|
Post by aureliuspotter on Sept 26, 2023 7:44:24 GMT
Getting a job based on meritocracy is a thing of the past. It's more about box ticking now. Alex Scott is a fine example. So you think her caps for England have nothing to do with it? She is more qualified than most who get the job. If what you say is true, how did Danny Murphy get the job and why does he deserve it more than Scott? Which box does Murphy tick? Ye I believe exactly what I said mate.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 26, 2023 8:49:24 GMT
So you think her caps for England have nothing to do with it? She is more qualified than most who get the job. If what you say is true, how did Danny Murphy get the job and why does he deserve it more than Scott? Which box does Murphy tick? Ye I believe exactly what I said mate. Ok, so which box does Murphy tick? Why does he with his 9 england caps deserve an opportunity but Scott with 140 caps does not?
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Sept 26, 2023 9:14:16 GMT
I think those names you've mentioned, while without doubt poor pundits, are still a cut above Alex Scott. Perhaps the question might me - Which pundits/applicants were overlooked in favour of Alex Scott for both the World Cup and Football Focus? And I would ask the same but inserting the pundits I think are much worse than Scott in your question. What do you particularly dislike about Scott? I am sure this isn’t the case, but your opening post suggests the fact she is a woman and her skin colour are the problems for you. I am sure you have some other reasons (perhaps because she was brave enough to wear the rainbow armband in Qatar unlike the rest of them!?). Let me throw the question back at you. What do you like so much about Scott? Re the above post, I quite clearly state I don't think the Motd pundits aren't great. My point is though they still offer more than Alex Scott who lacks just about everything.
|
|
|
Post by aureliuspotter on Sept 26, 2023 10:27:52 GMT
And I would ask the same but inserting the pundits I think are much worse than Scott in your question. What do you particularly dislike about Scott? I am sure this isn’t the case, but your opening post suggests the fact she is a woman and her skin colour are the problems for you. I am sure you have some other reasons (perhaps because she was brave enough to wear the rainbow armband in Qatar unlike the rest of them!?). Let me throw the question back at you. What do you like so much about Scott? Re the above post, I quite clearly state I don't think the Motd pundits aren't great. My point is though they still offer more than Alex Scott who lacks just about everything. I think it's obvious why he thinks so much of Scott mate. 🙄 Like I said, meritocracy is dead.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 26, 2023 11:20:14 GMT
I think Alex Scott is alright. Can't stand thar Jill Scott though, so frigging boring to listen to.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 26, 2023 12:01:01 GMT
And I would ask the same but inserting the pundits I think are much worse than Scott in your question. What do you particularly dislike about Scott? I am sure this isn’t the case, but your opening post suggests the fact she is a woman and her skin colour are the problems for you. I am sure you have some other reasons (perhaps because she was brave enough to wear the rainbow armband in Qatar unlike the rest of them!?). Let me throw the question back at you. What do you like so much about Scott? Re the above post, I quite clearly state I don't think the Motd pundits aren't great. My point is though they still offer more than Alex Scott who lacks just about everything. I don’t think she is so great. I think she is better than some and worse than others, like I said above. Better than Keown or Murphy, worse than Neville or Lineker (if you want a presenter example). As a pundit I think she offers far more insight and has more interesting views than the likes of Murphy and Keown who literally state the obvious, and she brings a slightly different perspective given her vast experience as an England international and a woman, so a slight outsider on the men’s game rather than the same tired example of ex-pro male footballers. But you have so far been critical of her for being a black woman and nothing much else. If she were another crap white male pundit, you never would have even posted about it. When asked why you dislike her you have thrown the question back at me and not answered.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 26, 2023 12:02:30 GMT
Let me throw the question back at you. What do you like so much about Scott? Re the above post, I quite clearly state I don't think the Motd pundits aren't great. My point is though they still offer more than Alex Scott who lacks just about everything. I think it's obvious why he thinks so much of Scott mate. 🙄 Like I said, meritocracy is dead. Why? Because I don’t judge a person by their gender or the colour of their skin? Why has she been highlighted and not the numerous other terrible male pundits?
