Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Lineker and Attenborough
Comments
-
There must be a point in the BBC hierarchy where somebody decided which alternative broadcasts should be put out.
I wonder if that decision was made by the Tory doner Director General, or was the decision made by somebody in the lower ranks.0 -
Bring on the next election6
-
Come on Them, think you’ll find he’s from Downe 🤣Chizz said:
There's one bloke from Westerham who uses his Fisher Price binoculars to keep an eye out for boats crossing the Channel, but only when he knows there are photographers there. I'm sure he wants the boats to continue.bobmunro said:palarsehater said:Labour Tory all cnuts.Illegal crossings across the channel need some sort of control, maybe will be different if you live in the areas affected you would think differently.
I am not aware that anyone on this thread, any other thread, or any other source you care to mention, want the boats to continue.
But he's Palace, so he probably doesn't post on here.0 -
Sorry AA wasn’t responding to your whataboutery post about Lynch/Sugar. It was a response to Prague.Algarveaddick said:
Bit lost here. How would he know what SS? The screen grab I put up was from twitter, the clip Prague put up (mostly about Neill) was from twitter, why would he need to access iPlayer for that?stop_shouting said:
Thanks for the patronising post but how would you know? Unless you’re still illegally downloading BBC IPlayer?PragueAddick said:
If you’d bothered to read back on this thread before diving in you’d know the answer to this and other points you made in your post. My personal “favourite” is Andrew Neil.stop_shouting said:
Wtf you going on about. Why is a tweet by sugar relevant to what the issue at hand is here?Algarveaddick said:
Sorry to bring up a repeat... If he breached the rules, then so did this chap.stop_shouting said:The beeb gotta take a stand here. If lineker has breached impartiality rules then they have to take action. Likewise, with the presenters that have essentially gone on strike in support of him. Surely that’s breach of contract in anyone’s world. By downing tools, they’ve completely screwed up the beebs programming schedule for the indefinite future. As a licence payer, I’d be very annoyed if they let them get away with it.
As for going on strike? Have the tories actually made the right to protest by witholding your labour illegal yet?
I know they would like to.0 -
And Andrew Neil? How do you retro-fit that one?valleynick66 said:
Completely ignoring the point about his ability to ad lib and his frequency on TV.Algarveaddick said:
Lineker didn't tweet on MOTD, he didn't say it on MOTD, he didn't ad lib on MOTD. I think that's what is known as a straw man argument?valleynick66 said:
Not live / near live and able to ad lib though. The Apprentice is just one limited season programme and edited / scripted. Whereas MOTD is weekly and hitting more people more often.Algarveaddick said:
Because Alan Sugar is employed by the BBC to present a high profile prime time TV show, just like Gary Lineker.stop_shouting said:
Wtf you going on about. Why is a tweet by sugar relevant to what the issue at hand is here?Algarveaddick said:
Sorry to bring up a repeat... If he breached the rules, then so did this chap.stop_shouting said:The beeb gotta take a stand here. If lineker has breached impartiality rules then they have to take action. Likewise, with the presenters that have essentially gone on strike in support of him. Surely that’s breach of contract in anyone’s world. By downing tools, they’ve completely screwed up the beebs programming schedule for the indefinite future. As a licence payer, I’d be very annoyed if they let them get away with it.
As for going on strike? Have the tories actually made the right to protest by witholding your labour illegal yet?
I know they would like to.It is a comparison but arguably not the right comparison given their relative roles. He’s more aligned to the presenters on the news programmes I’d say and as I recall some have previously argued / indicated they are constrained by the relevant BBC policy.
He is not a news presenter, neither is Sugar.
It is a very comparable situation.I agreed Sugar is a comparison but not the only one and others are potentially more relevant especially where they have felt constrained to be able to give their opinions.This issue is not his opinion but whether he breached the BBC policy and in doing so is being treated differently to others.My view is I don’t care what he says one way or the other BUT if his bosses previously spoke to him on his social media activity it’s more about his relationship with his bosses.0 -
Worth a watch for all on here.Algarveaddick said:
Strong language alert.LenGlover said:Said it before but could Lineker be a victim of Godwin's Law?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXqVGtxFppQ3 -
0 -
BBC sports presenters or celebrities working as contractors can have independent opinions. It clearly has nothing to do with impartiality. Alan Sugar attacked Labour vociferously & BBC hierarchy didn’t say a word. The Conservatives want to control the whole debate. This is why they also wanted to sell off Channel 4 to stop Channel 4 news.
