It's almost tempting to agree the referendum after all...but not quite.
Never worth the risk (notwithstanding that the request for one should have been granted on a democratic basis).
I'm always a pessimist on these matters, so I'm just waiting for the number to surge back up once the SNP finish their internal squabble and reassert discipline, reassuring the wider Yes movement.
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that we have seen peak SNP. They have had an excellent run over the last 10 years or so with 2 very strong leaders but the wheels are coming off and the replacements don't look up to it.
None of which suggests that Scotland is likely to be competently governed any time soon.
I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks. (He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks. (He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
"smooth-talking"?
I'm not into football, so I don't see him often. But when I do see him, he has the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. Perhaps that is unfair, because of the first clause.
It is unfair, and you're probably correct as to why.
Whether or not you think it's enough to justify his wage or agree with his politics, Lineker is an excellent sports anchor - experienced, knowledgeable, well connected in football, engaging, and able to keep the conversation flowing with pundits.
I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks. (He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
I find it impossible to really get exercised by arguments about Lineker. As an employee of the BBC standards generally are that they should avoid overt political comments, and I don't think that is unreasonable, but it's clear he doesn't want to do that and to date they have had no interest in making him avoid it.
I like him as a presenter, so if they sacked him over it that'd be a shame, but not actually unfair either, since if you don't want to be constrained by BBC policy you don't have to work for it.
Conversely, sacking him won't shut him up so the goverment won't have achieved anything other than pissing off people who may like their policies but don't see the big deal if the football guy mouths off on twitter - most celebrities reveal themsevels to be at best ordinary and at worst pretty dumb when they opine on issues outside their area of expertise.
So they all might as well just retain the status quo, with a 'he shouldn't say that if he's working for the BBC' wrist slap, then he does it again and there's outrage, then repeat.
I don’t see why he should be sacked. Certainly for this. Best thing is to say nothing for the govt. they’ve just encouraged more comment and handled it poorly. He’s hardly going to stop.
It's almost tempting to agree the referendum after all...but not quite.
Never worth the risk (notwithstanding that the request for one should have been granted on a democratic basis).
I'm always a pessimist on these matters, so I'm just waiting for the number to surge back up once the SNP finish their internal squabble and reassert discipline, reassuring the wider Yes movement.
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that we have seen peak SNP. They have had an excellent run over the last 10 years or so with 2 very strong leaders but the wheels are coming off and the replacements don't look up to it.
None of which suggests that Scotland is likely to be competently governed any time soon.
Speaking for myself I've currently downgraded my own expectations from 'competent government' to simply 'not disastrous government'. Seems more achievable.
Specifically, according to information from ARD-Hauptstadtstudio,Kontraste, SWR and ZEIT, the investigators have succeeded in identifying the boat that was allegedly used for the secret operation. It is said to be a yacht that was rented by a company based in Poland, which apparently belongs to two Ukrainians. According to the investigation, the secret operation at sea is said to have been carried out by a team of six people. It is said to have been five men and one woman. According to this, the group consisted of a captain, two divers, two diving assistants and a doctor
:
The yacht was subsequently returned to the owner in uncleaned condition. According to the research, the investigators were able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.
Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.
Any price is what two people agree it is.
Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.
Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.
The point is I choose to buy Sky, I choose to buy Netflix, I choose to buy Amazon. I have NO choice in the licence fee. None. Why does the BBC feel it has to compete against other channels? Why pay for top 'talent'? Its got a guaranteed income.
If it become a subscription that I could choose then I would have no beef with the employment of Lineker (other than that I think he is not worth the money). I would be choosing to subscribe. Right now I cannot opt out and legally watch other channels.
Why do NHS hospitals feel the need to compete with private sector for qualified doctors? Why pay for "top" talent? Why isn't someone off Universal Credit doing heart operations? Why aren't State school teachers all on minimum wage? Nobody chooses to buy them after all. They have a guaranteed income.
Why does the BBC need to have what they consider to be top talent? Are they competing for viewers to purchase their product? NO! Its already a guaranteed income. If a lesser known presenter presented MOTD - say Alex Scott, for a tenth of Lineker's salary, what would be the consequence on BBC income? Nothing, zero, nada. And they would have more money for other stuff. BBC act like they are competing with Sky, ITV, Amazon, Netflix, yet in reality they aren't - the income will always be there.
I don't see why people find this a hard concept.
For Lineker, getting a whopping salary (hang on, thought he wasn't an employee, so salary isn't correct...) is an example of market forces - I totally accept that. But the BBC doesn't need to pay for him.
And I don't disagree. But I don't see why you can't see that the very same argument applies to every Public Sector role. You want you new hip done by a top surgeon or an ex-con on a three week work experience trial?
That’s a ridiculous argument. How difficult is it to present MOTD vs hip surgery? I’d argue there are many, many people who could do the former, far fewer the latter.
I'm not sure there's ever been much correlation between the difficulty of a job and its pay.
If there was most managers would earn less than their underlings
I thought it was about responsibility, getting paid more.
