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.
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.
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.
Speaking as an ex-Tory, I have a lot of respect for Marcus Rashford, and did even when I was a Tory. 👍
And that's despite the fact he plays for Manchester United.
Gary Linkekar is not a BBC employee, so it is far from clear that he is bound by the impartiality rules. We would need to see his specific contract to know what he agreed to.
True, although with an IR35 hat on to all-intents-and-purposes he appears to be as good as one to the public.
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.
Joining the dots, it could just be that the governing party hates people who express an opinion disagreeing with them.
Which is human nature, sure, but less OK when it's the government doing it.
Josh @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.
Except that in a Scottish context the Labour Party is well to the right of the SNP. Which makes it so interesting a situation, admittedly.
For now, if Kate Forbes is elected by SNP members to succeed Sturgeon, the SNP will be well to the right of Sunak's Conservative Party let alone Starmer's Labour Party
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 futurehere might be scope for a center-right Scottish party, focused on autonomy rather than independence?
If the bigger entity doesn't completely screw up nationalist parties in the smaller entity can probably get a "best of both worlds" equilibrium.
Problem here is that the UKG has been doing its level best to trash the Union in recent years. I think if there is a weakening support for independence in Scotland it's more to do with travails in the SNP than any new acceptance of the status quo. Yes was well ahead of No as recently as last December.
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.
Market forces innit.
Nope. 🤦♂️
Its political forces. They get their revenue from politics, not the market.
If you want market forces, then enter the market, and privatise the BBC. Then market forces would apply. If they did that, then you might see his salary stay the same, go down, or go up, but it would now be subject to market forces either way.
But so long as it is the threat of imprisonment, not free choice, that determines decisions and funding then it is and will remain political forces.
You need to learn the difference between politics and the market.
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.
Yet my point never said it did make him correct. In fact, I made a comment suggesting if they were to sack him over this that would not be unfair in my eyes (only pointless).
You said, in response to a comment calling him smooth talking, that he had the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. I merely offered the view that I do not see him that way and don't get the impression a lot of others do either.
You seem to have extrapolated a lot more from that comment than was intended or stated. It was no more and no less than contrasting your opinion of his media skills as a presenter with my opinion.
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.
"able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin"
The Birmingham Six say 'hi!'
'Traces of explosives' is a very subjective term. Be careful with it, and always ask questions.
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.
Yet my point never said it did make him correct. In fact, I made a comment suggesting if they were to sack him over this that would not be unfair in my eyes (only pointless).
You said, in response to a comment calling him smooth talking, that he had the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. I merely offered the view that I do not see him that way and don't get the impression a lot of others do either.
You seem to have extrapolated a lot more from that comment than was intended or stated.
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.
Quebec only got those powers after a second independence referendum held 15 years after the first where 49% voted to leave Canada.
In Wales it is less of an issue given the 2 main parties are still the Unionist Conservatives and Labour, Plaid have never got anywhere near winning most seats in Wales let alone a majority
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).
Phonecall for JosiasJessop, I have the ghost of Peter Carter-Ruck on the line.
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.
Nothing (at least in theory) to stop a party arising somewhere north of Berwick (or west of Chester?) that advocates exactly that policy, achievable via electoral support at home, combined with leverage upon UK-wide electoral outcomes and governmental decisions.
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.
Quebec only got those powers after a second independence referendum held 15 years after the first where 49% voted to leave Canada
No wonder you are so relentlessly against allowing Scotland a second referendum.
I note that the Telegraph headline puts Nazi in quotes. That wasn't a word he used. As ever that annoys me (the Guardian do it quite often on the other side). If something is in quotes it should be a quote.
Still waiting on the Finland story, let alone a Harry/Megan divorce.
Four or five us know the Finland story, but it is (if untrue) extremely libelous as it involves a prominent person and dropped criminal charges.
I thought it was a prominent person, anonymous animals, a few common or garden vegetables, a mineral (knapped), the late Queen Mother, the entre cabinet, and all of BBC sport?
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.
Nothing (at least in theory) to stop a party arising somewhere north of Berwick (or west of Chester?) that advocates exactly that policy, achievable via electoral support at home, combined with leverage upon UK-wide electoral outcomes and governmental decisions.
We already had one. It's called the Labour Party, which originated north of Berwick. Vide the Promise in indyref 1 and Mr Brown's assurances.
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.
"able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin"
The Birmingham Six say 'hi!'
'Traces of explosives' is a very subjective term. Be careful with it, and always ask questions.
I am going to stick my neck out here and say that we have seen peak SNP.
