that this “value” (horrible word) applies to these groups? Is this universally accepted?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 15 Jul 22 11.35pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
No it isn't. It's blatant misrepresentation of what the BBC's reporter actually said, which is, after all, one reporter's view and not the view of the BBC. What it indicates is the desire of some people to see prejudice against "white" people where none exists. This is much more evidence of a white supremacist attitude than the reverse. That the reporter observed that there were only "white" faces in the team, and that this suggests a lack of diversity in the sport, is merely a suggestion worth analysing. It was not a criticism of the team, or their performance. That some wish to flay the BBC for a perfectly reasonable question, asked by one individual, is pretty ridiculous and speaks volumes about those who wish to do it.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
Teddy Eagle  15 Jul 22 11.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 16 Jul 22 4.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No it isn't. It's blatant misrepresentation of what the BBC's reporter actually said, which is, after all, one reporter's view and not the view of the BBC. What it indicates is the desire of some people to see prejudice against "white" people where none exists. This is much more evidence of a white supremacist attitude than the reverse. That the reporter observed that there were only "white" faces in the team, and that this suggests a lack of diversity in the sport, is merely a suggestion worth analysing. It was not a criticism of the team, or their performance. That some wish to flay the BBC for a perfectly reasonable question, asked by one individual, is pretty ridiculous and speaks volumes about those who wish to do it. That’s fair enough but I didn’t see her add an opinion that maybe the black players just aren’t good enough and going forwards maybe they will get better and be good enough. That is called balance and there was none in her report. Do you not agree?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The Dolphin 16 Jul 22 7.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Wisbech - did you actually hear what she said?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| YT Oxford 16 Jul 22 7.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No it isn't. It's blatant misrepresentation of what the BBC's reporter actually said, which is, after all, one reporter's view and not the view of the BBC. What it indicates is the desire of some people to see prejudice against "white" people where none exists. This is much more evidence of a white supremacist attitude than the reverse. That the reporter observed that there were only "white" faces in the team, and that this suggests a lack of diversity in the sport, is merely a suggestion worth analysing. It was not a criticism of the team, or their performance. That some wish to flay the BBC for a perfectly reasonable question, asked by one individual, is pretty ridiculous and speaks volumes about those who wish to do it. Congratulations on defending the indefensible.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 16 Jul 22 9.34am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
Congratulations on defending the indefensible. He doesn't care, one moment he'll argue that race doesn't exist and then find it just as easy the next moment to argue that the BBC observing race is fine and dandy.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 16 Jul 22 10.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No it isn't. It's blatant misrepresentation of what the BBC's reporter actually said, which is, after all, one reporter's view and not the view of the BBC. What it indicates is the desire of some people to see prejudice against "white" people where none exists. This is much more evidence of a white supremacist attitude than the reverse. That the reporter observed that there were only "white" faces in the team, and that this suggests a lack of diversity in the sport, is merely a suggestion worth analysing. It was not a criticism of the team, or their performance. That some wish to flay the BBC for a perfectly reasonable question, asked by one individual, is pretty ridiculous and speaks volumes about those who wish to do it. What a lot of deluded codswallop. Your usual standard.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| W12 17 Jul 22 7.19am | |
|---|---|
|
If you are still paying for this “world is on fire” bulls*** then more fool you:
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | Pembroke Bristol 17 Jul 22 4.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No it isn't. It's blatant misrepresentation of what the BBC's reporter actually said, which is, after all, one reporter's view and not the view of the BBC. What it indicates is the desire of some people to see prejudice against "white" people where none exists. This is much more evidence of a white supremacist attitude than the reverse. That the reporter observed that there were only "white" faces in the team, and that this suggests a lack of diversity in the sport, is merely a suggestion worth analysing. It was not a criticism of the team, or their performance. That some wish to flay the BBC for a perfectly reasonable question, asked by one individual, is pretty ridiculous and speaks volumes about those who wish to do it. The reporter stated All starting eleven players and the five substitutes that came onto the pitch were all white, and that does point to a lack of diversity in the women’s game. She