Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Lineker and Attenborough
Comments
-
Did you think that Lord Sugar was abusing his position?stop_shouting said:
I’m not on the wind up. I have a different view to you and I think Lineker is abusing his position.vff said: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 it’s an attempted wind up and I have better things to do.
I know it's whataboutery, but it is relevant. I think that both were entitled to express themselves as they did, presumably you don't?2 -
I actually wrote the words "he didn't ad lib on MOTD." - how is that ignoring it? His frequency on TV is also covered in straw man argument comment.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.
In your own words "...BUT if his bosses previously spoke to him on his social media activity...". There is a but and an if there. But what if they didn't?
Works both ways...3 -
Just to lighten this a little, so I’ve just watched ‘Match of The Day ‘now.My 12 year son spent about 2hrs last night making his own, cutting two iMovies together on his phone. He used the theme tune and an old clip of the MOTD empty studio set, then cut in all the key tweets around the issue, a Five Live commentator setting out the situation, then added all the Sky and BT match highlights coverage with their commentary, sourced post match interviews with both managers, whilst adding his own intro, continuing comments and some stats.Two videos, 25 mins and 20 mins. Kids nowadays are unbelievable with tech. I’ve the same phone and can basically search the web and send WhatsApp’s!31
-
I know you were not - that's why I wrote "How would he know what SS?"- I was referring to Prague and asking about the relevance of his access to iPlayer to this particular discussion? Obviously not whataboutery as you are so against it, so what did it mean?stop_shouting said:
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 -
As a Thatcherite Tory, what do you expect?Algarveaddick said:
Interesting insight into your psyche there SA. Not interested in the human aspect, or the motivations of individuals. Just the money... mmmm....SporadicAddick said:
In fairness, many people I know haven't watched the punditry for years - sky+ (other systems are available) has been a godsend.1StevieG said:Makes you wonder why people bother watching it if they are that bothered with punditry etc.,
I also find it weird people say they hate Gary Lineker???? Really? Why does he wind people up so much? Don’t watch him if you don’t like him ffs.
I don’t like Piers Morgan but I’m not watching TalkTV so he can wind me up some more. People are so precious these days.
It's not just MOTD (and Football League highlights) that has benefitted from this, but virtually every other programme as well.
If anyone watches The Chase, winding through the bit where the contestants are asked their opinion is a lifesaver. "I think you could get the 25 thousand, but we'd really want you back here, so I'd stick with the 6" ad nauseam.
1 -
This bit didn't happen though did it? Not unless your definition of professional border control is waving people through and directing visitors like a 2012 Olympics Games Maker?SporadicAddick said:Well I quite enjoyed MOTD last night.
It's a bit like when Border Force officers went on strike recently and the army stepped in and did a better job.
Extend it to 30 minutes, put a clock in the corner so we know what stage of the game it is, and have the occasional statistic pop up in a box and you have a winning formula.
Public service broadcasting at its best.
I did watch MOTD, I always do, and it was a very weird, and different, experience without the theme tune, commentary, between game chit chat, etc. I didn't miss Danny Murphy but I suspect few Addicks would tbh.
I wouldn't have watched it had my viewing it counted towards their viewing figures but I don't think that's how it works.5 -
I disagree. it was a compilation of past political comments from Gary Lineker that were equally 'biased' yet drew little attention.InspectorSands said:
That's a video from Twitter, it's not from the BBC. Probably not best to stick tweets from randoms making grand claims in this discussion, on either side.
Attenborough has left the conversations. The BBC said that episode was never going to air anyway. Is that us being gas lit? I struggle to understand that term.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/a-history-of-gary-linekers-most-controversial-tweets-from-brexit-to-russian-donors-12829271
For 'balance' the Mail, Guardian and Evening Standard posted very similar to the above, and so similar to my deleted video - except the video asked what has changed since 2018..?