I suspect this is true, although we may not be past peak Zoomer, but the fundies are falling out with the gradualists. The internecine war will keep them occupied for a bit.
Still waiting on the Finland story, let alone a Harry/Megan divorce.
Four or five us know the Finland story, but it is (if untrue) extremely libelous as it involves a prominent person and dropped criminal charges.
I thought it was a prominent person, anonymous animals, a few common or garden vegetables, a mineral (knapped), the late Queen Mother, the entre cabinet, and all of BBC sport?
I would give details, but the problem is that even a few details make it fairly easy to work out who the person in question is.
OT. Great feature on Fox News and the 'stolen election' on Ch4 News. Whatever anyone thinks about the BBC just look at the alternative!
It’s been quite staggering seeing a load of the internal emails from Murdoch down at Fox who clearly hate Trump, completely disagreed the election had been stolen and realise their errors.
If only Murdoch had actually trusted his gut and been an “editor” of Fox (for once Murdoch actually dictating to one of his mouthpieces would have produced a better result) then the stolen election BS would have been nipped in the bud at the time.
Gary Linkekar is not a BBC employee, so it is far from clear that he is bound by the impartiality rules. We would need to see his specific contract to know what he agreed to.
True, although with an IR35 hat on to all-intents-and-purposes he appears to be as good as one to the public.
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.
Market forces innit.
Nope. 🤦♂️
Its political forces. They get their revenue from politics, not the market.
If you want market forces, then enter the market, and privatise the BBC. Then market forces would apply. If they did that, then you might see his salary stay the same, go down, or go up, but it would now be subject to market forces either way.
But so long as it is the threat of imprisonment, not free choice, that determines decisions and funding then it is and will remain political forces.
You need to learn the difference between politics and the market.
How odd. I wonder why so many businessmen and market traders feel the need to give lots of £££ to the Tories.
Adam Smith had a few pungent remarks on that sort of thing (edited out IIRC by one K. Joseph).
I note that the Telegraph headline puts Nazi in quotes. That wasn't a word he used. As ever that annoys me (the Guardian do it quite often on the other side). If something is in quotes it should be a quote.
Careful, you'll get Pagan and DougSeal started again.
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.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
Gary Linkekar is not a BBC employee, so it is far from clear that he is bound by the impartiality rules. We would need to see his specific contract to know what he agreed to.
True, although with an IR35 hat on to all-intents-and-purposes he appears to be as good as one to the public.
Kate Forbes clearly isn't a team player. She'll find it difficult to keep her government together if she does win.
I completely dislike Kate Forbes and disagree with her politics, and hope she loses the race, but why isn't she a team player from that comment?
Could it not equally be that Shona Robison isn't a team player?
She completely trashed the government she is part of in the debates. She appears to think her right to conscience on certain moral issues trumps the collective view of her colleagues.
Gary Linkekar is not a BBC employee, so it is far from clear that he is bound by the impartiality rules. We would need to see his specific contract to know what he agreed to.
True, although with an IR35 hat on to all-intents-and-purposes he appears to be as good as one to the public.
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.
Market forces innit.
Nope. 🤦♂️
Its political forces. They get their revenue from politics, not the market.
If you want market forces, then enter the market, and privatise the BBC. Then market forces would apply. If they did that, then you might see his salary stay the same, go down, or go up, but it would now be subject to market forces either way.
But so long as it is the threat of imprisonment, not free choice, that determines decisions and funding then it is and will remain political forces.
You need to learn the difference between politics and the market.
How odd. I wonder why so many businessmen and market traders feel the need to give lots of £££ to the Tories.
Adam Smith had a few pungent remarks on that sort of thing (edited out IIRC by one K. Joseph).
That would be politics too.
Market forces apply in market conditions. If its political conditions that apply though, like the threat of imprisonment, then its not a free market. I pay the BBC not because I watch the BBC (I don't) but because I would go to prison if I didn't pay them.
Similarly the BBC chasing ratings as they're worried about politicians dropping the licence fee if they don't is also politics, not the market.
Politics at times may be like the market, but its not the market, its politics. There'd be a very simple solution to have market conditions affecting the BBC, but at present it does not, not freely. Same for any other public sector role, if MPs vote themselves a 25% pay rise that too is politics and not "market conditions".
Kate Forbes clearly isn't a team player. She'll find it difficult to keep her government together if she does win.
I completely dislike Kate Forbes and disagree with her politics, and hope she loses the race, but why isn't she a team player from that comment?
Could it not equally be that Shona Robison isn't a team player?