I'd already lost my respect for Sunak, this makes it sink even lower though.
Not just Sunak though, its the majority of the party, at least at the end that makes the decisions. Cynical punching down to win votes is fine with them and indeed they put more effort into that than fixing the real problems.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.
Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.
Any price is what two people agree it is.
Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.
Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.
The point is I choose to buy Sky, I choose to buy Netflix, I choose to buy Amazon. I have NO choice in the licence fee. None. Why does the BBC feel it has to compete against other channels? Why pay for top 'talent'? Its got a guaranteed income.
If it become a subscription that I could choose then I would have no beef with the employment of Lineker (other than that I think he is not worth the money). I would be choosing to subscribe. Right now I cannot opt out and legally watch other channels.
Why do NHS hospitals feel the need to compete with private sector for qualified doctors? Why pay for "top" talent? Why isn't someone off Universal Credit doing heart operations? Why aren't State school teachers all on minimum wage? Nobody chooses to buy them after all. They have a guaranteed income.
Why does the BBC need to have what they consider to be top talent? Are they competing for viewers to purchase their product? NO! Its already a guaranteed income. If a lesser known presenter presented MOTD - say Alex Scott, for a tenth of Lineker's salary, what would be the consequence on BBC income? Nothing, zero, nada. And they would have more money for other stuff. BBC act like they are competing with Sky, ITV, Amazon, Netflix, yet in reality they aren't - the income will always be there.
I don't see why people find this a hard concept.
For Lineker, getting a whopping salary (hang on, thought he wasn't an employee, so salary isn't correct...) is an example of market forces - I totally accept that. But the BBC doesn't need to pay for him.
And I don't disagree. But I don't see why you can't see that the very same argument applies to every Public Sector role. You want you new hip done by a top surgeon or an ex-con on a three week work experience trial?
That’s a ridiculous argument. How difficult is it to present MOTD vs hip surgery? I’d argue there are many, many people who could do the former, far fewer the latter.
I'm not sure there's ever been much correlation between the difficulty of a job and its pay.
If there was most managers would earn less than their underlings
I thought it was about responsibility, getting paid more.
Specifically, according to information from ARD-Hauptstadtstudio,Kontraste, SWR and ZEIT, the investigators have succeeded in identifying the boat that was allegedly used for the secret operation. It is said to be a yacht that was rented by a company based in Poland, which apparently belongs to two Ukrainians. According to the investigation, the secret operation at sea is said to have been carried out by a team of six people. It is said to have been five men and one woman. According to this, the group consisted of a captain, two divers, two diving assistants and a doctor
:
The yacht was subsequently returned to the owner in uncleaned condition. According to the research, the investigators were able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
To be fair his dad was a market trader, he is now a multi millionaire, he has seen both sides of life
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market? The BBC don't need to employ him - there are plenty of others out there who would do a great job for a tenth of the price. As ever, like politicians, spending other peoples money is easy.
Exactly - so he is obviously worth the money.
Any price is what two people agree it is.
Its not the BBC's money ultimately. We all pay the licence fee.
Ridiculous statement. When you buy a service, the money ceases to be yours. It would be like me telling tesco which suppliers to spend MY money on.
The point is I choose to buy Sky, I choose to buy Netflix, I choose to buy Amazon. I have NO choice in the licence fee. None. Why does the BBC feel it has to compete against other channels? Why pay for top 'talent'? Its got a guaranteed income.
If it become a subscription that I could choose then I would have no beef with the employment of Lineker (other than that I think he is not worth the money). I would be choosing to subscribe. Right now I cannot opt out and legally watch other channels.
Why do NHS hospitals feel the need to compete with private sector for qualified doctors? Why pay for "top" talent? Why isn't someone off Universal Credit doing heart operations? Why aren't State school teachers all on minimum wage? Nobody chooses to buy them after all. They have a guaranteed income.
Why does the BBC need to have what they consider to be top talent? Are they competing for viewers to purchase their product? NO! Its already a guaranteed income. If a lesser known presenter presented MOTD - say Alex Scott, for a tenth of Lineker's salary, what would be the consequence on BBC income? Nothing, zero, nada. And they would have more money for other stuff. BBC act like they are competing with Sky, ITV, Amazon, Netflix, yet in reality they aren't - the income will always be there.
I don't see why people find this a hard concept.
For Lineker, getting a whopping salary (hang on, thought he wasn't an employee, so salary isn't correct...) is an example of market forces - I totally accept that. But the BBC doesn't need to pay for him.
And I don't disagree. But I don't see why you can't see that the very same argument applies to every Public Sector role. You want you new hip done by a top surgeon or an ex-con on a three week work experience trial?
That’s a ridiculous argument. How difficult is it to present MOTD vs hip surgery? I’d argue there are many, many people who could do the former, far fewer the latter.
I'm not sure there's ever been much correlation between the difficulty of a job and its pay.
If there was most managers would earn less than their underlings
I thought it was about responsibility, getting paid more.
