Deppo Posted 29 January, 2011 Share Posted 29 January, 2011 Richard Keys is an anagram of Richard's key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 29 January, 2011 Share Posted 29 January, 2011 (edited) Harey Rs D ick Arsey D ick HR Edited 30 January, 2011 by Deppo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 30 January, 2011 Share Posted 30 January, 2011 A D ick Sherry Her Risky Cad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 30 January, 2011 Share Posted 30 January, 2011 Sky Had Crier Sky Hired Rac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 30 January, 2011 Share Posted 30 January, 2011 Dare Sky Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 30 January, 2011 Share Posted 30 January, 2011 Hairy Dickhead and Dopey Scottish ***t (if you include their middle names) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 30 January, 2011 Share Posted 30 January, 2011 Half the "pundits" don't know the rules either. the girly ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 30 January, 2011 Share Posted 30 January, 2011 the girly ones? Redondo saint = do rent in arse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 30 January, 2011 Share Posted 30 January, 2011 Verbal do you think that as a club we should have been fined when our supporters sang 'you should be washing up' at Wendy Toms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 30 January, 2011 Share Posted 30 January, 2011 Wendy Toms? I thought that they were shouting it at me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 30 January, 2011 Share Posted 30 January, 2011 Verbal do you think that as a club we should have been fined when our supporters sang 'you should be washing up' at Wendy Toms? You really are no lover of women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 30 January, 2011 Share Posted 30 January, 2011 You really are no lover of women. It was a question Verbal. My wife laughed when I told he (admittedly she was at home looking after the children and preparing my supper). I expect her other half did as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 30 January, 2011 Share Posted 30 January, 2011 It was a question Verbal. My wife laughed when I told he (admittedly she was at home looking after the children and preparing my supper). I expect her other half did as well. So few words, so much to untangle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 30 January, 2011 Share Posted 30 January, 2011 So few words, so much to untangle. Yes Verbal that probably was not worded very well. I was referring to Wendy Toms partner. You still have not answered the question I put to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 30 January, 2011 Share Posted 30 January, 2011 Maybe Wendy Toms doesn't have the sort of self esteem issues that would make a woman laugh at that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 30 January, 2011 Share Posted 30 January, 2011 the pre/post match interviews are utterly pointless.... the same boring leading questions with the same boring sound bite responses... people will moan about this..that managers dont tell them anything or let much on..or say they "never saw it"... yet when one comes along and speaks his mind (holloway, warnock) that are hated for having an opinion I agree with everything you've said other than the Holloway part. He's now gone so far up his own ar5e he can't remember how to come back. Every, f()cking day a soundbite from him... it's boring now. Warnock, on the other hand, says his bit then leaves it at that; Unlike Holloway, it appears he doesn't feel the need to be in the papers every day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 Interesting take on the subject: Aside from the flabbergasting hypocrisy of Sky Sports dismissing a man for sexism when its own Saturday morning Soccer AM lad-fest regularly includes a sub-Nuts item in which a young "Soccerette" writhes onscreen for the delight of a baying mob perpetually on the brink of a w a n k, the most sinister aspect of the story is that Gray's and Keys' original comments were made off-air. Cavemen they may be, but they were advanced enough to know what was suitable for broadcast and what wasn't. Ultimately, they were tarred and feathered for holding a private conversation. And that's ominous. From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/31/charlie-brooker-paranoid-about-snoops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 31 January, 2011 Author Share Posted 31 January, 2011 I agree with everything you've said other than the Holloway part. He's now gone so far up his own ar5e he can't remember how to come back. Every, f()cking day a soundbite from him... it's boring now. Warnock, on the other hand, says his bit then leaves it at that; Unlike Holloway, it appears he doesn't feel the need to be in the papers every day... im not too sure what you mean about holloway..? he gets asked the same constant repetitive boring leading questions as do other managers..but he just says his mind... as for other pundits, watching the david moyes interview about deadline day... reporter - so david, will everton be making any signings on deadline day moys - no, not one, we made that clear at the beginning of the month and nothing what so ever has changed reporter - so, not one signing moyes - no reporter - no surprises for the fan, no secret deals going on moyes - no reporter - how about that young striker in greece you are linked with, any chance of him coming by deadline day moyes - no reporter - so, any chance of any signings deadline day moyes - ummm, no reporter - thanks for your time david seriously, you can see why managers have utter contempt for so many reporters/pundits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 Interesting take on the subject: Aside