Jermaine Jenas | Sacked by BBC

Quick fire highlights of all the games of the day. You may not like the punditry in between but how can you not see the point?!

The occasional Saturday when United win and two of our rivals lose and you get to watch it all in a row: that’s stunning.
Got this thing called the internet. The highlights are on the web/youtube about an hour after most PL/CL games.
 
Alan Shearer has now said, along with Ian Wright, he will not appear on Motd tomorrow
 
I'm not convinced it is but I haven't looked into it deeply. Nor have most of the people here it seems. We had someone saying that they removed a 6th episode because of a potential backlash and the BBC themselves saying that it wasn't actually part of the series and was a "bonus". Its available on iPlayer.



These are all opinions. You are entitled to yours but please stop pretending that your opinion is fact.

I’m entitled to think that what I’m saying is right, because it is. The Qatari monologue was political. That’s a fact. Lineker’s tweets were political. Also a fact. One was made on live television: the other made on social media. Fact. One has got Lineker into trouble, the other has not. Fact or not?

The BBC, which is top loaded with Conservative Party donors, is happy for employees to take aim at other states and UK political figures as and when it suits the agenda of those at the helm in Westminster. Opinion, but who here can prove me wrong?
 
Sorry, gents, rewatching the initial Braverman video he tweeted about, I just dont see the comparative language to nazi germany that isnt tenuous. It's a huge leap to make in my opinion and if any language that encourages a more transparent, safer approach to migration, which includes ensuring that host countries have enough means to accomodate and treat these desperate people adequately, is aligned with language of Nazi Germany, then i just dont think its a credible argument. It could be aligned to the position of several left wing governments just as easily and superficially. I detest the tory party, and dont doubt that they lack compassion, but its still an argument rooted in sophistry
We’ll agree to disagree. There have been enough parliamentary debates where the language has crossed that line. I don’t have the time to find it all.
 
Private companies like Sky and BT do great with football. There's a private market for it.

Why do we need it on publicly funded TV, doesn't make any sense.
Any sporting events, like other events, that are deemed to be of national importance must be free at the point access. Ofcom and government rules.
 
If you've not looked into it deeply how can you be sure others haven't? :confused:

Because they haven't said anything to suggest they have any evidence to their claims and the scant evidence there is seems to have contradictory evidence as well.
 
The daft thing is, a Gary Lineker who is unchained from the BBC presents a bigger problem to the Tory party.
 
Because they haven't said anything to suggest they have any evidence to their claims and the scant evidence there is seems to have contradictory evidence as well.

What's contradictory about "the current head of the BBC is a literal Tory"?
 
I’m entitled to think that what I’m saying is right, because it is. The Qatari monologue was political. That’s a fact. Lineker’s tweets were political. Also a fact. One was made on live television: the other made on social media. Fact. One has got Lineker into trouble, the other has not. Fact or not?

There is a big difference between your own countries politics and commenting on anothers. Whether what you are saying is fact, its not relevant to this discussion as they are not equivalent. You are taking an overly simplistic view because they are both political.

At any rate, I'm out, its a Friday night and I have things to do. Have a good evening :)
 

Brilliant. Now we get to see how many have a backbone to stand up to this ludicrous attempt at censorship.

Whoever presents that show is rightly going to have their reputation damaged through association.
 
The sky is blue

"Actually I don't think it is. I have looked out of the window and the sky is actually brick coloured and looks like bricks. After a quick taste test I can also say that it tastes like bricks. You might wonder if I'm just looking at a brick wall but that is irrelevant to the debate. You have provided me with pictures of a blue sky but I do not believe that this evidence is irrefutable, nor does it outweigh my opinion on what I have deemed to be the sky (which is what you would call my neighbor's side wall with bird shit sliding down it, but I disagree with that assertion).

I am a very busy person who suddenly has to leave to do busy person things goodbye"
 
Private companies like Sky and BT do great with football. There's a private market for it.

Why do we need it on publicly funded TV, doesn't make any sense.
It makes a hell of a lot of sense. Football figures in UK have taken a hit with the younger demographic ever since the Champions League was taken off ITV, that was the main source of regular live club football for a large section of fans that grew up without a sky sports subscription. I know mobile phone/internet addiction is also a factor, but this has affected the viewing figures too. Under your logic there would be no avenue for any child to grow up watching live football on tv unless their parents pay for a subscription, something that's completely out of the child's control. You would see a continued shrink in interest.
 
MOTD tomorrow should just be two sock puppets in a studio followed by simulations of the matches on FIFA 06 for the GameCube. Every now and then one of the sock puppets can say "this game was made played before Labour fecked the country up" and it'll be fine I guess.
 
There is a big difference between your own countries politics and commenting on anothers. Whether what you are saying is fact, its not relevant to this discussion as they are not equivalent. You are taking an overly simplistic view because they are both political.

At any rate, I'm out, its a Friday night and I have things to do. Have a good evening :)

That’s true. But not relevant because BBC claims to be apolitical and objective. It doesn’t differentiate between domestic and foreign.

According to BBC guidelines, the broadcaster has a responsibility to “do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy”, adding: “But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects.”

If you’re arguing that Lineker’s recent comments broke BBC’s impartiality guidelines, then so did his comments on Qatar.
 
Last edited:
The sky is blue

"Actually I don't think it is. I have looked out of the window and the sky is actually brick coloured and looks like bricks. After a quick taste test I can also say that it tastes like bricks. You might wonder if I'm just looking at a brick wall but that is irrelevant to the debate. You have provided me with pictures of a blue sky but I do not believe that this evidence is irrefutable, nor does it outweigh my opinion on what I have deemed to be the sky (which is what you would call my neighbor's side wall with bird shit sliding down it, but I disagree with that assertion).

I am a very busy person who suddenly has to leave to do busy person things goodbye"
:lol:
 
Jenas played for Spuds, right? He'd bound to bottle it and 'take the opportunity '.
 
Other than Le Tissier, who’s gonna be stupid enough to touch this? Good on Lineker, Wright Shearer, and whoever else joins them.
 
Is Jenas confirmed as replacement? I’d be surprised if he accepted given the circumstances
 
MOTD is shit anyway. But good on Lineker and co. Feck the Tories.

The show desperately needs a revamp.
 
I bet they run it without a presenter or pundits. Just clips of the games.

It'll probably be a lot shorter programme if they do

If we time how long the match clips are in these highlights programmes, quite often there is more talk than actual match, and I can't imagine the rights owners suddenly supplying more than the contract defines