In my experience there have been a few managers that have actually raised team productivity and far too many who have actually mistaken their role and lowered it by insisting on useless meetings, reports and meaningless KPI measurements
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
One doesn't need to be of the people to speak for the people.
Not that I think he actually is on this issue. The public repeatedly demonstrate that are a lot tougher on these issues than any centrist or attempted centrist or liberal.
If they claim the problem is abuse of UK systems by claiming to be a modern slave that should have been the graphic, that you won't get to abuse it.
It's a presentational faux-pas. The tweet says you won't benefit from the UK's modern slavery protections if you come in illegally, whereas you will be if you come in legally.
It's probably academic since, if the bill works as drafted, you'll simply be securely held and then deported so the modern slavery stuff is academic.
So if you want to be an actual slave, you need to be British?
British slaves for British slave owners.
Impossible, Britons never ever shall be slaves, so I hear.
Yes but we can enslave non-britons now, as long asthey are illegal arrivals.
No we can't. They are now denied access to the modern slavery system.
I think it just means they can't get issued with a National Insurance number.
That makes no sense.
If it said "Denied access to the labour market" it would be fine.
But it says modern slavery system.
That compares to, you know, traditional work where people get paid. Slavery, as I understand it, involves ownership of human beings, and getting them to work (and other things) in return for no money at all.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
Specifically, according to information from ARD-Hauptstadtstudio,Kontraste, SWR and ZEIT, the investigators have succeeded in identifying the boat that was allegedly used for the secret operation. It is said to be a yacht that was rented by a company based in Poland, which apparently belongs to two Ukrainians. According to the investigation, the secret operation at sea is said to have been carried out by a team of six people. It is said to have been five men and one woman. According to this, the group consisted of a captain, two divers, two diving assistants and a doctor
:
The yacht was subsequently returned to the owner in uncleaned condition. According to the research, the investigators were able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
One doesn't need to be of the people to speak for the people.
Not that I think he actually is on this issue. The public repeatedly demonstrate that are a lot tougher on these issues than any centrist or attempted centrist or liberal.
If they claim the problem is abuse of UK systems by claiming to be a modern slave that should have been the graphic, that you won't get to abuse it.
It's a presentational faux-pas. The tweet says you won't benefit from the UK's modern slavery protections if you come in illegally, whereas you will be if you come in legally.
It's probably academic since, if the bill works as drafted, you'll simply be securely held and then deported so the modern slavery stuff is academic.
As an aside this is the complete opposite of the Swiss system that works so well: there is literally no incentive for an illegal immigrant to report an employer.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
To be fair his dad was a market trader, he is now a multi millionaire, he has seen both sides of life
Yes, I have bought fruit from his family stall, though I think they have since given up the pitch. I have met a few of his relatives about the town. He is very highly respected here, and not just for his footballing past starting in the Leicester City youth team.
Ultimately this is an issue of free speech. He is free to hold whatever opinions he likes off air, and we are free to listen or not as we choose.
New legal filings from Dominion's defamation lawsuit against Fox show top talent at the network fretting over Trump and his false claims of a stolen election.
“I hate him passionately," Tucker Carlson wrote of Trump just two days before the Jan. 6 riot.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
One doesn't need to be of the people to speak for the people.
Not that I think he actually is on this issue. The public repeatedly demonstrate that are a lot tougher on these issues than any centrist or attempted centrist or liberal.
Sunak s high point will be the NI protocol bill . He’s now descending into a thin Bozo with the peddling of hate and division.
To have children of immigrants peddling this hate is despicable.
Border control is not synonymous with hate.
No it’s not, but that’s the problem with this bill. It’s all playground stuff: stop the boats podiums, banner ads talking about denying access to Britain’s world leading modern slavery system, talk of invasions etc.
British politicians have this awful habit, shown throughout Brexit too, of speaking loudly and carrying a very small stick.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.
But do people watch MOTD day for (a) the football or (b) the grinning, out of touch with the modern game presenter?
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.
But do people watch MOTD day for (a) the football or (b) the grinning, out of touch with the modern game presenter?
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
I'm not moving the goalposts.
The recruitment market is not being entered into openly, as they're not using their own openly sourced revenue.
In an open market the free market value for hiring someone to dig a hole then fill it in again might be zero.
If the taxpayer pays a million to someone to dig a hole then fill it in again, then market forces don't apply, so that job can continue even if there is no value there.
If you want market forces to apply, then market forces need to be there. Since the BBC gets it revenue from the threat of imprisonment, not the market, then market forces are not there. Nor any other public sector role.
New legal filings from Dominion's defamation lawsuit against Fox show top talent at the network fretting over Trump and his false claims of a stolen election.
“I hate him passionately," Tucker Carlson wrote of Trump just two days before the Jan. 6 riot.
Less. Because if he sincerely believed the stuff he pushed it'd be one thing, but he doesn't believe it and still actively chooses to do it.
Bloofy twitter. Great, now that's ruined World's Strongest Man for me. Do you remember the days when we could remain in happy ignorance of the political views of most famous people?
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.