from the flabbergasting hypocrisy of Sky Sports dismissing a man for sexism when its own Saturday morning Soccer AM lad-fest regularly includes a sub-Nuts item in which a young "Soccerette" writhes onscreen for the delight of a baying mob perpetually on the brink of a w a n k, the most sinister aspect of the story is that Gray's and Keys' original comments were made off-air. Cavemen they may be, but they were advanced enough to know what was suitable for broadcast and what wasn't. Ultimately, they were tarred and feathered for holding a private conversation. And that's ominous. From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/31/charlie-brooker-paranoid-about-snoops He is spot on. Luckily it came from a Guardian journalist or those of us on the right would have been chastised. This was a cynical smear campaign and a lot of people acted as they were supposed to. Some of the comments written about these guys was absolutely over the top. You may not have agreed with what they said but there were people all round the country expressing the same thing about female lino's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 (edited) He is spot on. Luckily it came from a Guardian journalist or those of us on the right would have been chastised. This was a cynical smear campaign and a lot of people acted as they were supposed to. Some of the comments written about these guys was absolutely over the top. You may not have agreed with what they said but there were people all round the country expressing the same thing about female lino's. He is not spot on as many in comments on that page have pointed out. Specifically being a) at work and b) miked up so almost everyone in the studio can hear them means that it was by no stretch of imagination a private conversation. If they had taken off their microphones and go outside to have their conversation where they could not be overheard by colleagues then they would not have been punished. If they had said the same down the pub together they may have got some odd looks but they would not have been punished. Its all about the surroundings and the context which people keen to compare it with 'banter down the pub' appear to ignore. As you your last point does that also mean that because there are people all around the country who are racist that it would have been fine for them to have made racist remarks as well? Edited 31 January, 2011 by pedg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 He is not spot on as many in comments on that page have pointed out. Specifically being a) at work and b) miked up so almost everyone in the studio can hear them means that it was by no stretch of imagination a private conversation. If they had taken off their microphones and go outside to have their conversation where they could not be overheard by colleagues then they would not have been punished. If they had said the same down the pub together they may have got some odd looks but they would not have been punished. Its all about the surroundings and the context which people keen to compare it with 'banter down the pub' appear to ignore. As you your last point does that also mean that because there are people all around the country who are racist that it would have been fine for them to have made racist remarks as well? Absolutely absurd; maybe in communist China you would be recorded and then punished in some Kanagraoo court but this is supposed to be Britain. It was clearly a private chat that has been put together to incriminate make them look as bad as possible. Andy Gray in particular is not my cup of tea but he has been villified to such an extent that it looks pretty organised and very sinister. Racist comments are a red herring; they were expressing views on woman lino's in what should be a legitamate debate as to whether they can do as good a job as their male counterparts. It is early days and inevitably people will talk about the issue and in an all male context it will probably be come in a banter like form. Do you think Pedg we should be allowed to discuss whether women linos is a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 The question: 'Are women linos a good thing?' is preposterous. It only makes any sense if you assume an inability by gender to run the line...and that is clearly nonsense. It is, in other words, nastily misogynistic. But clearly acceptable to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 The question: 'Are women linos a good thing?' is preposterous. It only makes any sense if you assume an inability by gender to run the line...and that is clearly nonsense. It is, in other words, nastily misogynistic. But clearly acceptable to you. Have to agree with this. The question is not whether female lino's are any good. Clearly they are equally able to do as good a job as fellas. Questioning their ability on their gender is a nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 redondo saint = do rent in arse lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knellster Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 The question is not whether female lino's are any good. Clearly they are equally able to do as good a job as fellas. Questioning their ability on their gender is a nonsense. Sorry but that is not necessarily true. In order to get offside decisions right, the lino has to be up with play. The AVERAGE 30 year old bloke is considerably faster than the AVERAGE 30 year old woman - that has to make a difference. I am not for one minute saying that the lino in question wasn't up to the job, or that women shouldn't be involved as officials in professional football, but they are officiating top athletes so physical movement is important. You just have to look at any road race and see how many women finish in the first 100 to see that the average