She completely trashed the government she is part of in the debates. She appears to think her right to conscience on certain moral issues trumps the collective view of her colleagues.
Er, this is an election to *debate* future policies - not a cabinet meeting.
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.
"able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin"
The Birmingham Six say 'hi!'
'Traces of explosives' is a very subjective term. Be careful with it, and always ask questions.
These days, the tests used are (generally) specific to actual molecules, rather than all the nitrates.
OT. Great feature on Fox News and the 'stolen election' on Ch4 News. Whatever anyone thinks about the BBC just look at the alternative!
It’s been quite staggering seeing a load of the internal emails from Murdoch down at Fox who clearly hate Trump, completely disagreed the election had been stolen and realise their errors.
If only Murdoch had actually trusted his gut and been an “editor” of Fox (for once Murdoch actually dictating to one of his mouthpieces would have produced a better result) then the stolen election BS would have been nipped in the bud at the time.
The defamation case will certainly be interesting. It's turned out to be a stronger case than most, but its still the case that most of the statements were from guests even if the hosts rarely if ever challenged, and its a very high bar to meet.
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.
Market forces innit.
Nope. 🤦♂️
Its political forces. They get their revenue from politics, not the market.
If you want market forces, then enter the market, and privatise the BBC. Then market forces would apply. If they did that, then you might see his salary stay the same, go down, or go up, but it would now be subject to market forces either way.
But so long as it is the threat of imprisonment, not free choice, that determines decisions and funding then it is and will remain political forces.
You need to learn the difference between politics and the market.
How odd. I wonder why so many businessmen and market traders feel the need to give lots of £££ to the Tories.
Adam Smith had a few pungent remarks on that sort of thing (edited out IIRC by one K. Joseph).
That would be politics too.
Market forces apply in market conditions. If its political conditions that apply though, like the threat of imprisonment, then its not a free market. I pay the BBC not because I watch the BBC (I don't) but because I would go to prison if I didn't pay them.
Similarly the BBC chasing ratings as they're worried about politicians dropping the licence fee if they don't is also politics, not the market.
Politics at times may be like the market, but its not the market, its politics. There'd be a very simple solution to have market conditions affecting the BBC, but at present it does not, not freely. Same for any other public sector role, if MPs vote themselves a 25% pay rise that too is politics and not "market conditions".
On the latter point, you do get MPs (usually Tory) complaining that the pay doesn't compete with other occupations. And historically it has been an issue. For Labour MPs before MPs had salaries, notably.
Kate Forbes clearly isn't a team player. She'll find it difficult to keep her government together if she does win.
I completely dislike Kate Forbes and disagree with her politics, and hope she loses the race, but why isn't she a team player from that comment?
Could it not equally be that Shona Robison isn't a team player?
She completely trashed the government she is part of in the debates. She appears to think her right to conscience on certain moral issues trumps the collective view of her colleagues.
What collective view of her colleagues?
There is no collective view at the times of a leadership election . . . and if she wins the race then her view could help shape the collective view of the party and the likes of Robison would need to decide if they can abide by that collective view and collective responsibility or not.
Its perfectly reasonable during a leadership contest to speak freely and suggest a change of course. Its not perfectly reasonable to do so, as a Cabinet Minister, in the open.
Gary Linkekar is not a BBC employee, so it is far from clear that he is bound by the impartiality rules. We would need to see his specific contract to know what he agreed to.
True, although with an IR35 hat on to all-intents-and-purposes he appears to be as good as one to the public.
He does work for other companies though. He does some BT Sport punditry for example, plus his work for Walkers etc.
Yes, he’s actually a marginal case with regard to IR35. The bigger problem is that the BBC reported him as being on their payroll, but he wasn’t actually registered as an employee for tax purposes, with the money sent to a company he controls.
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.
"able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin"
The Birmingham Six say 'hi!'
'Traces of explosives' is a very subjective term. Be careful with it, and always ask questions.
These days, the tests used are (generally) specific to actual molecules, rather than all the nitrates.
For exactly that reason.
I'd blooming well hope so (and that the technology had moved on in 40-50 years). It's just that 'tracers' of chemicals really does need qualification.
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.
Market forces innit.
Nope. 🤦♂️
Its political forces. They get their revenue from politics, not the market.
If you want market forces, then enter the market, and privatise the BBC. Then market forces would apply. If they did that, then you might see his salary stay the same, go down, or go up, but it would now be subject to market forces either way.
But so long as it is the threat of imprisonment, not free choice, that determines decisions and funding then it is and will remain political forces.
You need to learn the difference between politics and the market.
How odd. I wonder why so many businessmen and market traders feel the need to give lots of £££ to the Tories.
