sky sports presenters row - n/g | Page 2 | Vital Football

sky sports presenters row - n/g

You hop about to protect your prejudices but they keep shining through.

And you jump around to protect your own prejudices and biases. What is your point? Or are your biases somehow more valid?


I'm not interested in a debate about education but how many headteachers are female?

A higher proportion are male I believe but not sure what your point is. You are the one who cares that the actual percentage of people in any given job reflects the wider society percentages. I personally don't care if one gender is more represented in any given job as long as everyone is free to chase their dream job.

Professional football has a greater proportion of black players than simple demographics would suggest.

A lot of black players in the UK are actually foreign nationals who will bugger off once their contracts are up.

What level of representation do you think we should be generally aiming for? The 15% or whatever in the last national census or 33% based upon the number of actual players who are black but aren't UK nationals?

The first female presenters and commentators were not well received by many male fans and viewers. That is changing and rightly so.

As with male commentators, some are good and knowledgeable and others come across as clueless and annoying. Some of the early female commentators happened to fall into the annoying category.

I can never remember the name of the Gills commentator - Jody something - who used to screech excitedly whenever the opposition scored and sounded bored and irritated whenever we scored or looked like scoring. I think she naffed off to BBC Radio Ipswich or something. I think she mentioned on numerous occasions she supported Ipswich.

I've really not had a problem if the "expert" is male or female, black or white or whatever provided the person is competent and adds insight to the job.

You were the one making unsupported allegations of placement, quotas and artificial appointments. It sounds like you find change difficult.

I don't have a problem with change as long as the change is being made on merit and not factors such as skin colour or what you might have between your legs.
 
The lady with the awful screaming commentary was Jodie Fielder; I believe she left Radio Kent to join one of the northern outposts - might have been Manchester.
 
I'm not interested in a debate about education but how many headteachers are female?

My kids primary school in Medway had an all female teaching and management team a few years back. When I volunteered at the school for a couple of years the kids all used to call me 'Miss' because they weren't used to male teachers.

It was good though being the only male in amongst so many lovely ladies! Was also intimidating at times being the only male amongst so many lovely ladies!
 
Gosh, us middle/old aged white men are having such a hard time of it nowadays. We've actually got some competion that is being allowed through. How dreadful. Moan moan moan.......

I can't wven bawl out out of date lyrics i the Albert Hall. What is the world coming to?

Btw, I thought the 3 being junked were pretty poor tbh. Le Tissier was ok. The other two are no loss. Surprised Merson's being kept on.

If the incomparable Jeff Stelling is junked then I'll be on the picketline.

I have to admit that Jodie Fielder was a nightmare. Can't think of any other women on TV/Radio that are not worthy though.
 
Whilst we’re on the subject of sex-discrimination, I’m going to put my ‘nuts on the block’ here about something that has been bugging me - but have been reluctant to post it because of the likely perception that I am a ‘woman hater’.

A few weeks ago, my LinkedIn profile was bombarded by people sharing this flimsy ‘research’.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53548704

I genuinely agree with the intention of the research. Diversity on boards is a good thing. And I believe that better decisions are made when boards comprise of a good mix of men and women.

But, the strapline reported by some news agencies is misleading and not supported by the ‘research’.

I took a glance at the actual research paper and, hidden away on the last page of notes is some detail in very small font that basically compromises the hypothesis that women on boards leads to increased profitability. Essentially: first point is that when they looked at the time series data, there was a negligible difference in performance. Second, there were only 5 or so data points which is nowhere near enough to be robust. I had to get old the old school books and run a t-test at 95% confidence and found that there was no statistical difference.

Such an important topic - but undermined by terrible statistics.

I feel better now.
 
Professional football is miles more diverse on the pitch than in the stands. Maybe introducing some more diversity into punditry will attract a broader audience.
TV advertising is way ahead of the game with the all white stereotypical family replaced with more ethnically and culturally mixed happy households. They wouldn't do that if it didn't improve their market share or profile.
 
Let's assume an imaginary world, in which recruitment is gender and colour blind. We would expect to get a roughly even distribution of selected candidates, reflecting the wider population. In this situation someone leaves, or is sacked.. anyone, any clour/gender. Just over half the population is female. 14.6% is not white. A white, male candidate would be quite a likely outcome but slight odds against.
Why an "even distribution" ?
Do you think this Judge was wrong then .........?

U.S judge Powell - in Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986).
(concluding that Quotas for employees was unlawful)

"it is completely unrealistic to assume that individuals of each race will gravitate with mathematical exactitude to each employer or union absent unlawful discrimination."

Thus, a rigid quota is impermissible because it adopts:
"an unjustified conclusion about the precise extent to which past discrimination has lingering effects, or . . . an unjustified prediction about what would happen in the future in the absence of continuing discrimination."

"But it is completely unrealistic to assume that individuals of each race will gravitate with mathematical exactitude to each employer or union absent unlawful discrimination.

That, of course, is why there must be a substantial statistical disparity between the composition of an employer's workforce and the relevant labor pool, or the general population, before an intent to discriminate may be inferred from such a disparity
."



Where in the UK is there a "substantial statistical disparity" ?
Midwives and Primary School Teachers ?

It is also the case that there are more female law graduates than male.

And there are more female Biologists than male - but few female Physicists.
So we hear that Physics departments should make an effort to attract females.
Why don't we hear that Biology Depts. should make more effort to attract males ?

The point is....
In a free society, people make personal decisions that do not reflect some presumed statistical norm - based on one characteristic of other people.
 