bloke is far more capable than the average woman of keeping up with play. However, if a female lino can keep up with play and get more decisions right than the usual idiots we get on a Saturday that's fine by me. Btw I'm well aware that we've had our fair share of male linos that couldn't keep up with play. I'm just saying that I don't believe questioning their ability on gender is necessarily nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 (edited) Absolutely absurd; maybe in communist China you would be recorded and then punished in some Kanagraoo court but this is supposed to be Britain. It was clearly a private chat that has been put together to incriminate make them look as bad as possible. Andy Gray in particular is not my cup of tea but he has been villified to such an extent that it looks pretty organised and very sinister. Racist comments are a red herring; they were expressing views on woman lino's in what should be a legitamate debate as to whether they can do as good a job as their male counterparts. It is early days and inevitably people will talk about the issue and in an all male context it will probably be come in a banter like form. Do you think Pedg we should be allowed to discuss whether women linos is a good thing? So when you are having private chats do you also request a female colleague to stick her hand down your trousers? Surely if it was a private chat they would not have been recorded. I was not 'on air' but neither, with most of the studio listening in was it in anyway private. They may have acted as if it was a private chat but that is probably because they obviously believed that their control over those around them was such that it would not be reacted to. Edited 31 January, 2011 by pedg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 Sorry but that is not necessarily true. In order to get offside decisions right, the lino has to be up with play. The AVERAGE 30 year old bloke is considerably faster than the AVERAGE 30 year old woman - that has to make a difference. I am not for one minute saying that the lino in question wasn't up to the job, or that women shouldn't be involved as officials in professional football, but they are officiating top athletes so physical movement is important. You just have to look at any road race and see how many women finish in the first 100 to see that the average bloke is far more capable than the average woman of keeping up with play. However, if a female lino can keep up with play and get more decisions right than the usual idiots we get on a Saturday that's fine by me.Btw I'm well aware that we've had our fair share of male linos that couldn't keep up with play. I'm just saying that I don't believe questioning their ability on gender is necessarily nonsense. So why are you questioning it then? And why do they have to get more decisions right that the blokes? If they've passed the tests, got the certificates, done their time in the lower leagues, they won't be "average", but "qualified" to do it. Sorry, but it seems a non-argument, unless of course, the FA go into Maccy D's before a game and press gang a few locals into running the line at SMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 The question: 'Are women linos a good thing?' is preposterous. It only makes any sense if you assume an inability by gender to run the line...and that is clearly nonsense. It is, in other words, nastily misogynistic. But clearly acceptable to you. Why can this not be debated then Verbal? So you agree with female linesman, what about referees? Do you believe that a female linesman should have been fast tracked into the job to increase female representation? Is it right to have female linesmans in such a male environment? There is plenty to discuss Verbal; you clearly do not believe in right to discuss anything that may fall into the sacred areas of political correctness. As it happens I think that if they can prove themselves then that is fine but that my experience suggested that fast tracking was not the right way to go about it. What I find creepy is the idea of hidden cameras gathering evidence to be used at a later time. You clearly believe that it is acceptable, I do not and that we should be concentrating on the outrageous medieval witch hunt that has ensued. I am sorry but I do not know what misogynistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 So when you are having private chats do you also request a female colleague to stick her hand down your trousers? Surely if it was a private chat they would not have been recorded. I was not 'on air' but neither, with most of the studio listening in was it in anyway private. They may have acted as if it was a private chat but that is probably because they obviously believed that their control over those around them was such that it would not be reacted to. I have no idea what Gray's relationship with his female colleague is like; in some offices banter is exchanged; I am not going to jump to conclusions based on a short clip on You Tube - that would be stupid wouldn't it. I am sure if this went on to an unacceptable level there would have been a court case. The law is in place you know. I highly reccomend that you read Big Brother Pedg; it may open your eyes and you may be appreciative of what a free society is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 Why can this not be debated then Verbal? So you agree with female linesman, what about referees? Do you believe that a female linesman should have been fast tracked into the job to increase female representation? Is it right to have female linesmans in such a male environment? There is plenty to discuss Verbal; you clearly do not believe in right to discuss anything that may fall into the sacred areas of political correctness. As it happens I