BBC Sports Personality of the Year 2015

[cpr]

If lovely Jess doesn't win, I'm storming the BBC. Fury is a ****, and Murray has won it before, and neither of them recently squeezed a fully-formed human from themselves.

Jess2win, still think the petrolheads may block vote bloody Hamilton to victory again though.

C'mon, she'd dropped the sprog over a year before, maternity leave was well and truely used up by then. Plus she only won because KJT was cruelly robbed in the long jump.

For the athletics vote, I'd probably plump for Mo, completing the double again is a magnificent achievement, and he's basically unbeatable over 5 or 10k at the moment.

Its a pretty uninspiring list TBH.

 

[grecian]

C'mon, she'd dropped the sprog over a year before, maternity leave was well and truely used up by then. Plus she only won because KJT was cruelly robbed in the long jump.

For the athletics vote, I'd probably plump for Mo, completing the double again is a magnificent achievement, and he's basically unbeatable over 5 or 10k at the moment.

Its a pretty uninspiring list TBH.

Fine line between being robbed and being stupidly poor.

Disagree it's an uninspiring list really, compared to what we had 20 years ago it's stellar. Murray number 2 in the World in a global sport, Hamilton F1 winner, Tour De France winner, World Heavyweight Champion, Multiple athletics gold-medal winners. Some of them like Sinfield, I've never heard of, but that's par for the course, and I'm just glad Ronney isn't nommed, so they can all stay in. Yet I suppose he has become Englands top-scorer.

Still Jess2Win.

 

[cpr]

Such a fine line that it took them 5 mins with a microscope to tell if it'd been stood on....


Yeah, I suppose, guess its a sign of what we've come to expect from our athletes - I felt uninspiring as Murray hasn't had his best season, Hamilton's walked it in a car thats far better than the rest etc. British though, so never looking on the bright side of anything, right?

 

[Uppercut]

Also Fury and Hamilton are both bastards.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The Overseas award is not looking too great. Sports Personality of the Year: Vote now for Overseas award - BBC Sport

 

[grecian]

Also Fury and Hamilton are both bastards.

Whilst Jess is famously the most lovely person in the World, so that's sorted.

I've just voted for Bolt, not sure where to vote for JEH or Sam Curran.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

30,000 people have signed a petition to get Fury removed from the list.

Over 30,000 people sign petition to have Tyson Fury removed from BBC Sports Personality shortlist

 

[Niall]

The Overseas award is not looking too great. Sports Personality of the Year: Vote now for Overseas award - BBC Sport

4 all time greats in Serena, Bolt, Novsk and Carter along with Spieth who won 2 majors last year, what is the problem?

 

[GIMH]

30,000 people have signed a petition to get Fury removed from the list.

Over 30,000 people sign petition to have Tyson Fury removed from BBC Sports Personality shortlist

Petitioning for that is such nonsense. Just don't vote for him

 

[grecian]

Petitioning for that is such nonsense. Just don't vote for him

Totally agreed, just stupid.

 

[sledger]

Hmmm, had gathered that Fury was a bit of a dick, but hadn't realised he's apparently an outright appalling person.

 

[Jono]

Petitioning for that is such nonsense. Just don't vote for him

Totally agreed, just stupid.

Just out of curiosity would you have said the same thing if he said blacks marrying whites should be illegal or some other similarly racist remark?

I'm fine with highlighting someone's horrible opinions through awareness mechanisms such as petitions. Its not stopping free speech, it's just saying if you say this stuff you're going to get hammered for it.

 

[GIMH]

Just out of curiosity would you have said the same thing if he said blacks marrying whites should be illegal or some other similarly racist remark?

I'm fine with highlighting someone's horrible opinions through awareness mechanisms such as petitions. Its not stopping free speech, it's just saying if you say this stuff you're going to get hammered for it.

Yeah I would. It's up to people whether they want to vote for him or not. If enough people are disturbed by his comments he won't win. If people want to vote for him anyway, that's up to them.

I get what you're saying about highlighting it but hate the modern concept of petitioning to involve the state because someone is offensive. Not like it's the only way you can get your message across in this day and age is it?