|
|
|
Post by aureliuspotter on Sept 26, 2023 12:43:28 GMT
I think it's obvious why he thinks so much of Scott mate. 🙄 Like I said, meritocracy is dead. Why? Because I don’t judge a person by their gender or the colour of their skin? Why has she been highlighted and not the numerous other terrible male pundits? 🤦♂️
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 26, 2023 12:51:43 GMT
Why? Because I don’t judge a person by their gender or the colour of their skin? Why has she been highlighted and not the numerous other terrible male pundits? 🤦♂️ Are you just going to give up rather than try to defend your point of view? What boxes do Keown and Murphy tick? Why is Scott being talked about on this thread and not the numerous examples of terrible white male pundits and presenters?
|
|
|
Post by aureliuspotter on Sept 26, 2023 12:53:47 GMT
Are you just going to give up rather than try to defend your point of view? What boxes do Keown and Murphy tick? Why is Scott being talked about on this thread and not the numerous examples of terrible white male pundits and presenters? They are better than her. How come it matters to you that I agree with you? Because it doesn't matter to me if you agree with me or not.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 26, 2023 13:00:15 GMT
Are you just going to give up rather than try to defend your point of view? What boxes do Keown and Murphy tick? Why is Scott being talked about on this thread and not the numerous examples of terrible white male pundits and presenters? They are better than her. How come it matters to you that I agree with you? Because it doesn't matter to me if you agree with me or not. But I thought the meritocracy was dead? You said before that these appointments were all about box ticking. How can that be right if those ones are in on merit? Scott is better than both in my opinion. So if some people think she is good and some don’t like her, she is probably there on merit because that seems to be the views on most of these pundits - some people like them, others don’t. It doesn’t matter to me if you agree. I am just trying to debate with you. This is a message board. Perhaps we each may learn something about how people with a different point of view think.
|
|
|
Post by aureliuspotter on Sept 26, 2023 13:03:09 GMT
They are better than her. How come it matters to you that I agree with you? Because it doesn't matter to me if you agree with me or not. But I thought the meritocracy was dead? You said before that these appointments were all about box ticking. How can that be right if those ones are in on merit? Scott is better than both in my opinion. So if some people think she is good and some don’t like her, she is probably there on merit because that seems to be the views on most of these pundits - some people like them, others don’t. It doesn’t matter to me if you agree. I am just trying to debate with you. This is a message board. Perhaps we each may learn something about how people with a different point of view think. You don't listen though mate so why bother engaging in debate.
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Sept 26, 2023 13:03:30 GMT
Without reading through this I would suggest that a large percentage of the Stoke older generation (50 plus) haven't moved on one bit, and possibly even regressed. That is my observation and I travel a lot.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Sept 26, 2023 13:06:36 GMT
Without reading through this I would suggest that a large percentage of the Stoke older generation (50 plus) haven't moved on one bit, and possibly even regressed. That is my observation and I travel a lot. Ageist
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 26, 2023 13:08:37 GMT
But I thought the meritocracy was dead? You said before that these appointments were all about box ticking. How can that be right if those ones are in on merit? Scott is better than both in my opinion. So if some people think she is good and some don’t like her, she is probably there on merit because that seems to be the views on most of these pundits - some people like them, others don’t. It doesn’t matter to me if you agree. I am just trying to debate with you. This is a message board. Perhaps we each may learn something about how people with a different point of view think. You don't listen though mate so why bother engaging in debate. So it does matter to you whether or not I agree with you! You love to contradict yourself. Presumably you also think the abysmal Home Secretary who has allowed the small boats to increase, immigration to jump massively, spent hundreds of millions of pounds on housing asylum seekers rather than processing their claims and been sacked from her two last ministerial jobs for major screw ups (and who happens to be your icon picture) is also only there for box ticking purposes?