think that if they can prove themselves then that is fine but that my experience suggested that fast tracking was not the right way to go about it. What I find creepy is the idea of hidden cameras gathering evidence to be used at a later time. You clearly believe that it is acceptable, I do not and that we should be concentrating on the outrageous medieval witch hunt that has ensued. I am sorry but I do not know what misogynistic. One of the reasons why there is a concerted effort to recruit female officials is because there aren't enough males prepared to apply / train. And were the cameras 'hidden' or was it just a case of 'testing, testing, 1 2 3'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 One of the reasons why there is a concerted effort to recruit female officials is because there aren't enough males prepared to apply / train. And were the cameras 'hidden' or was it just a case of 'testing, testing, 1 2 3'? So the cameras were not hidden but does that make it right that tapes were edited to expose the worst of what was said and then fed to the media to generate a media storm. Do you not think that if the culture was that bad over a twenty year period there would not have been a court case of some sort? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 I have no idea what Gray's relationship with his female colleague is like; in some offices banter is exchanged; I am not going to jump to conclusions based on a short clip on You Tube - that would be stupid wouldn't it. I am sure if this went on to an unacceptable level there would have been a court case. The law is in place you know. I highly reccomend that you read Big Brother Pedg; it may open your eyes and you may be appreciative of what a free society is. I suggest you read the guardian article linked off here a few pages back about how women who worked in the football department at sky sports have confirmed that what was on the tape was exactly how bad they were and that there was a general feeling of happiness about the place after they had gone. I don't base my opinion totally on the youtube video I read about it from other sources to get an informed opinion. Maybe you should do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 So the cameras were not hidden but does that make it right that tapes were edited to expose the worst of what was said and then fed to the media to generate a media storm. Do you not think that if the culture was that bad over a twenty year period there would not have been a court case of some sort? How do you know it was the worst that was said? Were you there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 I highly reccomend that you read Big Brother I've never heard of this. Where can I get a copy? Is it just a transcript of the TV show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 I suggest you read the guardian article linked off here a few pages back about how women who worked in the football department at sky sports have confirmed that what was on the tape was exactly how bad they were and that there was a general feeling of happiness about the place after they had gone. I don't base my opinion totally on the youtube video I read about it from other sources to get an informed opinion. Maybe you should do the same. Annoymous testaments. Kangaroo court, trial by media. Is that how it should be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 How do you know it was the worst that was said? Were you there? You are right they must have left out the really bad bits to make a better story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 You are right they must have left out the really bad bits to make a better story. Sexism is no better than racism. When it is let loose in the workplace, or anywhere else for that matter, it discriminates as surely as racism. Football is notoriously sexist. In the 1920s, the FA used to expel ANY club affiliated to it that allowed women to participate, whether in the running of the club or - heaven forbid - playing for it. Gray's boorish comments might strike you as funny - 'banter', in that utterly stupid phrase that is supposed to neutralise the offence. But there was nothing remotely funny about what Gray said. It demonstrated (and was intended to) his loathing of women - merely BECAUSE they are women - making decisions of any kind in football. He is the 1920s FA personified. Your bleating about '1984' are merely a feeble attempt by you to reserve to yourself the right to be abusive towards women whenever YOU see fit. Dress it up as 'banter' if you like. But it's a truly loathsome attitude. There's nothing Big Brother about it. You abuse, humiliate, bully your workmates, you're breaking the law and you are almost ALWAYS in breach of contract. So please, get it into your head: mutual respect for your work colleagues is not some alien, authoritarian evil; it is simply a reasonable way to behave. Gray deserved what he got, and in my view got off remarkably lightly. In any case, do we really need to be offering contracts of £1.7m a year for such crass, peevish neanderthals? He should take his huge pile of money and go hang his head in shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 Annoymous testaments. Kangaroo court, trial by media. Is that how it should be? In this case, because they were both irritating ****'s, yes! Yes they were 'stitched up' but, from what has been said from multiple sources. Yes they deserved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 Verbal and Pedg you must live in the most sanitised society. Ironically you display no respect for the judicial process in a way that betrays an outrageous intolerance and reminds me of the witchhunts of the Trueman days. Trial by media with an increasing hysteria picking up bits of hear say and hurling