0 -
A £700 quid phone ‘n all…AFKABartram said:Just to lighten this a little, so I’ve just watched ‘Match of The Day ‘now.My 12 year son spent about 2hrs last night making his own, cutting two iMovies together on his phone. He used the theme tune and an old clip of the MOTD empty studio set, then cut in all the key tweets around the issue, a Five Live commentator setting out the situation, then added all the Sky and BT match highlights coverage with their commentary, sourced post match interviews with both managers, whilst adding his own intro, continuing comments and some stats.Two videos, 25 mins and 20 mins. Kids nowadays are unbelievable with tech. I’ve the same phone and can basically search the web and send WhatsApp’s!0 -
That's amazing! A career in post production awaits.AFKABartram said:Just to lighten this a little, so I’ve just watched ‘Match of The Day ‘now.My 12 year son spent about 2hrs last night making his own, cutting two iMovies together on his phone. He used the theme tune and an old clip of the MOTD empty studio set, then cut in all the key tweets around the issue, a Five Live commentator setting out the situation, then added all the Sky and BT match highlights coverage with their commentary, sourced post match interviews with both managers, whilst adding his own intro, continuing comments and some stats.Two videos, 25 mins and 20 mins. Kids nowadays are unbelievable with tech. I’ve the same phone and can basically search the web and send WhatsApp’s!
He couldn't splice in highlights of the game Prague mentioned above for us could he? Then we could all pretend we followed a decent football team...5 -
On the subject of pundits, I rarely watch a live Premier league game on Sky nowadays but had last Sunday's Liverpool vs Man Utd game on in the background in the kitchen whilst we were cooking a roast. It must have been an hour after the game finished and they still had Souness, Keane, Neville, Carragher et al talking about the game. I know they have to fill their schedules but I just wonder how many people outside the supporters of the teams involved are actually still watching an hour after the game.
It's the same with pre and post match Rugby analysis yesterday. I just wonder if the TV bods ever conduct surveys as to how match viewers really value some of this stuff. They could save an awful lot of money by only employing half the numbers of pundits and only using them for half the time.3 - Sponsored links:
-
I don't even watch the post match analysis on Charlton TV unless we have given someone a right tonking.robinofottershaw said:On the subject of pundits, I rarely watch a live Premier league game on Sky nowadays but had last Sunday's Liverpool vs Man Utd game on in the background in the kitchen whilst we were cooking a roast. It must have been an hour after the game finished and they still had Souness, Keane, Neville, Carragher et al talking about the game. I know they have to fill their schedules but I just wonder how many people outside the supporters of the teams involved are actually still watching an hour after the game.
It's the same with pre and post match Rugby analysis yesterday. I just wonder if the TV bods ever conduct surveys as to how match viewers really value some of this stuff. They could save an awful lot of money by only employing half the numbers of pundits and only using them for half the time.
In other words, I don't even watch the post match analysis on Charlton TV.24 -
perhaps I am misreading your comment but I mean he can ad lib / speak more freely not that he has yet said something controversial or implied anything whilst presenting.Algarveaddick said:
I actually wrote the words "he didn't ad lib on MOTD." - how is that ignoring it? His frequency on TV is also covered in straw man argument comment.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.
In your own words "...BUT if his bosses previously spoke to him on his social media activity...". There is a but and an if there. But what if they didn't?
Works both ways...I’m merely making the point they are different types of presenters in their respective programmes. Perhaps the DG is nervous GL could say something which they have less ability to control? To reiterate I thing the comparison to AS is less meaningful and he is in a different category of worker there.
as to previous tweets I thought (but may be wrong) he had been spoken to about social media previously.Regardless to reiterate I personally don’t care what he says one way or the other. This issue is incredibly badly managed by the BBC and only highlights how their policy is flawed.1 -
Good post. I don’t understand the mentality either, but I do understand how we got here.AFKABartram said:When did it come a thing that you have to hate those with differing views to you? Not sure how society has evolved in such a way over the last 20-odd years, but it feels the rule nowadays rather than the exception.
No idea how some can hate Lineker. Even if you don’t agree with his non-football views, or think his clear compassion for others is hypocritical simply because he happens to be rich, I just don’t get how some can get so wound up by him.
26 -
Two comments this morning. Andrew Castle saying he was working with Lineker on Thursday and Lineker agreed with him that it was a step too far to draw an analogy between the actions of Nazi Germany and the Government's immigration. Then Lineker's son quoted as saying his dad won't back down. Will be interesting to see how positions evolve over the coming days.0
-
People can have different opinions, it is when those opinions are manifested in actions that hatred and division occurs.
A vote is an action.0 -
I had to remind myself who Andrew Castle is and what his current political agenda is. So I'll take that with a large pinch of salt . And it turns out he's got form for attacking Linekerrobinofottershaw said:Two comments this morning. Andrew Castle saying he was working with Lineker on Thursday and Lineker agreed with him that it was a step too far to draw an analogy between the actions of Nazi Germany and the Government's immigration. Then Lineker's son quoted as saying his dad won't back down. Will be interesting to see how positions evolve over the coming days.