was going beyond suggesting. What views were exchanged in the documentary the presenter was linking into? The same point was being made. A white England team was portrayed as a negative because it was not diverse. The doc went further suggesting that the academy system on a socio economic level disadvantages black players hence the lack of diversity in the Englands team, avoiding the point that Englands current players are frequently working class and will experience the same challenges the programme decided was holding black players back in the system. The documentary didnt analyise because it didnt provide facts and figures of participation rates through the pathway.The documentary made a sweeping assertion without evidence - A white XI and five white subs that has occurred several times is not a measurement of anything much. The squad demographic of 13% being non white mirrors roughly society and? Nothing. Football isnt a tool of diversity, its based on merit. The white XI and five white subs are the best on offer and Parris, Stokes are squad players. The BBC also gave air to a black ex player who stated that she couldnt connect with any part of the players identity (white), this team didn't speak to her, didnt inspire her because of that identity. Prejudice? Racism? Edited by Pembroke (17 Jul 2022 4.25pm) Edited by Pembroke (17 Jul 2022 4.26pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 17 Jul 22 4.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Pembroke
The reporter stated All starting eleven players and the five substitutes that came onto the pitch were all white, and that does point to a lack of diversity in the women’s game. She was going beyond suggesting. What views were exchanged in the documentary the presenter was linking into? The same pount was being made. A white England team was portrayed as a negative because it was not diverse. The doc went further suggesting that the academy system on a socio economic level disadvantages black players hence the lack of diversity in the Englands team, avoiding the point that Englands current players are frequently working class and will expereince the same challenges the programme decided was holding black players back in the system. The documentary didnt analyise because it didnt provide facts and figures of participation rates through the pathway. The documentary madea sweeping assertion without evidence - A white XI and five white subs that has occurred several times is not a measurement of anything much. The squad demographic of 13% mirrors roughly society and? Nothing. Football isnt a tool of diveersity, its based on merit. The white XI and five white subs are thebest on offer and Parris, Stokes are squad players. The BBC also gave air to a black ex player who stated that she couldnt connect with any part of the players identity (white), this team didn't speak to her,didnt inspire here because of that identity. Prejudice? Racism? Apparently, it's OK to feel that way if you are Black. I'm beginning to feel like that every time I put the TV on. This is a Northern European country which we have been forced to share with immigrants, and now we are told that we have to like it and never express an objection to the laughable disproportion of Black representation in every visible place, not to mention the very damaging and resentment inflaming positive discrimination.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 17 Jul 22 4.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The merit argument is of course a noble one.....but it has been around since before the sixties and....quite frankly I think it was only used as a way in....a way to fool the reasonable. Because look what happened....now 'protected characteristics' is actual law in the west....nothing to do with merit it's down to your identity....and that law is defended and maintained by conservatives. I still can't really believe that....an eighty seat majority and they have changed nothing of those laws....indeed, the 'online safety' bill comes from their pens. I'll always respect libertarianism but what that group can't seem to accept is that they lost. They keep using the same arguments like their opponents are suddenly going to see sense....abandon their advantages and be reasonable. The harsh truth is that the libertarian argument was always the best way to run things, but it only worked in high trust socially cohesive societies....immigration meant it lost to identity politics....it lost due to numbers....the demographics won instead. You don't convince people away from arguments that succeed for them....it doesn't matter how bad the arguments are...the reality is all that matters is power, those that have it and those that don't and demographics decides that. The evidence is Khan in London.....it doesn't matter how bad a major he is, the same demographics will vote for him regardless. I can point to Detroit in the US.....it's a sh1thole but regardless the same demographics will vote for the same representation because identity politics wins.....Only European stock decides that race is less important. The Europeans have been taught to play with one arm behind their backs. They have thrown away everything their ancestors achieved out of fear of being called racist....they don't even recognise control of their own lands anymore....might as well change the name of England to Anywhere. In a way we deserve it.....Never thought I'd see the anglo saxon kneel......Perhaps those genes are not worthy of long term survival. Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jul 2022 4.38pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.