I’m not sure Gary Lineker is the reason people watch Match of the day - I might be the only person and so completely wrong but people watch it to get a compressed highlights show with a bit of light analysis.
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.
Bloofy twitter. Great, now that's ruined World's Strongest Man for me. Do you remember the days when we could remain in happy ignorance of the political views of most famous people?
Not specific to that example, but it shows us most of them are as uninformed, ignorant, and unoriginal as the rest of us. I don't want to think that, I want to think most successful people are exceptional in some way.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.
I’m not sure Gary Lineker is the reason people watch Match of the day - I might be the only person and so completely wrong but people watch it to get a compressed highlights show with a bit of light analysis.
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.
Beyond that whoever is MOTD presenter has easy money to make elsewhere.
Give Frank Lampard (or any ex random footballer) the job and within a month or two BT and Sky will be offering him millions. So BBC can pay well below market rates for that gig if they sell it properly.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
This is just the old debate about the BBC. Should they plug the gaps left by the market by doing stuff commercial broadcasters wouldn't touch with a bargepole (minority sports, opera, religious programming... worthy but of very narrow interest) or provide a range from the popular to the high brow so everyone gets something in return for the licence fee, and they introduce the more high minded stuff like fluoride in the water supply?
Personally, I think the former route is suicide, as most of those suggesting it know perfectly well.
Also worth noting that competition tends to drive up standards if you believe in the free market. So BBC providing an appealing product drives ITV and others towards the same.
Specifically, according to information from ARD-Hauptstadtstudio,Kontraste, SWR and ZEIT, the investigators have succeeded in identifying the boat that was allegedly used for the secret operation. It is said to be a yacht that was rented by a company based in Poland, which apparently belongs to two Ukrainians. According to the investigation, the secret operation at sea is said to have been carried out by a team of six people. It is said to have been five men and one woman. According to this, the group consisted of a captain, two divers, two diving assistants and a doctor
:
The yacht was subsequently returned to the owner in uncleaned condition. According to the research, the investigators were able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin.
I would love it if the Moderate Party was actually a far right/left extremist group.
The Russian Liberal Democrat party waves in the distance
Wasn't the assumption at the time that only a major state could have been behind it?
Just had a talking head on the BBC claiming that diving 150 feet is difficult and demanding.
In one way it is, I suppose - but there are many, many thousands of people who can dive that depth and keep the kit ik the garage.
I did giggle at the suggestion that the yacht must have been modified with a crane to lower stuff to the seabed. There’s this thing called neutral buoyancy…
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.
If people chose whether to pay the licence fee or not voluntarily, based on whether they want to watch the BBC or not, that would be a market value then.
However since people can go to prison for not paying it, even if they don't watch the BBC, then it is not today. Any more than whatever MPs vote to pay themselves is a market value.
In order to be a market force, market forces actually need to apply. If you are operating in a vacuum whereby your revenue is decided by politics, not market forces, then no market forces don't apply - politics applies.
That's classic Twatter where those who agree with me should be showered with honours and those who do not should be locked in chains.
I'm of the opinion that neither of them deserve a knighthood.
Knighted footballers is a pretty short list, most of whom have done something more worthy beyond football than being a presenter. That said with comparison to other non footballing sporting knights he probably has a reasonable case.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.
I’m not sure Gary Lineker is the reason people watch Match of the day - I might be the only person and so completely wrong but people watch it to get a compressed highlights show with a bit of light analysis.
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.
Some international matches have been televised by both ITV and BBC, so presumably there is actual data on whether Lineker is a net positive or not.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.
But do people watch MOTD day for (a) the football or (b) the grinning, out of touch with the modern game presenter?
Easy enough to A/B test.
The Saturday show gets much better ratings than the MOTD2 on Sunday without him.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.
I’m not sure Gary Lineker is the reason people watch Match of the day - I might be the only person and so completely wrong but people watch it to get a compressed highlights show with a bit of light analysis.
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.
Some international matches have been televised by both ITV and BBC, so presumably there is actual data on whether Lineker is a net positive or not.
I don’t think people choose which channel to watch dual broadcast matches on based on Lineker being the host - there are a number of analysts who have a following - people might prefer the Shearer and Micah Richards team to Roy Keane and Ian Wright on ITV, ITV has ad Breaks which people don’t necessarily like as it cuts into analysis time and of course there is the curse of ITV.
I really wouldn’t switch to ITV for matches if it was Gabby Logan hosting BBC instead of Lineker or if Lineker switched to host ITV.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
It's almost tempting to agree the referendum after all...but not quite.
Never worth the risk (notwithstanding that the request for one should have been granted on a democratic basis).
I'm always a pessimist on these matters, so I'm just waiting for the number to surge back up once the SNP finish their internal squabble and reassert discipline, reassuring the wider Yes movement.
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that we have seen peak SNP. They have had an excellent run over the last 10 years or so with 2 very strong leaders but the wheels are coming off and the replacements don't look up to it.
None of which suggests that Scotland is likely to be competently governed any time soon.