1 -
Exactly, Cameron eventually came to "absolute power" without a fire.Gary Poole said:
The fire wasn’t how he came to power, it was how he made his power absolute.SporadicAddick said:
So you agree the Germans didn’t put Hitler into power by democratic means?Gary Poole said:
By November 1932 the Nazi’s held the most seats in the Reichstag. In January 1933 Hitler was made Chancellor in a coalition, in much the same way that David Cameron first became Prime Minister here.SporadicAddick said:
The Germans didn't put Hitler into power though democratic means. .ShootersHillGuru said:
Which analogy is wrong ?SporadicAddick said:
There's only so far you can stretch historical analogies, and I fear this is a step too far.ShootersHillGuru said:
How do you think Hitler persuaded the Germans to put him into power. He employed hate speech and the demonising of a minority. If you cannot see any similarities between the language Hitler employed and what people like our Home Secretary are using then you need to look a little closer. Language is how it started, followed by removal of human rights. Ring any bells ? Resettlement to the east ! What direction is Rwanda ?The_Organiser said:
Personally I think GL knew exactly what that implied. As we all know what followed the language in Germany.ShootersHillGuru said:
He didn’t make that comparison. He said some of the language used is not dissimilar.cfgs said:Not getting in to the whole debate about the BBC, etc but MOTD without the punditry means more football, which is good.
I will however say that if Mr Lineker knew anything about the rise of Hitler and his mob he wouldn't make the comparison. He owes an apology not to the government but to the memory of all those who suffered at the hands of the Third Reich.
If you think the language of our Government resembles Mein Kampf well....I cant really explain that to you.
Your analogy is as much nonsense as suggesting a Corbyn vctory in the 2019 election would have resulted in Gulags up north and the purging of the Milliband brothers..
I can’t recall Cameron arranging a fire at Parliament.
...and that's why this (and other) analogies are silly.0 -
Agreed. Have you wondered why the most precious seem to so precious about others being precious. It puzzles me.1StevieG said:Makes you wonder why people bother watching it if they are that bothered with punditry and post match thoughts. It’s like the record button or YouTube never existed.
I also find it weird people say they hate Gary Lineker???? Really? Why does he wind people up so much? Don’t watch him if you don’t like him ffs.
I don’t like Piers Morgan but I’m not watching TalkTV so he can wind me up some more and then whang on about it on social media….oh hang on….😂
People are so precious these days.1 -
Its a mess of truly epic proportions
Gary Lineker has never hidden away from speaking out politically and has had his share of people get on his case subsequently. When you read what he actually said its difficult to argue with but he didn't say it on the BBC, he said it on his own personal twitter page. In the same way that loads of people do and then people who disagree with them (I'm offended so I must be right and everyone must change to suit me and my world narrative) want them cancelled, vilified or made to apologise. Its nonsense absolute nonsense.
Immigration is something that never ends in a sensible conversation. It ends usually when someone either says something extreme or someone calls the other a racist/bigot whatever. The country needs a totally fact-based conversation on the topic when the world eventually calms down and finds its brains again.
As for the head of the BBC, there is no coming back from this and to think he will probably get a huge financial handshake as well, that winds me up. I genuinely don't think the BBC news is seriously pushing any agenda, I'm in the middle and see plebty of people from the left and right say the same thing when they report something they don't agree with, hardly an accurate fact checked statistic but it is about all I have to go on. For what its worth I think most news outlets have an angle, not necessarily an agenda. This however has drawn the covers back and the fact you have the head of the BBC guarantors a loan and actually giving money to that corrupt slug Johnson is about as telling as it gets.