them about as evidence. Handing out insults to any that dare suggest that you may be going over the top and just maybe there may be moe to the story and that is why it has been presented to the media. You sniff out sexism in the workplace like some Nazi party official looking to report somebody who has not towed the party line. Shall we ban banter? I will tell a sexist joke just like all those that sang 'you should be washing up' to Wendy Toms; it was just a joke guys and when I go home in the evening its my wife that wears the trousers just like hundreds of other blokes all round the country. I hate nobody, but you guys seem to be eaten up with hatred and obsessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 Again the recording/non recording thing is completely irrelevant - Why Sergei cant see this I dont know, now why he is so keen to defend these chumps. The only thing of interest about the recording is that it highlights how stupid they were not to assume that its actually easy to capture.... You seem to feel that your lads right to banter is being threatened somehow? Which is total ******. You only need to feel threatened if your 'banter' is actually sexist and makes colleagues feel uncomfortable or harrassed (best look up the defination if you dont agree) - anything that goes on between good friends in humour be it sexual banter or just laughs provided all parties are honestly happy with it is no problem. The laws are there because in many circumstances new or junior colleagues may 'go along' with the banter because of a 'culture' that if you upset means no chance of advancement - so many people, probably even some you know will pretend to 'have a laugh' whiclt really thinking you are a complete sexist arse... I have good mates male and female with whom I can get close to the mark, because tehy know 100% there is no threat in it and I certainly dont make female colleagues uncomfortable - but as I said the law is there to protect everyone, but especially those who feel they have no voice... that is why its what they said and did that is teh issue, not the recording of it - that just made them look like fools to the masses, rather than just amongst their colleagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 Verbal and Pedg you must live in the most sanitised society. Ironically you display no respect for the judicial process in a way that betrays an outrageous intolerance and reminds me of the witchhunts of the Trueman days. Trial by media with an increasing hysteria picking up bits of hear say and hurling them about as evidence. Handing out insults to any that dare suggest that you may be going over the top and just maybe there may be moe to the story and that is why it has been presented to the media. You sniff out sexism in the workplace like some Nazi party official looking to report somebody who has not towed the party line. Shall we ban banter? I will tell a sexist joke just like all those that sang 'you should be washing up' to Wendy Toms; it was just a joke guys and when I go home in the evening its my wife that wears the trousers just like hundreds of other blokes all round the country. I hate nobody, but you guys seem to be eaten up with hatred and obsessed. What amazes me is the unadulterated narcissism in all this. Your hysterical (and hysterically funny) screams about 'Nazism' and 'witchhunts' are nothing more than a pathetic whinge from someone who wants to live like a giant baby - someone who HATES to have his (or Gray's) language and views judged in any other way than benign, no matter how intimidating, or threatening, or bullying, they may appear, or actually are, to the people at whom they're directed. Your self-regard - that nothing you (or Gray) can say can possibly be wrong so long as you self-define it as 'banter' - is so overwhelming that you've lost all sight of all sensible argument, and resort to ludicrous comparisons with the Pogroms and the Gulag. Yes, Sergei, you're right: Sky are mass murderers on a par with Mao, Stalin and Hitler for sacking someone who can't BEAR the idea of a woman anywhere near football. And as for that Wendy Toms - I bet she would volunteer to be the camp commandant who'd personally supervise your slow starvation to death, along with the other millions of your fellow banterers. Grow the **** up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 31 January, 2011 Share Posted 31 January, 2011 What amazes me is the unadulterated narcissism in all this. Your hysterical (and hysterically funny) screams about 'Nazism' and 'witchhunts' are nothing more than a pathetic whinge from someone who wants to live like a giant baby - someone who HATES to have his (or Gray's) language and views judged in any other way than benign, no matter how intimidating, or threatening, or bullying, they may appear, or actually are, to the people at whom they're directed. Your self-regard - that nothing you (or Gray) can say can possibly be wrong so long as you self-define it as 'banter' - is so overwhelming that you've lost all sight of all sensible argument, and resort to ludicrous comparisons with the Pogroms and the Gulag. Yes, Sergei, you're right: Sky are mass murderers on a par with Mao, Stalin and Hitler for sacking someone who can't BEAR the idea of a woman anywhere near football. And as for that Wendy Toms - I bet she would volunteer to be the camp commandant who'd personally supervise your slow starvation to death, along with the other millions of your fellow banterers. Grow the **** up. good post unfortunately their seem to be alot of posters on this site who see conspiracy theories everywhere and have paranoid leanings . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 1 February, 2011 Share Posted 1 February, 2011 good post unfortunately their seem to be alot of posters on this site who see conspiracy theories everywhere and have paranoid leanings . What Sergei fails to grasp is that this whole thing has feck all to do with 'recording' or not, or what he classes as banter.... Banter of any sort is perfectly acceptable betwen men and women who agree its a laungh, knmow each other very well and undertsnd the humouros context in which things are placed - the key is KNOWING that it has NOT over stepped the mark into offensive or intimidating or even making folk feel uncomfortable - the laws are NOT there to ban banter and humour (as all those Daily Hate readers seem to think with their last battle cry of the ignorant and ill-informed 'its PC gone mad') the laws are there to protect those that ARE made uncomfortable, intimidated or harrassed by others actions and its not for you me or anyone to judge what someone else should or should not find offensive... There are also plenty of people in the work environment who are simply not able to make a 'scene' for fear of recriminations if they dont simply tow the line... next time you are some 'risky' banter at work, ask yourself if everyone who can hear genuinely thinks its funny, or are there people who are just going along with it to avoid being bullied? The recording bit in all this is pretty standard in TV/Radio. The only contribution that makes is that it highlights how stupid they were... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 1 February, 2011 Share Posted 1 February, 2011 What Sergei fails to grasp is that this whole thing has feck all to do with 'recording' or not, or what he classes as banter.... Banter of any sort is perfectly acceptable betwen men and women who agree its a laungh, knmow each other very well and undertsnd the humouros context in which things are placed - the key is KNOWING that it has NOT over stepped the mark into offensive or intimidating or even making folk feel uncomfortable - the laws are NOT there to ban banter and humour (as all those Daily Hate readers seem to think with their last battle cry of the ignorant and ill-informed 'its PC gone mad') the laws are there to protect those that ARE made uncomfortable, intimidated or harrassed by others actions and its not for you me or anyone to judge what someone else should or should not find offensive... There are also plenty of people in the work environment who are simply not able to make a 'scene' for fear of recriminations if they dont simply tow the line... next time you are some 'risky' banter at work, ask yourself if everyone who can hear genuinely thinks its funny, or are there people who are just going along with it to avoid being bullied? The recording bit in all this is pretty standard in TV/Radio. The only contribution that makes is that it highlights how stupid they were... What Sergei does not like is the way that they were set up and the following trial be media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Gotsmanov Posted 1 February, 2011 Share Posted 1 February, 2011 What amazes me is the unadulterated narcissism in all this. Your hysterical (and hysterically funny) screams about 'Nazism' and 'witchhunts' are nothing more than a pathetic whinge from someone who wants to live like a giant baby - someone who HATES to have his (or Gray's) language and views judged in any other way than benign, no matter how intimidating, or threatening, or bullying, they may appear, or actually are, to the people at whom they're directed. Your self-regard - that nothing you (or Gray) can say can possibly be wrong so long as you self-define it as 'banter' - is so overwhelming that you've lost all sight of all sensible argument, and resort to ludicrous comparisons with the Pogroms and the Gulag. Yes, Sergei, you're right: Sky are mass murderers on a par with Mao, Stalin and Hitler for sacking someone who can't BEAR the idea of a woman anywhere near football. And as for that Wendy Toms - I bet she would volunteer to be the camp commandant who'd personally supervise your slow starvation to death, along with the other millions of your fellow banterers. Grow the **** up. I would remind you that this is an internet forum for debate so please do not bully or intimidate other posters who happen to have a different take on a story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pedg Posted 1 February, 2011 Share Posted 1 February, 2011 I would remind you that this is an internet forum for debate so please do not bully or intimidate other posters who happen to have a different take on a story. But its only a bit of 'Banter' isn't it Sergei?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 (edited) http://www.talksport.co.uk/sports-news/football/premier-league/5123/6/keys-and-gray-sign-talksport "Richard Keys and Andy Gray are set to make a sensational return to British broadcasting on talkSPORT. The former Sky Sports presenter and commentator will make their debuts on the UK's only national commercial speech station on Monday, Febraury 14 and will host a new daily show every weekday between 10am-1pm." Starting on Valentine's Day of all days.... :-) Edited 8 February, 2011 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 I like Parry and Graham in that slot, shame it's changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 8 February, 2011 Author Share Posted 8 February, 2011 I like Parry and Graham in that slot, shame it's changing. where are they going...at least they speak about non sporting stuff at times.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 8 February, 2011 Share Posted 8 February, 2011 where are they going...at least they speak about non sporting stuff at times.. Graham will be moved to another slot (no doubt a graveyard one) and Parry has been booted from the station outright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now