IF your para 1 is correct, then rather similar trajectory to the Parti Quebecois a (dare I say?) a generation (or so) ago.,
Perhaps worth noting, that today the Province of Quebec is governed by a center-right "nationalist" party, Coalition Avenir Québec, with the "separatist" PQ reduced to a wretched rump, increasingly replaced on center-left by Québec solidaire, which is somewhat vague on where it falls on the "nationalist" / "separatist" divide but tends to soft-peddle the later in favor of the former (and is also less ethnically focused than PQ).
FYI (also BTW) "nationalist" in Quebec context generally means seeking means full(est) autonomy for la belle province WITHIN Canada, whereas "separatist" means aiming for full independence OUTSIDE Canada.
Will be interesting to see if, in future, there might be scope for a center-right Scottish party, focused on autonomy rather than independence?
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.
I’m not sure Gary Lineker is the reason people watch Match of the day - I might be the only person and so completely wrong but people watch it to get a compressed highlights show with a bit of light analysis.
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.
Some international matches have been televised by both ITV and BBC, so presumably there is actual data on whether Lineker is a net positive or not.
You'd have to find a way to separate him from the adverts factor.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
To be fair his dad was a market trader, he is now a multi millionaire, he has seen both sides of life
Yes, and at age 11 (1971) he was seeing a different side of life. In 1978, he became a professional footballer. He retired from international football in 1992, 31 years ago. Since he was 11, he has lived a very different life from that which he pretends to speak for.
The majority of his life, he's been a pundit. He's been in the media's life.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.
I’m not sure Gary Lineker is the reason people watch Match of the day - I might be the only person and so completely wrong but people watch it to get a compressed highlights show with a bit of light analysis.
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.
Some international matches have been televised by both ITV and BBC, so presumably there is actual data on whether Lineker is a net positive or not.
You'd have to find a way to separate him from the adverts factor.
It may be a Coke vs Pepsi arms race - they spent billions on advertising and didn’t shift the market. But what would have happened if either of them didn’t bother?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks. (He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
"smooth-talking"?
I'm not into football, so I don't see him often. But when I do see him, he has the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. Perhaps that is unfair, because of the first clause.
I've always found him inherently likeable, as a presenter. It doesn't feel like a situation where for years people have wanted him gone for doing a shit job.
Jimmy Saville was likeable for decades. People didn't want Saville gone for doing a shit job.
I'm obviously not saying Lineker is personally like Saville. Just that 'likeability' in the public eye does not equate to 'right' when it comes to areas outside their immediate expertise (pop music and football, respectively).
I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks. (He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
"smooth-talking"?
I'm not into football, so I don't see him often. But when I do see him, he has the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. Perhaps that is unfair, because of the first clause.
I've always found him inherently likeable, as a presenter. It doesn't feel like a situation where for years people have wanted him gone for doing a shit job.
Jimmy Saville was likeable for decades. People didn't want Saville gone for doing a shit job.
I'm obviously not saying Lineker is personally like Saville. Just that 'likeability' in the public eye does not equate to 'right' when it comes to areas outside their immediate expertise (pop music and football, respectively).
What a facile comment.
There is no parallel whatsoever between someone holding a view I disagree with and them being a prolific sexual offender. Not even a loose one.
Your point isn't a point at all, other than that it allows you to put Lineker and Savile in the same sentence, which you see as a victory for reasons unknown.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.
But do people watch MOTD day for (a) the football or (b) the grinning, out of touch with the modern game presenter?
Easy enough to A/B test.
The Saturday show gets much better ratings than the MOTD2 on Sunday without him.
Unsurprising, the Sunday show has fewer fixtures in it and will primarily feature games that have already been televised, whereas the Saturday show will have many more matches including more that weren't shown due to kicking off at 3pm.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks. (He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
"smooth-talking"?
I'm not into football, so I don't see him often. But when I do see him, he has the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. Perhaps that is unfair, because of the first clause.
I've always found him inherently likeable, as a presenter. It doesn't feel like a situation where for years people have wanted him gone for doing a shit job.
Jimmy Saville was likeable for decades. People didn't want Saville gone for doing a shit job.
I'm obviously not saying Lineker is personally like Saville. Just that 'likeability' in the public eye does not equate to 'right' when it comes to areas outside their immediate expertise (pop music and football, respectively).
I didnt say it did. But since you offered your own opinion about his presence and charisma, I offered a countering view.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
To be fair his dad was a market trader, he is now a multi millionaire, he has seen both sides of life
Yes, and at age 11 (1971) he was seeing a different side of life. In 1978, he became a professional footballer. He retired from international football in 1992, 31 years ago. Since he was 11, he has lived a very different life from that which he pretends to speak for.
The majority of his life, he's been a pundit. He's been in the media's life.
Didn't he put his money where his mouth was over refugees? Filling his gaf with Afghans or some such.
I would be surprised if Richard Sharp, Tim Davie and Robbie Gibb don't sack his sorry ****. They own the BBC on behalf of Boris Johnson, you know.
I don't particularly have strong feelings either way on Lineker, he is a football not politics journalist so he doesn't need to be impartial.