Adam Smith had a few pungent remarks on that sort of thing (edited out IIRC by one K. Joseph).
That would be politics too.
Market forces apply in market conditions. If its political conditions that apply though, like the threat of imprisonment, then its not a free market. I pay the BBC not because I watch the BBC (I don't) but because I would go to prison if I didn't pay them.
Similarly the BBC chasing ratings as they're worried about politicians dropping the licence fee if they don't is also politics, not the market.
Politics at times may be like the market, but its not the market, its politics. There'd be a very simple solution to have market conditions affecting the BBC, but at present it does not, not freely. Same for any other public sector role, if MPs vote themselves a 25% pay rise that too is politics and not "market conditions".
On the latter point, you do get MPs (usually Tory) complaining that the pay doesn't compete with other occupations. And historically it has been an issue. For Labour MPs before MPs had salaries, notably.
They can say what they like, but that's politics.
Supply and demand would suggest that MPs are overpaid in my humble opinion. There is a far greater supply of people wanting to become MPs than there are vacancies available. If market conditions applied then the pay could drop tremendously based on supply and demand, but politics applies instead.
Still waiting on the Finland story, let alone a Harry/Megan divorce.
Four or five us know the Finland story, but it is (if untrue) extremely libelous as it involves a prominent person and dropped criminal charges.
I thought it was a prominent person, anonymous animals, a few common or garden vegetables, a mineral (knapped), the late Queen Mother, the entre cabinet, and all of BBC sport?
I would give details, but the problem is that even a few details make it fairly easy to work out who the person in question is.
Blond, bumbling, recently evicted from No 10 Downing St and thoroughly reviled by the nation? Nope not specific enough…
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.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
What level of minister? Seems like it would be pretty easy to send someone who legitimately had no knowledge of any involvement so who could deny it convincingly.
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.
Market forces innit.
Nope. 🤦♂️
Its political forces. They get their revenue from politics, not the market.
If you want market forces, then enter the market, and privatise the BBC. Then market forces would apply. If they did that, then you might see his salary stay the same, go down, or go up, but it would now be subject to market forces either way.
But so long as it is the threat of imprisonment, not free choice, that determines decisions and funding then it is and will remain political forces.
You need to learn the difference between politics and the market.
How odd. I wonder why so many businessmen and market traders feel the need to give lots of £££ to the Tories.
Adam Smith had a few pungent remarks on that sort of thing (edited out IIRC by one K. Joseph).
And the money is shifting to the Labour Party.
As a great man said, when buying and selling is controlled by politicians, the first thing bought and sold is politicians.
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.
"able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin"
The Birmingham Six say 'hi!'
'Traces of explosives' is a very subjective term. Be careful with it, and always ask questions.
These days, the tests used are (generally) specific to actual molecules, rather than all the nitrates.
For exactly that reason.
TBF analytical chemistry has moved on a fair bit from the 70s.
Kate Forbes clearly isn't a team player. She'll find it difficult to keep her government together if she does win.
I completely dislike Kate Forbes and disagree with her politics, and hope she loses the race, but why isn't she a team player from that comment?
Could it not equally be that Shona Robison isn't a team player?
She completely trashed the government she is part of in the debates. She appears to think her right to conscience on certain moral issues trumps the collective view of her colleagues.
Er, this is an election to *debate* future policies - not a cabinet meeting.
I don't think the following very public washing of dirty linen counts as "debating future policy" : When you were transport minister the trains were never on time, when you were justice minister the police were strained to breaking point and now as health minister we’ve got record high waiting times.”
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
What level of minister? Seems like it would be pretty easy to send someone who legitimately had no knowledge of any involvement so who could deny it convincingly.
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.
"able to detect traces of explosives on the table in the cabin"
The Birmingham Six say 'hi!'
'Traces of explosives' is a very subjective term. Be careful with it, and always ask questions.
These days, the tests used are (generally) specific to actual molecules, rather than all the nitrates.
For exactly that reason.
TBF analytical chemistry has moved on a fair bit from the 70s.
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.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
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.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Ah ha: false flag operation by Russians posing as Ukrainians you think?
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.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I recall when the BBC lost test cricket the first time, an interview with an outraged executive.
Yes, he said, we used cricket as afternoon filler and interrupted it at a drop of a hat. But it was *our* filler to muck around with.
The BBC doesn't actually want Test cricket these days. It notably does NOT lobby for inclusion of matches amongst Listed Events that must legally be made available on free to air terrestrial TV. There are long periods in the five days (due to weather and early ends) that it's not on and nobody's watching. That's fine for pay to view as you've got the viewer's money. But for free to air it's horrific.