14 -
Was going to say the Southampton 5-0, Charlton top of the league one!PragueAddick said:
Í’m sorry. Ahead of a long list of candidates this is the most unacceptable post in the entire thread.Slartibartfast said:That was the best Match of the Day since the start of the premier league.Any proper Charlton knows that the best MOTD ever was the season opener in August 2000 with Motty commenting as newly promoted Charlton thrashed Citeh - George Weah allegedly playing and Noel Gallagher definitely in the Jimmy seed - 4-0 with debutant Kevin Lisbie also twice hitting the woodwork. In Motty’s immortal words “this is turning into something of a rout”. They showed the table with Charlton on top of the Premier League, and Citeh bottom.Shocking loss of perspective😉2 - Sponsored links:
-
the bottom line is if we ban asylum for people coming here illegally then the only way someone can claim asylum in the uk is if your rich enough and educated enough to get yourself a visa and come by plane and then claim asylum once you get here on your visa. there are no safe routes other then Ukraine and syria and afghanistan and those Ukrainians are not being granted asylum they are being granted temporary leave to remain. And hey lets look at how well the afghan scheme has gone.stop_shouting said:
Anything to try and stop the boats and undocumented young blokes roaming around the country is deemed rascist. It’s ridiculous. Surely something needs to change. Anyway, this is about Lineker breaking impartiality rules which I’m pretty sure he’s done.Gary Poole said:
That doesn’t surprise me, but it also doesn’t make either you or Bravrerman correct. I suspect she won’t sue KC Daw for libel and I also suspect the asylum bill as it stands will be proved to be illegal. Perhaps the government will change the law to accommodate it.stop_shouting said:
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.
So if we truely only want a system where the rich can get asylum by all means lets stop the small boats 100 percent. now if your a young gay man with no money or education living in a country where being gay is illegal, the inability to get here via a visa means the UK wont welcome you as an Asylum seeker because your not rich enough to qualify for a visa. If your an uneducated women who has escaped a country where you have zero prospects other then forced marriage and a life of domestic violence a hey you have no way to claim asylum in the UK.
Makes me sick when i hear people say why did they not use a safe route The simple reason being there is no safe route. using the example of the gay man in nigeria unless they can get a visa to get here which means money and education then there is no other way to get to the UK. should the UK turn its back on that gay man who in Nigeria can legally be imprisoned for being gay. Do we turn our back on that gay man in nigeria who in around 13 states would face the death penalty for being gay. do we turn our back on him simply because he cannot qualify for a visa to get here or do we say to that gay man who has travelled by boat, do we welcome to the safety of the United Kingdom we dont care that you got here illegally, being gay is not a crime.
Before the argument goes but what about all those safe countries, yes and those safe countries take more asylum seekers then the UK. so do you stay in a country where the wait for asylum is longer then the Uk. because a life waiting for asylum is a life in which your whole being is on hold, If you have family who can help you in the Uk do you stay in a country where you dont speak the language and you have no family support. Take a look at the actual statistics not the daily mail propoganda the UK is so far down the list on asylum seekers its quite shocking.
As for undocumented young men, most men travelling right now are from Albania, they are not undocumented and are very easy to return as it goes. They can be returned to Albania without there passport or identity documents. The problem is the government downgraded the roles of asylum decision makers so they cannot keep people in the job. someone spends 6 months doing the job and then decides do you know what theres all these easier jobs on more money going in the civil service lets jump to those. thats why there is a backlog as the uk asylum system cannot retain its staff as the job is so target driven and so complicated people get there foot in the door and jump ship elsewhere normally within the year. the average life span of a asylum decision maker is 2 years but these figures are warped by a minority of decision makers who stay longer then that 2 years. As for returns yeah it was this government who cut the staff in the teams trying to return those 'illegal' migrants.
If you truly believe the big problem that is facing this country right now is undocumented young men then you live a good life with no need to worry about the price rises which are crippling many many people. AND no just to clarify the propaganda most asylum seekers are not put up in hotels, most are not given benefits. Those few and it is few in the scheme of things which qualify for a hotel are given spending money of around 36 pounds a week. Now even with accommodation provided could you live on 36 pounds a week. How do you build a life on 36 pounds, you want to date someone well how can you do that on 36 pounds
Oh they could work but no the UK government thought the EU and won The UK fought to prevent asylum seekers working and won. So its the UK who denies these human beings the chance to work for a wage whilst there waiting an awfully long time for a decison. Yes they can work after a year but even then its only in the jobs on the shortage occupation list. Jobs very few qualify to do to begin with. So how can an asylum seeker not have to rely on the 36 pound benefit when the UK government ban them from working. Oh yes those undocumented asylum seekers do break the law many have no choice they cant live on 36 pounds and yes some break the law because they are bad people. But being bad people is not isolated to undocumented minors not when you consider the met alone have over 100 officers on desk duties because if they committed the acts they did before they got their jobs they would not have passed the security process to begin with. But the right wing media love honing in on a bad act committed by a minority and somehow apply it to the majority and people lap it up.
Oh yes Gary Linker breaking impartiality rules funny did not see the same outrage from conservative mps when other BBC employees have done so. So its okay to break the rules if you support us but not okay if your against.