Though the 33% opposed suggests the issue won't be too damaging for ministers, as that is higher than the current Tory poll rating
Well said! It's pretty pathetic seeing folk getting all worked up about what a smooth-talking football pundit says or thinks. (He'd better not slag off Leeds Utd though.)
"smooth-talking"?
I'm not into football, so I don't see him often. But when I do see him, he has the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. Perhaps that is unfair, because of the first clause.
I've always found him inherently likeable, as a presenter. It doesn't feel like a situation where for years people have wanted him gone for doing a shit job.
Jimmy Saville was likeable for decades. People didn't want Saville gone for doing a shit job.
I'm obviously not saying Lineker is personally like Saville. Just that 'likeability' in the public eye does not equate to 'right' when it comes to areas outside their immediate expertise (pop music and football, respectively).
What a facile comment.
There is no parallel whatsoever between someone holding a view I disagree with and them being a prolific sexual offender. Not even a loose one.
Your point isn't a point at all, other than that it allows you to put Lineker and Savile in the same sentence, which you see as a victory for reasons unknown.
KLE's comment was about 'likeability' and people not 'wanting him gone'.
This story is about him speaking *way* outside his area of 'expertise'.
I don't see it as a 'victory'; I'm just commenting that (current) public likeability does not make someone correct, morally or factually.
It's almost tempting to agree the referendum after all...but not quite.
Never worth the risk (notwithstanding that the request for one should have been granted on a democratic basis).
I'm always a pessimist on these matters, so I'm just waiting for the number to surge back up once the SNP finish their internal squabble and reassert discipline, reassuring the wider Yes movement.
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that we have seen peak SNP. They have had an excellent run over the last 10 years or so with 2 very strong leaders but the wheels are coming off and the replacements don't look up to it.
None of which suggests that Scotland is likely to be competently governed any time soon.
IF your para 1 is correct, then rather similar trajectory to the Parti Quebecois a (dare I say?) a generation (or so) ago.,
Perhaps worth noting, that today the Province of Quebec is governed by a center-right "nationalist" party, Coalition Avenir Québec, with the "separatist" PQ reduced to a wretched rump, increasingly replaced on center-left by Québec solidaire, which is somewhat vague on where it falls on the "nationalist" / "separatist" divide but tends to soft-peddle the later in favor of the former (and is also less ethnically focused than PQ).
FYI (also BTW) "nationalist" in Quebec context generally means seeking means full(est) autonomy for la belle province WITHIN Canada, whereas "separatist" means aiming for full independence OUTSIDE Canada.
Will be interesting to see if, in future, there might be scope for a center-right Scottish party, focused on autonomy rather than independence?
Quebec, even as presently constituted in the Canadian federation, has far more power than Scotland or Wales.
If Scotland or Wales were offered the powers Quebec has, they might feel more confident about a future in the UK.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
To be fair his dad was a market trader, he is now a multi millionaire, he has seen both sides of life
Yes, and at age 11 (1971) he was seeing a different side of life. In 1978, he became a professional footballer. He retired from international football in 1992, 31 years ago. Since he was 11, he has lived a very different life from that which he pretends to speak for.
The majority of his life, he's been a pundit. He's been in the media's life.
Didn't he put his money where his mouth was over refugees? Filling his gaf with Afghans or some such.
I would be surprised if Richard Sharp, Tim Davie and Robbie Gibb don't sack his sorry ****. They own the BBC on behalf of Boris Johnson, you know.
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
To be fair his dad was a market trader, he is now a multi millionaire, he has seen both sides of life
Yes, and at age 11 (1971) he was seeing a different side of life. In 1978, he became a professional footballer. He retired from international football in 1992, 31 years ago. Since he was 11, he has lived a very different life from that which he pretends to speak for.
The majority of his life, he's been a pundit. He's been in the media's life.
Didn't he put his money where his mouth was over refugees? Filling his gaf with Afghans or some such.
I would be surprised if Richard Sharp, Tim Davie and Robbie Gibb don't sack his sorry ****. They own the BBC on behalf of Boris Johnson, you know.
Look at Mr Rashford. He's a top footie player. Yet he hasn't forgotten his past life. And the Tories hate his guts for it.
He shouldn't be paid £1m+ by the BBC for about 5 hours of broadcast time per year. Mostly a scripted 60 second bit of banter with his mates.
If he was paid £100k a year I'm not sure it would be as big an issue.
Also it seems to be the people who claim to care most about free speech and cancel culture that want to stop free speech from someone at the UKs biggest cultural asset.
He knew the rules when he signed his contract.
What rules?
Politics is not relevant to his job. Any more than it is relevant to Mr Rashford's day job.
BBC employees agree to abide by certain stipulations. He has broken that. I couldn't care less about it.
I care that the licence fee I have to pay to watch other live TV is used to make an ultra rich ex footballer, even richer. Time for fresh talent. He's been out the game, what, 20 years? What does he know of the modern footballers life?
It's called market forces, alll good Tory stuff.