Conservative BBC Director General, Tim Davies has dug a hole. He has also placed an extra spotlight on Richard Sharp, assisting an £800k loan for Johnson and the general lack of standardsd, that they fail again and again to apply to their own conduct.Davies has created a real difficulty and there are lots of entertainment and sports personalities that that have a social media presence. Does all that result in all those people not having any political opinion contrary to the government. What of Alan Sugar, does that mean he can't comment on anything. I am sure he is going to take that well ?For Match of the Day, it will be a real struggle finding anyone to do that job. Not that the Conservatives care as failing having a veto on output they would be quite happy to see the BBC sink into the sea.8 -
He’s an absolute fucking parasiteR0TW said:5 - Sponsored links:
-
Separate subject but don’t see the fuss around it. I have a friend who is a pretty well known broadcaster on the BBC and does the same. They’re not an employee and are free to work with and invoice other companies.R0TW said:2 -
Date of that article is May 2021R0TW said:4 -
8
-
Lol 😂SELR_addicks said:0 -
I’m not retro fitting anything.PragueAddick said:
And Andrew Neil? How do you retro-fit that one?valleynick66 said:
Completely ignoring the point about his ability to ad lib and his frequency on TV.Algarveaddick said:
Lineker didn't tweet on MOTD, he didn't say it on MOTD, he didn't ad lib on MOTD. I think that's what is known as a straw man argument?valleynick66 said:
Not live / near live and able to ad lib though. The Apprentice is just one limited season programme and edited / scripted. Whereas MOTD is weekly and hitting more people more often.Algarveaddick said:
Because Alan Sugar is employed by the BBC to present a high profile prime time TV show, just like Gary Lineker.stop_shouting said:
Wtf you going on about. Why is a tweet by sugar relevant to what the issue at hand is here?Algarveaddick said:
Sorry to bring up a repeat... If he breached the rules, then so did this chap.stop_shouting said:The beeb gotta take a stand here. If lineker has breached impartiality rules then they have to take action. Likewise, with the presenters that have essentially gone on strike in support of him. Surely that’s breach of contract in anyone’s world. By downing tools, they’ve completely screwed up the beebs programming schedule for the indefinite future. As a licence payer, I’d be very annoyed if they let them get away with it.
As for going on strike? Have the tories actually made the right to protest by witholding your labour illegal yet?
I know they would like to.It is a comparison but arguably not the right comparison given their relative roles. He’s more aligned to the presenters on the news programmes I’d say and as I recall some have previously argued / indicated they are constrained by the relevant BBC policy.
He is not a news presenter, neither is Sugar.
It is a very comparable situation.I agreed Sugar is a comparison but not the only one and others are potentially more relevant especially where they have felt constrained to be able to give their opinions.This issue is not his opinion but whether he breached the BBC policy and in doing so is being treated differently to others.My view is I don’t care what he says one way or the other BUT if his bosses previously spoke to him on his social media activity it’s more about his relationship with his bosses.I’m not suggesting Neill was in alignment with the policy necessarily. But he either left of his own accord or was pushed.I’m reiterating the issue is seemingly the bosses feel he is in conflict with the policy he is governed by. I’m also observing I seem to recall he may have been spoken to before about his use of social media.What’s emerging is that the policy is clearly ambiguous / open to interpretation. It inevitably needs rewording.On reflection the modern day media means there are blurred lines between presenters / journalists / celebrity guests etc. That makes it harder I guess to have a policy that treats the ‘news’ staff differently to others I.e. where most of us would see a need to be completely impartial at all times.We might potentially agree on who we perceive to be the serious journalists at the BBC but a good number on our news programmes to me at least, are better described as presenters. For that category I care not what they say and don’t think there comments would be taken by many to reflect the views of the BBC.They have made a mess of this issue for sure.1 -
There’s nothing worse than a rich smug twat who thinks he is a socialist , the worse kind of hypocrite13
-
stop_shouting said:
He’s an absolute fucking parasiteR0TW said:Seriously, you think it is about a tax bill ?Gary Linekar is expressing an opinion about an illegal, unworkable, inhuman policy that will break human rights conventions and brands refugees as guilty economic migrants before assessment. The Conservatives who allowed the waiting list for asylum decisions to rocket to over 160,000 in 13 years. The Conservatives, who have closed off legal routes and know full well that this policy will fail. Its all to deflect accountability and distract from the terrible state of the country on just about everything on their watch. All for a cynical ploy to save their policital skins from a deserved electoral hiding.19 -
Such a weak argument. So if you’re working class but do well in life you can no longer understand or relate to socialism?Ronnietheghost said:There’s nothing worse than a rich smug twat who thinks he is a socialist , the worse kind of hypocrite16 -
Ronnietheghost said:There’s nothing worse than a rich smug twat who thinks he is a socialist , the worse kind of hypocrite
So you can't be rich and a socialist?
