hypochondriac

That's just scaremongering. No evidence of that at all so far.

You're right and it seems we agree. There needs to be a sensible discussion about what the BBC actually should be doing.

The point wasn't how far ahead we were from 18th, it was how close we were/are to 40 points. Even if we were on 31 right now, I'd absolutely back us to get 9 points from 11 games which will be more than enough to stay up. We weren't going down and your meltdown was embarrassing.

Lightweight. I'm off to bed...

No we can't. Not a chance will Bournemouth be catching us from this position. Also not a chance will all of Newcastle, Palace, Brighton, villa west ham and Watford get enough points to get above us. We need something like 4 points from 11 games to guarantee it which would be I think our worst form since promotion. Not going to happen. Safe, safe, safe.

It would have to take an absolutely epic collapse. We are safe and it will be confirmed in the next four or five games.

Smallbone looking good so far

Soggy are you suggesting that you aren't allowed to object to the concept of the license fee if you are currently viewing or using the BBC? I could love everything on the BBC and watch it avidly and still not want a license fee.

Why do you think that's some sort of gotcha? Everyone uses the BBC at the moment because everyone has to pay for it and there is no alternative to somethibg like match of the day. That wouldn't be the case if it was on commercial television. You're missing the fundamental point. I am prevented from watching any number of freeview channels that I may want to watch if I have not paid a fee to support an unrelated enterprise that I may not support or want anything to do with.

The point is that currently there is no option whether to pay for it or not. Its not about whether individuals who are currently forced to pay the license fee subsequently use the things they are paying for. I'd rather have the option not to pay for it and then I'll use websites other than bbc for my news and sport if necessary although it's possible I'd pay for the online sports coverage if that were an option.

Don't worry. You had the literal communist Ash Sarkar on to provide the right-on counter narrative.

"racist to the core." Blimey, I'd hate to inhabit this world that some of these loons live in. Imagine genuinely believing that about Britain in 2020. I almost feel sorry for you.

How is that relevant? You don't have to pay for sky in order to watch TV. I do have to pay the license fee even if I have no interest in watching anything paid for by the license fee.

No idea what you're talking about here. You don't HAVE to pay for the other channels that's the entire point. I wasn't selective at all, I have a lot of praise for what the BBC used to be but the BBC of the last decade is jot something I have an interest in paying for.

No sexy time makes you angry.

What gave you that idea? There's no reason that the match of the day format could not be replicated on terrestrial telly elsewhere.

That isn't what I said at all you've misunderstood. I mostly want the BBC to produce shows of value that would be difficult to produce elsewhere due to commercial pressure. Something like strictly come dancing is very entertaining to some people but it's incredibly similar to existing shows on commercial channels and there's no reason to spend license fee money on it when it can easily be produced elsewhere. The BBC should not be sticking reality TV on to compete with the likes of pop idol on itv or whatever they are showing. Similarly with the football. I happen to enjoy Match of the day but I fail to see how they can justify its existence on the BBC considering the cost. Comedy used to be a jewel in the Crown of the BBC on television but as I said, most classic BBC comedies are now decades old and that's just one example. There's loads of things on the BBC I wouldn't be interested in but I can absolutely see their value on a national broadcaster. There's also loads of stuff that shouldn't be on there. That all changes however if they move to a subscription model then they can do whatever they want really.

Who are you talking about when you say posters?

I'd give him an extended run too. Hopefully we are safe in the next five games and then we can play him regularly until the end of the season.

Where have I ever said that alternative broadcasters haven't produced poor programming? I have never said that. The difference is I'm not forced to pay a license fee to other broadcasters. I'm sure that certain factions think it's worthwhile to produce a show about exploring whiteness but I vehemently disagree and I resent the fact that I have even a small part to play in funding things like that. The sooner stuff like this is stopped the better.

It's good of the BBC to commission a shown based on "exploring whiteness." That's definitely a vital public service paid for by all of us.

But the number is absolutely tiny even if it has increased. As already mentioned, it's publicised in the news so much at the moment that there's probably more of an awareness of it and an acknowledgement that it needs to be reported. The miniscule number of 152 does not suggest a systemic problem in UK football even if that's an increase on previous years.

So whilst previously you had no evidence, now you're using the example of one bbc pundit on the radio and a piece in the guardian that deals with reporting across the leagues. Assuming it's talking about the football league, 150 reported incidents is roughly two racist incidents per season. Obviously you wouldn't want any at all but it's hardly signs of an epidemic or some problem that is disproportionately larger in football than in other sections of society. There's no doubt that racism exists and any racism should be dealt with swiftly and harshly but there simply is no evidence to suggest that its a vastly larger problem certainly in top flight football in the UK than in other areas of society. It does however suit the agenda of certain individuals to portray it as a larger problem or to associate it with racist trouble in Italy or Eastern Europe. No one anywhere has suggested that racism is not a thing, they are simply suggesting that there have been huge improvements even in the past decade or two which is undeniably the case. Surely the best and most effective way to tackle a problem like racism is to be realistic about the scale of the problem in the UK? Edit: just seen its across both England and Wales and could also include non league so there will be clubs that will have reported no racist incidents for the entire season. According to Google there is 736 teams in this year's fa Cup. That means that in England alone there were 0.2 racist incidents that were reported per club last season. Thousands of matches, hundreds of thousands of fans and football being under the microscope it is and only 0.2 racist incidents worth reporting per club per season? I'd be willing to bet you'd get a comparable level of reportable racism from a random sample. Let's be really generous and assume that 152 applies only to the Premier league teams. That means you'd have 7.6 reportable instances of racism per team per season or again 0.2 instances per game. If you were a season ticket holder then chances would be pretty good that you would not encounter any racist incidents at all at the vast majority of matches you attend. As already stated though, it appears that this figure of 152 is for all the leagues so it really is miniscule.

That's a long winded way of saying you're using intuition rather than any actual evidence. Historical crowds and crowds in Europe are of little relevance to UK crowds in 2020 and I didn't mention crufts.

Where is your evidence- given the amount of people that attend football on a regular basis- that there are a much higher percentage of racists in a crowd than any other random sample of the UK population?