What market forces? I don't think you understand what market forces means.
You have to pay for the BBC, even if you don't watch it, on threat of imprisonment if you don't.
That can be called many things, but market force is not one of them.
Not that. The market forces which apply to Mr Lineker's salary.
Market forces don't apply to his salary.
Market forces would apply if the revenue he was being paid from was raised in the market . . . It is not though.
Market forces applied when they looked for someone to replace his predecessor. They didn't get you to do it for 5p an hour. I wonder why?
No, they didn't.
Since the money is not coming from the market, market forces don't apply.
You can't just call anything a market force.
Competing with [edit] BT Sport for an asset in the open recruitment market isn't a market force in action?
I think you'll be wanting to throw Adam Smith's statue into the Water of Leith next.
They are not competing with BT for viewers money, thats the point. Its guaranteed by the licence fee. The viewer will get to see the footy with Joe Exfootballer whatever.
I said the *recruitment* market, which is what is relevant here. Barty is just moving the goalposts. He'll be talking about the contracting system for the BBC canteen next.
But why do the BBC compete for his services? I genuinely struggle with this. They act as if they are in deadly competition with their commercial rivals, but they are not. They are insulated from the viewer market by the legally enforced licence fee.
I don't think that's quite true. If they don't have viewership, they can't justify their license fee.
I’m not sure Gary Lineker is the reason people watch Match of the day - I might be the only person and so completely wrong but people watch it to get a compressed highlights show with a bit of light analysis.
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.
Some international matches have been televised by both ITV and BBC, so presumably there is actual data on whether Lineker is a net positive or not.
You'd have to find a way to separate him from the adverts factor.
Kate Forbes clearly isn't a team player. She'll find it difficult to keep her government together if she does win.
The comments from senior figures have certainly been blunt enough that they are hard to walk back from if she does. It is at the point that its a little baffling she was ever chosen to such a senior position so young.
Either they are saying she did not let her personal views impact her work as they did not know about them - and isn't that therefore saying there's good reason to suppose she could do the same as First Minister? - or they are saying they did know but she was so good at her job it was ok - which would also suggest she'd be an ok choice?
Went to a grammar school. from 11 to 16. Captained the Leicestershire Schools cricket team. At 18, becomes a professional footballer. Has earned millions from the public purse, via the BBC,
Speaks for the people.
Okay.
Yes. Let's leave speaking for the people to *checks notes* Rishi Sunak.
He has to answer to the electorate. Linekar will have to bu**er a dog on screen to lost his job. Admittedly, given the BBC's history, is not too far a stretch. (:
Total rubbish. TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis. The idea that politicians are uniquely vulnerable to the shifting tides of public sentiment is only something that can be said by someone who don't give it a moment's thought.
???
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
The BBC justifying the licence fee relies on people watching its programmes. The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. Anyone who knows the BBC at all knows they are obsessed with ratings, often to a fault.
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.
Comments
None of which suggests that Scotland is likely to be competently governed any time soon.
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072?cxt=HHwWgICw5YHRkqotAAAA
If they claim the problem is abuse of UK systems by claiming to be a modern slave that should have been the graphic, that you won't get to abuse it.
Having a pint with you, for a start.
Whether or not you think it's enough to justify his wage or agree with his politics, Lineker is an excellent sports anchor - experienced, knowledgeable, well connected in football, engaging, and able to keep the conversation flowing with pundits.
I'd already lost my respect for Sunak, this makes it sink even lower though.
British slaves for British slave owners.
https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2023-03/nordstream-2-ukraine-anschlag
Specifically, according to information from ARD-Hauptstadtstudio,Kontraste, SWR and ZEIT, the investigators have succeeded in identifying the boat that was allegedly used for the secret operation. It is said to be a yacht that was rented by a company based in Poland, which apparently belongs to two Ukrainians. According to the investigation, the secret operation at sea is said to have been carried out by a team of six people. It is said to have been five men and one woman. According to this, the group consisted of a captain, two divers, two diving assistants and a doctor
:
The yacht was subsequently returned to the owner in uncleaned condition. According to the research, the investigators were able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin.
The Russian Liberal Democrat party waves in the distance
To have children of immigrants peddling this hate is despicable.
Er… transgenderism doing well…
It's probably academic since, if the bill works as drafted, you'll simply be securely held and then deported so the modern slavery stuff is academic.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4327352#Comment_4327352
If it said "Denied access to the labour market" it would be fine.
But it says modern slavery system.
That compares to, you know, traditional work where people get paid. Slavery, as I understand it, involves ownership of human beings, and getting them to work (and other things) in return for no money at all.
https://twitter.com/dannywallace/status/1633505751397277710
Ultimately this is an issue of free speech. He is free to hold whatever opinions he likes off air, and we are free to listen or not as we choose.
https://twitter.com/DomMastrangelo1/status/1633479522438856711
New legal filings from Dominion's defamation lawsuit against Fox show top talent at the network fretting over Trump and his false claims of a stolen election.
“I hate him passionately," Tucker Carlson wrote of Trump just two days before the Jan. 6 riot.