|
|
|
Post by Eggybread on Sept 26, 2023 14:23:50 GMT
Without reading through this I would suggest that a large percentage of the Stoke older generation (50 plus) haven't moved on one bit, and possibly even regressed. That is my observation and I travel a lot. Ageist
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 26, 2023 14:30:29 GMT
You don't listen though mate so why bother engaging in debate. So it does matter to you whether or not I agree with you! You love to contradict yourself. Presumably you also think the abysmal Home Secretary who has allowed the small boats to increase, immigration to jump massively, spent hundreds of millions of pounds on housing asylum seekers rather than processing their claims and been sacked from her two last ministerial jobs for major screw ups (and who happens to be your icon picture) is also only there for box ticking purposes? I think the rest of the Tories wish she was just abysmal but she has a way to go before reaching those 'dizzying heights' 😉
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 26, 2023 14:36:47 GMT
www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/21/britain-is-much-more-liberal-minded-than-is-was-40-years-ago-study-findsI found this really interesting. The “woke” points of views from 1983 are the norm today. Will that trend continue? Yet a third of the population still see something wrong with a same sex relationship! Madness. “Age has become the biggest demographic divide in British politics since the pandemic, the study says, with younger people for the first time in 40 years becoming markedly more leftwing than older people, a development it says may be down to their sense of injustice around inequality and access to housing.“ That has to worry the tories! Or do people become more right wing with age?? Obviously this thread will descend very quickly into ridiculousness, but I thought worth flagging a fascinating article. Most people are decent folks. My attitude on homosexuality was pretty much made by the laws, customs etc at the time. I remember the AIDS adverts. I also joined the military when you couldn’t be gay. I’ve got a gay male couple next door. They were South African we were having a chat about apartheid. They are not racist but we’re going on about how apartheid had made it difficult for blacks to get educated and it shows in government. I made the point that 30 years ago I probably wouldn’t have had them round for a beer. That study just shows how attitudes change as we get older, better educated and times change. It doesn’t always affect voting habits
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Sept 26, 2023 15:00:29 GMT
www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/21/britain-is-much-more-liberal-minded-than-is-was-40-years-ago-study-findsI found this really interesting. The “woke” points of views from 1983 are the norm today. Will that trend continue? Yet a third of the population still see something wrong with a same sex relationship! Madness. “Age has become the biggest demographic divide in British politics since the pandemic, the study says, with younger people for the first time in 40 years becoming markedly more leftwing than older people, a development it says may be down to their sense of injustice around inequality and access to housing.“ That has to worry the tories! Or do people become more right wing with age?? Obviously this thread will descend very quickly into ridiculousness, but I thought worth flagging a fascinating article. Most people are decent folks. My attitude on homosexuality was pretty much made by the laws, customs etc at the time. I remember the AIDS adverts. I also joined the military when you couldn’t be gay. I’ve got a gay male couple next door. They were South African we were having a chat about apartheid. They are not racist but we’re going on about how apartheid had made it difficult for blacks to get educated and it shows in government. I made the point that 30 years ago I probably wouldn’t have had them round for a beer. That study just shows how attitudes change as we get older, better educated and times change. It doesn’t always affect voting habits Bang on the money. The thing that always sticks in my mind was the way Freddie Mercury and others were treated when AIDS first came to the fore. I look back now and though I never really had an opinion I never acknowledged how shamefully they were treated. There’s a lot changed over the last 30 years most of it for the positive. We need to start liking ourselves again though.