Diversity on boards is a good thing.
I can agree with that.....
...subject to "diversity" meaning "diversity of culture".

i.e. What is the point of a Board which neatly matches the mix of ethnic, gender proportions outside....
....if they all went to similar schools, similar universities, got similar degrees, and share a similar outlook ?

Yes, I've exaggerated to make the point......
...but plenty of people get recruited because they "fit"....
while others, including white males, get excluded because they don't.
 
Whilst we’re on the subject of sex-discrimination, I’m going to put my ‘nuts on the block’ here about something that has been bugging me - but have been reluctant to post it because of the likely perception that I am a ‘woman hater’.

A few weeks ago, my LinkedIn profile was bombarded by people sharing this flimsy ‘research’.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53548704

I genuinely agree with the intention of the research. Diversity on boards is a good thing. And I believe that better decisions are made when boards comprise of a good mix of men and women.

But, the strapline reported by some news agencies is misleading and not supported by the ‘research’.

I took a glance at the actual research paper and, hidden away on the last page of notes is some detail in very small font that basically compromises the hypothesis that women on boards leads to increased profitability. Essentially: first point is that when they looked at the time series data, there was a negligible difference in performance. Second, there were only 5 or so data points which is nowhere near enough to be robust. I had to get old the old school books and run a t-test at 95% confidence and found that there was no statistical difference.

Such an important topic - but undermined by terrible statistics.

I feel better now.



Just goes to show how those sort of figures can be wiggled ........
 
Last edited:
Is it not up too sky if they want a fresh look, personally don’t know how Merson holds his job down, he’s all Over the shop, not into any kind off isms, just need a decent viewing experience, and would not like Colin Murray on my sky tv show .
 
If Jeff Stelling was sacked I could understand the outrage. But I can't get that worked up about Le Tissier, Thompson and Nicholas not being on the panel anymore. They've had a great run and good luck to them in the rest of their careers.

If Sky wants fresh blood I think the likes of Peter Crouch and Micah Richards would be perfect for the role. I find the pair of them much funnier/entertaining than the three that have been sacked. I know Jeff had a chemistry with the old boys but I'm sure he can build something similar with the new lads coming in.
A friend who works in TV told me that Stelling has one of the most demanding and stressful presenting jobs in the UK media. He has to watch screens with half an eye, has editors talking in his earpiece and has to have an encyclopaediac knowledge of teams and leagues. My friend reckons presenting the 10pm news is a doddle by comparison.
 
Anyone remember that awful presenter who used to commentate on Gills away matches.
She screamed when we won a throw in.

Jodie something. That said, the other BBC Radio Kent commentators are equally shit.

Even still - the BBC Radio Kent commentators are all better than Phil Neville. How does he get so many gigs?
 
A friend who works in TV told me that Stelling has one of the most demanding and stressful presenting jobs in the UK media. He has to watch screens with half an eye, has editors talking in his earpiece and has to have an encyclopaediac knowledge of teams and leagues. My friend reckons presenting the 10pm news is a doddle by comparison.
I can believe that
 
So the ones, who suggested that it was all PC nonsense and that all would be replaced by more acceptable types, aren't bothered about numbers, diversity, percentages. They then go on to quote endless stuff about precisely that and claim that their imagined opponents are demanding quotas and percentages. Some then go on to state that white males have been discriminated against. Potty, absolutely potty.
 
I know people love nothing more than to use stuff like this as another battleground in the culture war but the only thing Sky (along with every other brand that people get furious at for being "woke") actually care about is their bottom line. If they're replacing their presenters then it's because they think doing so will garner more viewers (or more likely just stem the tide of dwindling audience numbers) and thus increase their ad revenue.
 
Rubbish mate.
If the company doing the firing have mission statements saying they are looking to promote diversity and then only white men seem to be fired and replaced by non-white men then it probably is down to discrimination in those particular cases.
If 90% of your workforce is white, then clearly mainly white people will be sacked if you're getting rid. The candidate pool is far more diverse now too, so i expect many more BAME and even some females might get a chance at last.
 
Whilst we’re on the subject of sex-discrimination, I’m going to put my ‘nuts on the block’ here about something that has been bugging me - but have been reluctant to post it because of the likely perception that I am a ‘woman hater’.

A few weeks ago, my LinkedIn profile was bombarded by people sharing this flimsy ‘research’.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53548704

I genuinely agree with the intention of the research. Diversity on boards is a good thing. And I believe that better decisions are made when boards comprise of a good mix of men and women.

But, the strapline reported by some news agencies is misleading and not supported by the ‘research’.

I took a glance at the actual research paper and, hidden away on the last page of notes is some detail in very small font that basically compromises the hypothesis that women on boards leads to increased profitability. Essentially: first point is that when they looked at the time series data, there was a negligible difference in performance. Second, there were only 5 or so data points which is nowhere near enough to be robust. I had to get old the old school books and run a t-test at 95% confidence and found that there was no statistical difference.

Such an important topic - but undermined by terrible statistics.

I feel better now.
Perhaps we can't have high quality research because there are so few women we can't get a decent sample.
:-)
 
A friend who works in TV told me that Stelling has one of the most demanding and stressful presenting jobs in the UK media. He has to watch screens with half an eye, has editors talking in his earpiece and has to have an encyclopaediac knowledge of teams and leagues. My friend reckons presenting the 10pm news is a doddle by comparison.
The bloke is brilliant. He also had to carry the third raters that they've just jettisoned.

Genius presenter. I still chuckle at his James Brown doll when his namesake used to score for Hartlepool.