Kick Off - Durham In, Sawyer Out, Saggers Out.

[Erskine Might]

One of the few things TS do brilliantly well is get money from gambling companies, having different competing companies sponsor and advertise on different shows is a great idea which surprisingly they seem to be able to get away with it. The only difficulty is that irrespective of what betting company is advertising and providing betting updates on Breakfast, Big Al keeps mentioning Coral every few minutes in the weeks before Cheltenham.

I don't think it's much of an achievement by TS - betting companies have long wanted such an arrangement. So long as they get a whole show to themselves, they're happy. Jim White's regular anti-betting bleats, however, must drive them into a rage, given how much they all contribute to TS.

[JW90]

It is strange how they focus so much on betting on the "serious" shows, given the amount of exposure on the station. Surely there are plenty of benign topics to blow up as important to discuss?

[Erskine Might]

Amazingly patronising treatment of John Barnes tonight, by a station that routinely patronises him by only calling him to discuss racism.

[JW90]

This interview won't actually get anywhere. Barnes has his view, the others have theirs, they'll never meet in the middle.

Most of the tweets are supporting and agreeing with Barnes. He is getting annoyed at Darren Lewis.

[Zippy]

John Barnes cuts through the bull and actually wants to get to the root of the problem. Can't say the same about Darren Lewis.

[Erskine Might]

This interview won't actually get anywhere. Barnes has his view, the others have theirs, they'll never meet in the middle.

Most of the tweets are supporting and agreeing with Barnes. He is getting annoyed at Darren Lewis.

It wasn't like bringing someone on for a proper debate. It was bringing someone on to bow to the Platonic Guardians. 'We know what's right, we must correct this deviant thinker'. Pathetic behaviour. For example, Barnes, after being talked down to by that pompous Hugh bloke, finally asked him to explain what was wrong. Hugh Bloke didn't even get the question, he simply listed people who were offended. So Barnes said again, 'tell me what they're offended by,' so Hugh Bloke merely sighs patronisingly and again says lots were offended. He simply could not understand what he was being asked to explain. And yet this thick idiot was treating Barnes as if he was some kind of dim-witted deviant. Really, really bad radio.

[kentred1]

If you look at Wozzencunt twitter account he has a major chip on his shoulder

Don't know why they had John Barnes on

Every time ive heard him come on he won't go down the Talksport way of doing things

[JW90]

John Barnes cuts through the bull and actually wants to get to the root of the problem. Can't say the same about Darren Lewis.

Yep. I think the station has been hard-wired to find an accepted view on a topic and stick rigidly to it. Barnes went away from that and it wasn't welcome.

I've never experienced racism so I've no idea what it is like but I'm sure all involved this evening had yet had different views about it. Lewis was adamant that Barnes' was incorrect but why?

You could tell Barnes got to the presenter very early on by asking why he was offended and Woozencroft didn't reply with much conviction. You could sense they were hoping for listeners to tweet in with prompts but none came.

[Erskine Might]

You could tell Barnes got to the presenter very early on by asking why he was offended and Woozencroft didn't reply with much conviction. You could sense they were hoping for listeners to tweet in with prompts but none came.

Forget about conviction. Barnes very clearly and sensibly tried to establish definitions, and his interviewer kept avoiding supplying any, but simply kept on denouncing what Barnes said. Really appalling stuff.

[JW90]

The worst part of the half-hour was after a break when Woozencroft admitted searching some of Barnes' previous comments on unrelated incidents to basically discredit him which is totally unfair and uncalled for.

TS have to be careful about their style- it appears to me that the presenter has a view, that is what is agreed and people should go along with it. Somebody is asked to appear on the show, with the alternative view which Barnes put across very succintly and with detail, and the presenters and guests try to paint a picture of somebody who is completely wrong and here is the proof.

With any show, the set-up should be to have opposing viewpoints that are discussed and then the listeners make up their minds. Tonight, as with so many other topics, the agenda is set and the "wrong" person will not have their view put across as they want but as the "right" person wants. This is why John Barnes was getting much support on Twitter underneath the original post, he was portrayed as having the wrong opinion and people backed him instead.

[Champagne and Roses]

It is this Thursday night ghetto that Clayton has created that is a big part of the problem, it's always going to be 100% minorities talking about 100% minority issues, it perpetuates that idea that that is all minorities are qualified to talk about. It is the exact opposite of integrating minorities and minority views into the mainstream to normalise them.

[Erskine Might]

If the incredibly pious Hugh Wotzizname wants to return to the topic of unconscious racism, he might ponder the question of why TS calls up many white ex-players for their views on a wide range of topics, but usually only calls John Barnes to discuss racism. White ex-players = a fund of knowledge. John Barnes = black bloke. He must be sick of them and their patronising nonsense.

[BenLaw]

Hugh was having none of John Barnes

[Champagne and Roses]

I bet everyone’s looking forward to Hugh and Darren’s superb show this evening - sadly I’ll have to miss it as I smashed my radio with a hammer last Thursday.

[Erskine Might]

Hugh was having none of John Barnes

I'd imagine the feeling was mutual.