10 -
Sorry but what’s illegal here that he’s expressing an opinion on? I’m sure the Home Secretary is more likely to be on the right side of the law than the lefty parasite. I wonder what his “opinion” is on the allegations that his brother has date raped young girls and embezzled numerous people. I’d be interested to hear that.vff said:stop_shouting said:
He’s an absolute fucking parasiteR0TW said:Seriously, you think it is about a tax bill ?Gary Linekar is expressing an opinion about an illegal, unworkable, inhuman that will break human rights conventions and brands refugees as guilty economic migrants before assessment. The Conservatives who allowed the waiting list for asylum decisions to rocket to over 160,000 in 13 years. The Conservatives, who have closed off legal routes and know full well that this policy will fail. It’s all to deflect accountability and distract from the terrible state of the country on just about everything on their watch. All for a cynical ploy to save their policital skins from a deserved electoral hiding.0 - Sponsored links:
-
Maybe they don't think long highlights without any commentary would work?Manic_mania said:So MOTD is only going to be 20 minutes then with no commentary or pundits.
really don't understand the reason for that call unless they are contractually obliged to only show a certain number of minutes of highlights per game, or they intentionally nuking the show for some reason. Seemed like a golden opportunity to try something a bit different just thrown away.
edit in fact the more I think about it, the more I think this is being intentionally done to piss people off as some kind of strange punishment for supporting GL.0 -
thread closed in 3...2...1......2
-
yeah I guess that's more likely. Still think it's a shame not to attempt it as can't really see the harm. Does the BBC usually get amazing ratings when MOTD isn't on in that time slot?killerandflash said:
Maybe they don't think long highlights without any commentary would work?Manic_mania said:So MOTD is only going to be 20 minutes then with no commentary or pundits.
really don't understand the reason for that call unless they are contractually obliged to only show a certain number of minutes of highlights per game, or they intentionally nuking the show for some reason. Seemed like a golden opportunity to try something a bit different just thrown away.
edit in fact the more I think about it, the more I think this is being intentionally done to piss people off as some kind of strange punishment for supporting GL.
or maybe... (tin foil hat on) they are worried it WILL work, and they have all these pundits etc on long high paying contracts - not just GL ?
*cue x-files music*0 -
Is that the Home Secretary who was found to have broken the Ministerial Code a week before her appointment by the current Prime Minister?stop_shouting said:
Sorry but what’s illegal here that he’s expressing an opinion on? I’m sure the Home Secretary is more likely to be on the right side of the law than the lefty parasite. I wonder what his “opinion” is on the allegations that his brother has date raped young girls and embezzled numerous people. I’d be interested to hear that.vff said:stop_shouting said:
He’s an absolute fucking parasiteR0TW said:Seriously, you think it is about a tax bill ?Gary Linekar is expressing an opinion about an illegal, unworkable, inhuman that will break human rights conventions and brands refugees as guilty economic migrants before assessment. The Conservatives who allowed the waiting list for asylum decisions to rocket to over 160,000 in 13 years. The Conservatives, who have closed off legal routes and know full well that this policy will fail. It’s all to deflect accountability and distract from the terrible state of the country on just about everything on their watch. All for a cynical ploy to save their policital skins from a deserved electoral hiding.12 -
KC Chris Daw doesn’t agree with you, he said this:stop_shouting said:
Sorry but what’s illegal here that he’s expressing an opinion on? I’m sure the Home Secretary is more likely to be on the right side of the law than the lefty parasite. I wonder what his “opinion” is on the allegations that his brother has date raped young girls and embezzled numerous people. I’d be interested to hear that.vff said:stop_shouting said:
He’s an absolute fucking parasiteR0TW said:Seriously, you think it is about a tax bill ?Gary Linekar is expressing an opinion about an illegal, unworkable, inhuman that will break human rights conventions and brands refugees as guilty economic migrants before assessment. The Conservatives who allowed the waiting list for asylum decisions to rocket to over 160,000 in 13 years. The Conservatives, who have closed off legal routes and know full well that this policy will fail. It’s all to deflect accountability and distract from the terrible state of the country on just about everything on their watch. All for a cynical ploy to save their policital skins from a deserved electoral hiding.
Braverman’s blatant lies about the legal position on the asylum bill, including that her “army of lawyers” say it “might be legal”, are so serious and so extreme that she should be disbarred. She is welcome to sue me for libel and I will happily see her in court.