|
|
|
Post by aureliuspotter on Sept 26, 2023 15:36:33 GMT
You don't listen though mate so why bother engaging in debate. So it does matter to you whether or not I agree with you! You love to contradict yourself. Presumably you also think the abysmal Home Secretary who has allowed the small boats to increase, immigration to jump massively, spent hundreds of millions of pounds on housing asylum seekers rather than processing their claims and been sacked from her two last ministerial jobs for major screw ups (and who happens to be your icon picture) is also only there for box ticking purposes? I don't think you have the ability to comprehend mate. You saying something doesn't make something true. Braverman is ace, she was employed on merit. Unlike Scott.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 26, 2023 15:42:15 GMT
So it does matter to you whether or not I agree with you! You love to contradict yourself. Presumably you also think the abysmal Home Secretary who has allowed the small boats to increase, immigration to jump massively, spent hundreds of millions of pounds on housing asylum seekers rather than processing their claims and been sacked from her two last ministerial jobs for major screw ups (and who happens to be your icon picture) is also only there for box ticking purposes? I don't think you have the ability to comprehend mate. You saying something doesn't make something true. Braverman is ace, she was employed on merit. Unlike Scott. Perhaps that’s because your posts are incomprehensible! Braverman is so good she was sacked a second time (or forced to resign) for breaching the ministerial code, and then rehired 6 days later in the same job! Why is she ace? For her abject failure on absolutely everything under her brief? Scott played for England 140 times which means she has a pretty good knowledge of football. Certainly more than anyone on this message board
|
|
|
Post by aureliuspotter on Sept 26, 2023 15:44:20 GMT
I don't think you have the ability to comprehend mate. You saying something doesn't make something true. Braverman is ace, she was employed on merit. Unlike Scott. Perhaps that’s because your posts are incomprehensible! Braverman is so good she was sacked a second time (or forced to resign) for breaching the ministerial code, and then rehired 6 days later in the same job! Why is she ace? For her abject failure on absolutely everything under her brief? Scott played for England 140 times which means she has a pretty good knowledge of football. Certainly more than anyone on this message board My posts are perfectly fine it's your inability to grasp simple yet logical and sound ideas and concepts that's the issue. I disagree mate I think Braverman is ace, is this something else that I HAVE to agree with you on? 😂
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 26, 2023 16:09:24 GMT
Perhaps that’s because your posts are incomprehensible! Braverman is so good she was sacked a second time (or forced to resign) for breaching the ministerial code, and then rehired 6 days later in the same job! Why is she ace? For her abject failure on absolutely everything under her brief? Scott played for England 140 times which means she has a pretty good knowledge of football. Certainly more than anyone on this message board My posts are perfectly fine it's your inability to grasp simple yet logical and sound ideas and concepts that's the issue. I disagree mate I think Braverman is ace, is this something else that I HAVE to agree with you on? 😂 Failed at stopping boats Failed at deporting to Rwanda Immigration numbers at all time high despite a policy to get it right down Asylum backlog at all time high Conditions for asylum seekers are so bad that she has spent hundreds of million housing them in hotels etc Failure to get asylum seekers on barges Convictions for rape and sexual assaults at all time lows You think she is ace. Name some of her achievements then as Home Secretary. Give me some reasons why she is ace. Or will you offer absolutely nothing to back up your stated opinion once more?
|
|
|
Post by aureliuspotter on Sept 26, 2023 16:12:36 GMT
My posts are perfectly fine it's your inability to grasp simple yet logical and sound ideas and concepts that's the issue. I disagree mate I think Braverman is ace, is this something else that I HAVE to agree with you on? 😂 Failed at stopping boats Failed at deporting to Rwanda Immigration numbers at all time high despite a policy to get it right down Asylum backlog at all time high Conditions for asylum seekers are so bad that she has spent hundreds of million housing them in hotels etc Failure to get asylum seekers on barges Convictions for rape and sexual assaults at all time lows You think she is ace. Name some of her achievements then as Home Secretary. Give me some reasons why she is ace. Or will you offer absolutely nothing to back up your stated opinion once more? Nope you haven't convinced me mate.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 26, 2023 16:16:23 GMT
Failed at stopping boats Failed at deporting to Rwanda Immigration numbers at all time high despite a policy to get it right down Asylum backlog at all time high Conditions for asylum seekers are so bad that she has spent hundreds of million housing them in hotels etc Failure to get asylum seekers on barges Convictions for rape and sexual assaults at all time lows You think she is ace. Name some of her achievements then as Home Secretary. Give me some reasons why she is ace. Or will you offer absolutely nothing to back up your stated opinion once more? Nope you haven't convinced me mate. And the argument for her being ace is…..
|
|
|
Post by aureliuspotter on Sept 26, 2023 16:19:08 GMT
Nope you haven't convinced me mate. And the argument for her being ace is….. It's important for you that I agree with you because.......