 

[sledger]

Tbf, given that the BBC is a public broadcaster, petitioning the state does make sense. I'd agree with you if the BBC was a private company though.

I mean, if a private company wants to promote someone with character traits of an extremely offensive character this is obviously dire, but were a public broadcaster to do so then it's problematic on another level entirely.

 

[Jono]

Yeah I would. It's up to people whether they want to vote for him or not. If enough people are disturbed by his comments he won't win. If people want to vote for him anyway, that's up to them.

I get what you're saying about highlighting it but hate the modern concept of petitioning to involve the state because someone is offensive. Not like it's the only way you can get your message across in this day and age is it?

But by doing this they are telling everyone the guy has a bigoted point of view. I literally did not know he had such ****ty views until this petition. That is a worthwhile result of this in itself. Add the fact the BBC is publicly funded and its a perfectly valid thing to do.

And I don't see it as modern. Its just a different way of doing the same thing that what was done in previous decades on race issues, that is highlighting bigoted views. Its just through a technologically relevant medium nowadays.

 

[GIMH]

But by doing this they are telling everyone the guy has a bigoted point of view. I literally did not know he had such ****ty views until this petition. That is a worthwhile result of this in itself. Add the fact the BBC is publicly funded and its a perfectly valid thing to do.

And I don't see it as modern. Its just a different way of doing the same thing that what was done in previous decades on race issues, that is highlighting bigoted views. Its just through a technologically relevant medium nowadays.

Well I disagree. I find the concept of 'I find this guy distasteful so nobody should be allowed to vote for him' repulsive. I find his comments repulsive too, but I've no place telling other people they shouldn't vote for him as a sportsman on that basis. Or rather, taking away other people's rights to vote for him.

Ultimately, why not set up a Facebook page or something. 'Boycott voting for Tyson Fury.' Whatever. Those things work, they got RATM to number one that way FFS. Encourage people that you don't think they should vote for him. Don't make their minds up for them. It is ultimately counter-productive.

 

[GIMH]

Tbf, given that the BBC is a public broadcaster, petitioning the state does make sense. I'd agree with you if the BBC was a private company though.

I mean, if a private company wants to promote someone with character traits of an extremely offensive character this is obviously dire, but were a public broadcaster to do so then it's problematic on another level entirely.

You're talking about an issue of morality though. People shouldn't be legislated against on their opinions. Far better for people to turn their back on them by choice.

 

[Uppercut]

You're talking about an issue of morality though. People shouldn't be legislated against on their opinions. Far better for people to turn their back on them by choice.

I don't agree with you in this instance, I don't think this can really count as getting the state involved. If the BBC is considered part of the state then it's always been involved. If not then you're petitioning an independent body- either way, it's not the petition that brings the state into a place where it has no place.

I hate the SPOTY altogether but would actually really appreciate the gesture if they dropped him from the shortlist.

 

[GIMH]

I don't agree with you in this instance, I don't think this can really count as getting the state involved. If the BBC is considered part of the state then it's always been involved. If not then you're petitioning an independent body- either way, it's not the petition that brings the state into a place where it has no place.

I hate the SPOTY altogether but would actually really appreciate the gesture if they dropped him from the shortlist.

Isn't the petition to parliament though?

I mean regardless, forget the state element. I just think if people want to vote for him they should be able to. I think it would make a far bigger statement if he got **** all votes.

And if he gets loads of votes? Well then that's up to the people who vote, isn't it?

I actually think removing him would take away from the credibility of the contest (if you believe there is any to begin with)

 

[sledger]

You're talking about an issue of morality though. People shouldn't be legislated against on their opinions. Far better for people to turn their back on them by choice.

Yeah, I agree, but I don't think what's happening here is at all linked to suggestions that controversial opinions ought to be made unlawful. The issue, so far as I can see it, is that the BBC, as a publicly-funded organisation, has put forward a total bigot as a candidate for a reward that is supposed to embody their values of pluralism and tolerance. It's not a question of whether his views are dire (which they clearly are) and ought to be banned outright, but one of whether it's appropriate for an organisation which receives state-funding to give a platform to someone of his character, and essentially promote them as a potential role-model.