10 -
I'm not, not at all. Boris broke the law. Sunak broke the law, plenty of others too. Braverman, guilty of sending official communications via her insecure personal email six times, and sacked for it, has even suggested in a letter to MPs that there is more than a 50% chance that her plan may break international human rights laws. They know the law, they demonstrably just don't give a shit.stop_shouting said:
Sorry but what’s illegal here that he’s expressing an opinion on? I’m sure the Home Secretary is more likely to be on the right side of the law than the lefty parasite. I wonder what his “opinion” is on the allegations that his brother has date raped young girls and embezzled numerous people. I’d be interested to hear that.vff said:stop_shouting said:
He’s an absolute fucking parasiteR0TW said:Seriously, you think it is about a tax bill ?Gary Linekar is expressing an opinion about an illegal, unworkable, inhuman that will break human rights conventions and brands refugees as guilty economic migrants before assessment. The Conservatives who allowed the waiting list for asylum decisions to rocket to over 160,000 in 13 years. The Conservatives, who have closed off legal routes and know full well that this policy will fail. It’s all to deflect accountability and distract from the terrible state of the country on just about everything on their watch. All for a cynical ploy to save their policital skins from a deserved electoral hiding.
18 -
stop_shouting said:
Sorry but what’s illegal here that he’s expressing an opinion on? I’m sure the Home Secretary is more likely to be on the right side of the law than the lefty parasite. I wonder what his “opinion” is on the allegations that his brother has date raped young girls and embezzled numerous people. I’d be interested to hear that.vff said:stop_shouting said:
He’s an absolute fucking parasiteR0TW said:Seriously, you think it is about a tax bill ?Gary Linekar is expressing an opinion about an illegal, unworkable, inhuman that will break human rights conventions and brands refugees as guilty economic migrants before assessment. The Conservatives who allowed the waiting list for asylum decisions to rocket to over 160,000 in 13 years. The Conservatives, who have closed off legal routes and know full well that this policy will fail. It’s all to deflect accountability and distract from the terrible state of the country on just about everything on their watch. All for a cynical ploy to save their policital skins from a deserved electoral hiding.
I agree: I've been racking my brain for examples of senior ministers not following the law, and nothing comes to mind.
4 -
Those comparing Lord Alan Sugar with Lineker should remember that Lord Sugar is a member of the House of Lords, part of the legislature of this country, sitting I believe on the Labour benches.
His role there probably trumps his part as Big Boss on a BBC reality programme.2 -
I don’t agree with well known lefty KC Daw either. Any KC that goes public with comments like that is an embarrassmentGary Poole said:
KC Chris Daw doesn’t agree with you, he said this:stop_shouting said:
Sorry but what’s illegal here that he’s expressing an opinion on? I’m sure the Home Secretary is more likely to be on the right side of the law than the lefty parasite. I wonder what his “opinion” is on the allegations that his brother has date raped young girls and embezzled numerous people. I’d be interested to hear that.vff said:stop_shouting said:
He’s an absolute fucking parasiteR0TW said:Seriously, you think it is about a tax bill ?Gary Linekar is expressing an opinion about an illegal, unworkable, inhuman that will break human rights conventions and brands refugees as guilty economic migrants before assessment. The Conservatives who allowed the waiting list for asylum decisions to rocket to over 160,000 in 13 years. The Conservatives, who have closed off legal routes and know full well that this policy will fail. It’s all to deflect accountability and distract from the terrible state of the country on just about everything on their watch. All for a cynical ploy to save their policital skins from a deserved electoral hiding.
Braverman’s blatant lies about the legal position on the asylum bill, including that her “army of lawyers” say it “might be legal”, are so serious and so extreme that she should be disbarred. She is welcome to sue me for libel and I will happily see her in court.4 -
stop_shouting said:
Sorry but what’s illegal here that he’s expressing an opinion on? I’m sure the Home Secretary is more likely to be on the right side of the law than the lefty parasite. I wonder what his “opinion” is on the allegations that his brother has date raped young girls and embezzled numerous people. I’d be interested to hear that.vff said:stop_shouting said:
He’s an absolute fucking parasiteR0TW said:Seriously, you think it is about a tax bill ?Gary Linekar is expressing an opinion about an illegal, unworkable, inhuman that will break human rights conventions and brands refugees as guilty economic migrants before assessment. The Conservatives who allowed the waiting list for asylum decisions to rocket to over 160,000 in 13 years. The Conservatives, who have closed off legal routes and know full well that this policy will fail. It’s all to deflect accountability and distract from the terrible state of the country on just about everything on their watch. All for a cynical ploy to save their policital skins from a deserved electoral hiding.I think you are on a wind up, so ain't going to bite. You not liking Gary Linekar has got feck all to with the debate on the illegal migrant bill that is acknowledged by its authors that it is likely illegal in International Law. The confected outrage about someone opposing an inhumane bill and attack on them is part of the playbook. The aim to draw away from the actual unworkable and inhumane bill.Also the dehumanising and misrepresentation of language about people seeking refuge. Add in the concerning thing of a Conservative hard right influenced authorian government and associated right wing media trying to veto opinion and opposition to its terrible bill within a national broadcaster.I will leave it that, ain't going to comment on your stuff, as I am pretty sure its an attempted wind up and I have better things to do.16
This discussion has been closed.