And im sure my spelling and grammer is way off but you know what thats,unlike being gay (in some countries) is not a crime......yet26 -
Gary Linneker on a pre Conservative Tim Davie arrival freelance contract. Post 2020, new Director General, Davie (previously stood for Conservatives & deputy head of Hammersmith & Fulham Association) put in a tighter contract on celebrities speaking out. See on BBC career below.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Davie
So Davie, probably getting a call from the Tory Press HQ bat phone / hotline to reign Lineker in. The contract Lineker is pre Davie. Davie previously justified Lineker’s contract to the value Lineker gives to the BBC viewing audience. Lineker appears to be in a strong position.The result of Davie’s intervention spotlighted his own connections & Richard Sharpe, new chair of BBC to the Conservative party & the apparent blunt direct pressure of criticism of contentious government policy. Richard Sharpe (donation to Tories 400k) and neglecting to mention facilitating a £800k loan to Boris Johnson, whilst interviewing for the job.Laughably Sunak tries to pretend that there is no connection between the Conservatives & the Lineker removal.Conservatives still banging on about probity of Lineker’s comments whilst pushing a bill that breaks international law & human rights.Apparently BBC wants to renegotiate the Lineker contract. Good luck on that one.
5 -
This fiasco has come directly from the very top of the BBC. The government have installed their man as DG and It’s not allowed to criticise the government these days without, where able for them trying to close it down. For the record. Lineker is not employed by the BBC. He is a freelancer and as such he is perfectly entitled to post whatever he wants on his personal social media. The BBC recognise this. Like pretty much everything else this government does this is vindictive and draconian. Tim Davie, the Director General is a formerly active Conservative Party member and failed Tory Councillor. He remains a supporter of the Conservative Party. He’s bowed to pressure from the government to shut Lineker down. I don’t think either the government or Davie imagined the levels of support Lineker has. Massive own goal for both the government and BBC.7
-
Player of year?seth plum said:People can have different opinions, it is when those opinions are manifested in actions that hatred and division occurs.
A vote is an action.
0 -
There have been a lot of Tories on the media exhibiting the smile on the face of the tiger by insincerely insisting that Lineker is the best sports presenter in the history of the world.
Then they bang on about impartiality being the issue.
I don’t believe a word the Tories say, the whole shebang is a diversion.1 -
Agreed. But Sharp is even more egregious a govt appointment. He has to go now. Together with “Sir” Robbie Gibb. Look him up. He’s the biggest **** of the three. There’s a case for Davie. The BBC has to re-negotiate the licence fee with a Tory government, and his pitch for the role was based on his ability to do that as a win-win. I’m far from convinced but believe that he believes in the BBC. Sharp and Gibb are there to destroy it.ShootersHillGuru said:This fiasco has come directly from the very top of the BBC. The government have installed their man as DG and It’s not allowed to criticise the government these days without, where able for them trying to close it down. For the record. Lineker is not employed by the BBC. He is a freelancer and as such he is perfectly entitled to post whatever he wants on his personal social media. The BBC recognise this. Like pretty much everything else this government does this is vindictive and draconian. Tim Davie, the Director General is a formerly active Conservative Party member and failed Tory Councillor. He remains a supporter of the Conservative Party. He’s bowed to pressure from the government to shut Lineker down. I don’t think either the government or Davie imagined the levels of support Lineker has. Massive own goal for both the government and BBC.
5 -
For anyone not thinking this persecution of Lineker isn’t politically driven. Take a look below at another genuine complaint received by the BBC about one of its freelancers. This is where the BBC officially recognises that freelance presenters are free to write whatever they want on their own social media platforms. That’s of course the unless the DG has been instructed to shut down the criticism because the government don’t want people to hear the truth.
9 -
Your spelling and grammar are forgiven for such a well researched and kind, thoughtful, well reasoned post.Northstandpieeater said:
the bottom line is if we ban asylum for people coming here illegally then the only way someone can claim asylum in the uk is if your rich enough and educated enough to get yourself a visa and come by plane and then claim asylum once you get here on your visa. there are no safe routes other then Ukraine and syria and afghanistan and those Ukrainians are not being granted asylum they are being granted temporary leave to remain. And hey lets look at how well the afghan scheme has gone.stop_shouting said:
Anything to try and stop the boats and undocumented young blokes roaming around the country is deemed rascist. It’s ridiculous. Surely something needs to change. Anyway, this is about Lineker breaking impartiality rules which I’m pretty sure he’s done.Gary Poole said:
That doesn’t surprise me, but it also doesn’t make either you or Bravrerman correct. I suspect she won’t sue KC Daw for libel and I also suspect the asylum bill as it stands will be proved to be illegal. Perhaps the government will change the law to accommodate it.stop_shouting said:
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.