British politicians have this awful habit, shown throughout Brexit too, of speaking loudly and carrying a very small stick.
The recruitment market is not being entered into openly, as they're not using their own openly sourced revenue.
In an open market the free market value for hiring someone to dig a hole then fill it in again might be zero.
If the taxpayer pays a million to someone to dig a hole then fill it in again, then market forces don't apply, so that job can continue even if there is no value there.
If you want market forces to apply, then market forces need to be there. Since the BBC gets it revenue from the threat of imprisonment, not the market, then market forces are not there. Nor any other public sector role.
Do you remember the days when we could remain in happy ignorance of the political views of most famous people?
If anyone could be arsed I’m sure they could compare the viewing figures on Match of the Day on the occasions when he doesn’t host and it’s Mark Chapman for example. I imagine viewing figures for MOTD are driven more by which games happened and if they were all 0-0.
That's classic Twatter where those who agree with me should be showered with honours and those who do not should be locked in chains.
Give Frank Lampard (or any ex random footballer) the job and within a month or two BT and Sky will be offering him millions. So BBC can pay well below market rates for that gig if they sell it properly.
Personally, I think the former route is suicide, as most of those suggesting it know perfectly well.
Also worth noting that competition tends to drive up standards if you believe in the free market. So BBC providing an appealing product drives ITV and others towards the same.
In one way it is, I suppose - but there are many, many thousands of people who can dive that depth and keep the kit ik the garage.
I did giggle at the suggestion that the yacht must have been modified with a crane to lower stuff to the seabed. There’s this thing called neutral buoyancy…
However since people can go to prison for not paying it, even if they don't watch the BBC, then it is not today. Any more than whatever MPs vote to pay themselves is a market value.
In order to be a market force, market forces actually need to apply. If you are operating in a vacuum whereby your revenue is decided by politics, not market forces, then no market forces don't apply - politics applies.
I really wouldn’t switch to ITV for matches if it was Gabby Logan hosting BBC instead of Lineker or if Lineker switched to host ITV.
Perhaps worth noting, that today the Province of Quebec is governed by a center-right "nationalist" party, Coalition Avenir Québec, with the "separatist" PQ reduced to a wretched rump, increasingly replaced on center-left by Québec solidaire, which is somewhat vague on where it falls on the "nationalist" / "separatist" divide but tends to soft-peddle the later in favor of the former (and is also less ethnically focused than PQ).
FYI (also BTW) "nationalist" in Quebec context generally means seeking means full(est) autonomy for la belle province WITHIN Canada, whereas "separatist" means aiming for full independence OUTSIDE Canada.
Will be interesting to see if, in future, there might be scope for a center-right Scottish party, focused on autonomy rather than independence?
The majority of his life, he's been a pundit. He's been in the media's life.
@JMagosh
Favourability of the Labour Party among people voted SNP in 2019:
Favourable: 38% (+10)
Unfavourable: 33% (-5)
Net: +5 (up 15)
Changes with Redfield's November 2022 poll.
This would be a *very* dangerous time for the SNP to irritate its progressive voters.
I'm obviously not saying Lineker is personally like Saville. Just that 'likeability' in the public eye does not equate to 'right' when it comes to areas outside their immediate expertise (pop music and football, respectively).
There is no parallel whatsoever between someone holding a view I disagree with and them being a prolific sexual offender. Not even a loose one.
Your point isn't a point at all, other than that it allows you to put Lineker and Savile in the same sentence, which you see as a victory for reasons unknown.
" TV viewers vote with their zappers on a daily basis."
Have you seen how the BBC is funded? Have you see how the BBC fails to excuse the exorbitant money that pump out to the 'talent' ? Have you seen how the BBC sacks popular presenters without regard to their popularity with the public?
The 'zappers' have very little say in it.
So, let's have a vote on Lineker. And on all the other BBC's public-facing presenters. Say, every four years?
(Note: I like the BBC, but that does not mean they are perfect or immune to criticism)
I would be surprised if Richard Sharp, Tim Davie and Robbie Gibb don't sack his sorry ****. They own the BBC on behalf of Boris Johnson, you know.
This story is about him speaking *way* outside his area of 'expertise'.
I don't see it as a 'victory'; I'm just commenting that (current) public likeability does not make someone correct, morally or factually.
If Scotland or Wales were offered the powers Quebec has, they might feel more confident about a future in the UK.
Could it not equally be that Shona Robison isn't a team player?
But on the other hand, it did say it was their first public appearance together for months, so maybe it was for show.
Either they are saying she did not let her personal views impact her work as they did not know about them - and isn't that therefore saying there's good reason to suppose she could do the same as First Minister? - or they are saying they did know but she was so good at her job it was ok - which would also suggest she'd be an ok choice?
You can argue they are wrong in the sense that you feel the success of MoTD and the like have nothing to do with the analysis between matches and those presenting that analysis. I think you'd be wrong, but it's not crazy.
But the idea BBC execs don't make decisions based on ratings constantly is laughable.