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 26, 2023 16:25:50 GMT
And the argument for her being ace is….. It's important for you that I agree with you because....... It isn’t at all important for me that you agree with me. I just think this has been a very one sided debate where you have offered absolutely nothing to back up your opinion. Why is Braverman ace? What achievements has she accomplished to be described by you as ace? I see absolutely nothing good about Braverman. She is the nasty party personified. She hates immigrants and clearly lacks empathy despite her background. People I know who work at the Home Office and in the AG office when she was AG have nothing good to say about her as a boss. So I wondered what you see in her. Nothing it seems.
|
|
|
Post by aureliuspotter on Sept 26, 2023 16:31:12 GMT
It's important for you that I agree with you because....... It isn’t at all important for me that you agree with me. I just think this has been a very one sided debate where you have offered absolutely nothing to back up your opinion. Why is Braverman ace? What achievements has she accomplished to be described by you as ace? I see absolutely nothing good about Braverman. She is the nasty party personified. She hates immigrants and clearly lacks empathy despite her background. People I know who work at the Home Office and in the AG office when she was AG have nothing good to say about her as a boss. So I wondered what you see in her. Nothing it seems. Unbelievable mate.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 26, 2023 17:08:13 GMT
www.theguardian.com/society/2023/sep/21/britain-is-much-more-liberal-minded-than-is-was-40-years-ago-study-findsI found this really interesting. The “woke” points of views from 1983 are the norm today. Will that trend continue? Yet a third of the population still see something wrong with a same sex relationship! Madness. “Age has become the biggest demographic divide in British politics since the pandemic, the study says, with younger people for the first time in 40 years becoming markedly more leftwing than older people, a development it says may be down to their sense of injustice around inequality and access to housing.“ That has to worry the tories! Or do people become more right wing with age?? Obviously this thread will descend very quickly into ridiculousness, but I thought worth flagging a fascinating article. Most people are decent folks. My attitude on homosexuality was pretty much made by the laws, customs etc at the time. I remember the AIDS adverts. I also joined the military when you couldn’t be gay. I’ve got a gay male couple next door. They were South African we were having a chat about apartheid. They are not racist but we’re going on about how apartheid had made it difficult for blacks to get educated and it shows in government. I made the point that 30 years ago I probably wouldn’t have had them round for a beer and some bum sex.
That study just shows how attitudes change as we get older, better educated and times change. It doesn’t always affect voting habits Well, good for you for fully embracing that lifestyle On a less childish note, I saw a prog yesterday with the ever fabulous Miriam Margolyes as she explored Tasmania which used to have some of the most repressive homosexuality laws in Australia but now has some of the least. It was amazing to watch old footage of public meetings where people were openly expressing pretty intolerant views and being applauded for it. It just goes to show, imo, how much can be improved by people pushing back against the prejudice that continues to exist and by educating people and, more importantly, the media. The list of people who committed suicide because they couldn't be themselves in Tasmania was pretty awful. One scene involved a bbq (of course!) with a gay bloke, his partner, his mum and dad and family. His dad, perhaps not surprisingly for rural Australia, used to have some pretty intolerant views himself, until his son came out and he realised that having a happy son as part of his family, rather than a suicidal one excluded from the family was much more important than any stuff he'd previously assumed to be correct. Hope for everyone seemed to be the message of that particular society and that particular family, even the most prejudiced and intolerant.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Sept 26, 2023 17:09:46 GMT
It isn’t at all important for me that you agree with me. I just think this has been a very one sided debate where you have offered absolutely nothing to back up your opinion. Why is Braverman ace? What achievements has she accomplished to be described by you as ace? I see absolutely nothing good about Braverman. She is the nasty party personified. She hates immigrants and clearly lacks empathy despite her background. People I know who work at the Home Office and in the AG office when she was AG have nothing good to say about her as a boss. So I wondered what you see in her. Nothing it seems. Unbelievable mate. How many log-ins do you have, Crappy?
|
|