WHEN  'INCLUSIVE'  MEANS  'SPECIAL'

I have always liked watching football on TV and 'Match Of The Day' has been a staple diet of my viewing since it was first aired back in 1964, the 22nd August to be precise.  Remarkably, for a programme that has run continuously for over 60 years, there have only been five presenters, a feat in itself!  This is a credit to the format, the continuity enacted by a succession of producers and the professionalism of the presenters themselves.  What has been seamless and common to all five is they have never been what one would consider 'common'.  Good diction without being plummy, in other words, what one should expect from the BBC.  Sadly. over the past decade, new faces have been introduced in the form of pundits. They form  the traditional and ongoing 'gang of three' who analyse, debate and chew the cud after each match has been shown.  With new faces has come a drop in standards, diction has taken a backseat in the race to be as 'inclusive' as the corporation feel they can get away with.  

'Football Focus', a sort of 'warm-up' programme televised at lunchtime on Saturdays,was enjoyed for many years by many a fan.  I know from talking to others that I am not alone in giving it a miss nowadays.  Female presenters in the manner and with the professionalism of Gabby Logan are perfectly acceptable.  She looks comfortable and acts with authority.  Sadly,  there are not enough of her standard within the BBC - or BABC, as many think of this behemoth of an institution that appears hell-bent on promoting ethnic or disabled  candidates over native able-bodied white Britons.  So many of their sports presenters and pundits, (P&P's), usually former players from both men's and women's football,  appear lazy both in speech and diction.  It grates!  Penal-ee,  con-inui-y,  Manchester Ci-ee,  Manchester Uni-ed.  Is there a shortage of 'T's around the world?  It is sloppy and audibly irritating.  It does nothing for one's trust in an opinion or analysis on any given situation.  What is wrong with these people?  The problem is far more prevalent in black presenters and pundits - both male and female.  Why should this be?  Can the BABC not manage to employ members of the so-called 'ethnic minority' who are capable of reasonable diction over a period of ten words?  It's not that difficult, surely!

Before  MOTD starts, there's a cursory check to make sure it's not 'Black History Month', or 'Black Lives Matter'.  The latter  gives rise to the uncomfortable and embarrassing witnessing too 'native white Britons' turning their  heads away, having lowered the sound, so as not to throw-up at the spectacle of white men going down on one knee in subjugation to and paying homage to those of darker colour.  The whole spectacle is shameful and an insult to everyone who isn't 'Of colour'!  Secondly, one will have to continuously juggle the volume in order to mute the 'diction-less cove'  - or coves - as the case may be.  *Still waiting for 'White History Month' to make an appearance.

What I wasn't prepared for last weekend was the sight of club captains wearing rainbow-coloured armbands in support of the LGBT 'community'.   Why?  What the bloody hell has one's sexual preference got to do with men or women kicking a football around for ninety minutes in an effort to entertain their team's supporters, the majority of whom are neither L, G, B, T or queer!  The football industry has apparently become chummy with the charity 'Stonewall', which caters for the likes of their 'community'.  Again I ask - Why?  The move does not help inclusivity, it is divisive.  Captains wearing rainbow armbands, players sporting rainbow boot laces.  It is truly cringe-making.  What I'd like to know is how many of those players out there on the field last Saturday did so because they believed in the cause, and those who did so because of the flack they'd receive should they not adhere to the directive?  I noted that the captain of Ipswich Town, Sam Morsey refused to wear n armband - good for him, glad someone had the balls to refuse the 'Call to armbands'.  

Manchester United's players were to wear Adidas-made 'rainbow-themed' jackets for their entrance onto the field last Saturday against Everton.  One player refused and so the whole team was spared what most 'normal' people would consider a humiliating and unnecessary, politically-motivated gesture. I wonder just how much political pressure is put on business to 'co-operate' and promote these fringe interests?  I suspect that it can be quite intimidating, with a lot of hand-wringing from those involved thinking, 'One wrong move, one bad decision and my career is shot'.  

 I have little in common with Gary Lineker when it comes to politics - actually, there is absolutely nothing we have in common, birthdays once a year being as 'in common' as it gets!  He is however, a consummate professional presenting MOTD, though I would dispute his worth to the BABC and paymaster - the general public through our licence fee.  

Who will follow him after his departure at the end of this season?  Probably a female, probably a black female.  The Beeb will be clinking glasses of Jamaican rum as they celebrate another couple of boxes ticked in their 'W*** target' quest!

I could be wrong and it turns out that standards are to are raised, but I won't be holding my breath.  Oh for the days when football was a 'politically quirk-free' game and you were treated to the dulcet tones of Mr. Kenneth Wolstenholme.  'They think it's all over, it probably is now...'