So if we truely only want a system where the rich can get asylum by all means lets stop the small boats 100 percent. now if your a young gay man with no money or education living in a country where being gay is illegal, the inability to get here via a visa means the UK wont welcome you as an Asylum seeker because your not rich enough to qualify for a visa. If your an uneducated women who has escaped a country where you have zero prospects other then forced marriage and a life of domestic violence a hey you have no way to claim asylum in the UK.
Makes me sick when i hear people say why did they not use a safe route The simple reason being there is no safe route. using the example of the gay man in nigeria unless they can get a visa to get here which means money and education then there is no other way to get to the UK. should the UK turn its back on that gay man who in Nigeria can legally be imprisoned for being gay. Do we turn our back on that gay man in nigeria who in around 13 states would face the death penalty for being gay. do we turn our back on him simply because he cannot qualify for a visa to get here or do we say to that gay man who has travelled by boat, do we welcome to the safety of the United Kingdom we dont care that you got here illegally, being gay is not a crime.
Before the argument goes but what about all those safe countries, yes and those safe countries take more asylum seekers then the UK. so do you stay in a country where the wait for asylum is longer then the Uk. because a life waiting for asylum is a life in which your whole being is on hold, If you have family who can help you in the Uk do you stay in a country where you dont speak the language and you have no family support. Take a look at the actual statistics not the daily mail propoganda the UK is so far down the list on asylum seekers its quite shocking.
As for undocumented young men, most men travelling right now are from Albania, they are not undocumented and are very easy to return as it goes. They can be returned to Albania without there passport or identity documents. The problem is the government downgraded the roles of asylum decision makers so they cannot keep people in the job. someone spends 6 months doing the job and then decides do you know what theres all these easier jobs on more money going in the civil service lets jump to those. thats why there is a backlog as the uk asylum system cannot retain its staff as the job is so target driven and so complicated people get there foot in the door and jump ship elsewhere normally within the year. the average life span of a asylum decision maker is 2 years but these figures are warped by a minority of decision makers who stay longer then that 2 years. As for returns yeah it was this government who cut the staff in the teams trying to return those 'illegal' migrants.
If you truly believe the big problem that is facing this country right now is undocumented young men then you live a good life with no need to worry about the price rises which are crippling many many people. AND no just to clarify the propaganda most asylum seekers are not put up in hotels, most are not given benefits. Those few and it is few in the scheme of things which qualify for a hotel are given spending money of around 36 pounds a week. Now even with accommodation provided could you live on 36 pounds a week. How do you build a life on 36 pounds, you want to date someone well how can you do that on 36 pounds
Oh they could work but no the UK government thought the EU and won The UK fought to prevent asylum seekers working and won. So its the UK who denies these human beings the chance to work for a wage whilst there waiting an awfully long time for a decison. Yes they can work after a year but even then its only in the jobs on the shortage occupation list. Jobs very few qualify to do to begin with. So how can an asylum seeker not have to rely on the 36 pound benefit when the UK government ban them from working. Oh yes those undocumented asylum seekers do break the law many have no choice they cant live on 36 pounds and yes some break the law because they are bad people. But being bad people is not isolated to undocumented minors not when you consider the met alone have over 100 officers on desk duties because if they committed the acts they did before they got their jobs they would not have passed the security process to begin with. But the right wing media love honing in on a bad act committed by a minority and somehow apply it to the majority and people lap it up.
Oh yes Gary Linker breaking impartiality rules funny did not see the same outrage from conservative mps when other BBC employees have done so. So its okay to break the rules if you support us but not okay if your against.
And im sure my spelling and grammer is way off but you know what thats,unlike being gay (in some countries) is not a crime......yet10 -
Back to the football, I actually missed the commentary and punditry on MOTD last night. Worth noting that the highlights were shorter too, which was the main reason the programme was shorter.0
-
What does the UK government’s bill on illegal immigration propose?
Ministers say the bill will stop people crossing the Channel in small boats but critics say the plans are unworkable
This article explains very clearly why the proposals are unworkable.
2
This discussion has been closed.
