Hobsons Choice

I like the NFL, but love baseball. Got no real allegiances now but used to follow the Yankees during the 90's. Unfortunately the options to watch either sport on terrestrial TV are almost zero, so I've lost interest a bit.

He must never have been to the states and watched their god awful advert...I mean TV.

I respect your opinion and it's great that you are able to express yourself, but I would conjecture that your mother is a prostitute.

Good debate by the way. I love how on VT we can all express opinions and have these debates without the name calling/anger etc you get on other platforms.

Equal in the sense that it is representative. Would you say any of the above points prove bias on the part of the bbc? The BBC have no choice regarding the time given to the PPBs, just as they have no choice oh what points, and with what vehemence 'experts' speak when asked to provide comment on the issues of the day. The point you make on climate change advocacy, I agree with you, but without the opposing viewpoint, do you think that the bbc would be seen to be unbiased? Quite the opposite. They would be seen as a left wing mouthpiece, because the left wing traditionally care more about that subject. Same with the cbi and the right wing. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I don't, however, think trying to find alternative viewpoints, regardless of popularity shows inherent bias. Challenging a viewpoint to test it's rigour is, in my understanding, journalism.

OK let me put it another way. The BBC (and others) are obliged to give equal amounts of time to party political broadcasts. That is considered fair and equal. They do not have to ensure that those broadcasts address equally the same political points. The editorial content of the broadcasts is up to the parties, to push whatever their agenda is focused on. This is, however, considered unbiased programming.

Bang on. As usual.

They certainly couldn't sack him, surely. He's not expressed any views (as far as I can tell) that would qualify as hate speech under UK law, because he did not express, or was not motivated by a hostile viewpoint.

But if said experts don't really care, and/or aren't pushing agendas on all arguments equally, why would they be bothered to argue with equal vigour on them? To pretend they are would equally imbue bias.

It would be different if he said it on a BBC platform. Are we saying that all presenters must privately believe and agree with the editorial position of their employers. I doubt all of us privately agree 100% with their employers stance on things. He does a job, but he's also a human.

But, and someone else has said this above, this schism between the views of management, and general staff seems to me to be a new thing. I've not heard much about it previously when conservative wonks have been screaming that the BBC be dismantled because it is a left wing mouthpiece. How can you have editorial content that is diametrically opposed to the wishes of management. Would they not have to sign off on said content, or have the entire staff gone rogue?

Is that not representing the interests of both the left wing (who typically focus on social issues), and the right wing (who focus on economic ones)? If you asked left wing and right wing parties what they would wish to be included editorially, they would naturally answer as above, and care less about the other. Is that not just part of the balance?

I'm with Lineker here, but in fairness the BBC is accused of both left wing and right wing bias. A minimum of one of those accusations can't be true.

I've been thinking about this. Could we not just put one of our fitness coaches on the bench. Seems like the thing to do. We could take the p*** and give him squad number 69 or something. Thinking outside the box, me.

Exactly. Cost to use rail in the UK is bonkers.

No punishment for knob-on-knob.

Whatever you put into Google to get that gif is going to get you tagged.

Mourinho below Viera? Wtf. I like Viera, he has promise, but Jose has won, like, everything.

I'm impressed every team got at least 1 vote. Edit... ahh rjw, you old rascal.

Man U getting horse whipped was so funny it double posted.

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha.

I am just absolutely sick of our best players getting horrible long term injuries. Hopefully that's not the case here.

I dislike Max because you can never race fair with him. If he has a decent challenger he'll just play corner ultimatum jeopardy. I very much dislike Horner, who is a hypocritical twatbag who leaves a trail of talented drivers in the dust because he's too busy sucking Max off. He'll moan like f*** about every other team in the pit lane, then when they are on top and demonstrably cheat, everyone is 'harrassing' Red Bull. He wears ruthlessness like a badge of honour, but never once considers his own responsibility when a failure occurs. He's like all the worst bosses you've ever had multiplied by 50. In general I can't stand Red Bull. They were why I had less interest in F1 last year. I just hope to ignore them this year.

Very good question. Maybe it's like Knightmare, where bits of your face fall off until you put some bread in your bag.

Flipping Heck, Alonso P2? Those results are bats**t. Hoping Mclaren are quick this year. Would love Lando to be there or thereabouts.