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.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Kate Forbes clearly isn't a team player. She'll find it difficult to keep her government together if she does win.
I completely dislike Kate Forbes and disagree with her politics, and hope she loses the race, but why isn't she a team player from that comment?
Could it not equally be that Shona Robison isn't a team player?
She completely trashed the government she is part of in the debates. She appears to think her right to conscience on certain moral issues trumps the collective view of her colleagues.
Indeed. Imagine a serving Chancellor of the Exchequer, running to be PM and leader of the Conservative Party, trashing the general record of the government he was serving in as "mediocre" and laying into its recent record on the NHS, policing and transport.
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Ah ha: false flag operation by Russians posing as Ukrainians you think?
I am totally mystified by the pipeline thing because it serves no-one's interest*. If forced I would plump for the Poles. They have always hated Nordstream and they don't have much time for the Germans either
* Edit I mean it serves no government's interest. Rogue elements in Ukraine, USA may have different views. Russia has already demonstrated its willingness to go against its own interest, not least in its own sabotage of its gas revenues.
Kate Forbes clearly isn't a team player. She'll find it difficult to keep her government together if she does win.
I completely dislike Kate Forbes and disagree with her politics, and hope she loses the race, but why isn't she a team player from that comment?
Could it not equally be that Shona Robison isn't a team player?
She completely trashed the government she is part of in the debates. She appears to think her right to conscience on certain moral issues trumps the collective view of her colleagues.
Indeed. Imagine a serving Chancellor of the Exchequer, running to be PM and leader of the Conservative Party, trashing the general record of the government he was serving in as "mediocre" and laying into its recent record on the NHS, policing and transport.
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Does it?
Who objected to it being destroyed? The Germans didn't seem very bothered.
Josh @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.
Except that in a Scottish context the Labour Party is well to the right of the SNP. Which makes it so interesting a situation, admittedly.
For now, if Kate Forbes is elected by SNP members to succeed Sturgeon, the SNP will be well to the right of Sunak's Conservative Party let alone Starmer's Labour Party
From a purely 'popcorn' aspect - Forbes winning would be the most fun.
Not saying that's best for Scotland. But it might generate quite a few headers on PB. Which is almost as important.
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Not sure why people are assuming state actors here. 150 feet of water is 45m. Which you can do on normal Scuba (I’ve done it) though you’d be well advised to go mixed gas if you are doing work at that depth.
Rock up in your yacht. Find the pipeline with a weighted line. If you are being fancy, send a GoPro down with a cable feed back to the surface. For the really fancy, you can buy a small ROV in quite a few dive shops.
So you have a dive line. Hang your deco tanks on it. Drop another line for equipment descent. Send your divers down. Drop the explosives in prepared watertight containers (various sizes of boxes proof to various depths available online, or you can weld up your own) down the equipment line - ballasted to sink moderately slowly, for easy handling.
Divers shove the boxes next to the pipeline. A few rare-Earth magnets will make sure they stay in place.
Press the buttons on the timers, and go back up. Deco. Beer on boat.
Josh @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.
Except that in a Scottish context the Labour Party is well to the right of the SNP. Which makes it so interesting a situation, admittedly.
For now, if Kate Forbes is elected by SNP members to succeed Sturgeon, the SNP will be well to the right of Sunak's Conservative Party let alone Starmer's Labour Party
From a purely 'popcorn' aspect - Forbes winning would be the most fun.
Not saying that's best for Scotland. But it might generate quite a few headers on PB. Which is almost as important.
It's difficult to see how she could be as bad as Yousaf, who is completely without redeeming features, or significantly worse than Regan, who is a single issue obsessive.
So she almost certainly would be best for Scotland as well.
Admittedly, in the same way being shot is preferable to being boiled alive.
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Not sure why people are assuming state actors here. 150 feet of water is 45m. Which you can do on normal Scuba (I’ve done it) though you’d be well advised to go mixed gas if you are doing work at that depth.
Rock up in your yacht. Find the pipeline with a weighted line. If you are being fancy, send a GoPro down with a cable feed back to the surface. For the really fancy, you can buy a small ROV in quite a few dive shops.
So you have a dive line. Hang your deco tanks on it. Drop another line for equipment descent. Send your divers down. Drop the explosives in prepared watertight containers (various sizes of boxes proof to various depths available online, or you can weld up your own) down the equipment line - ballasted to sink moderately slowly, for easy handling.
Divers shove the boxes next to the pipeline. A few rare-Earth magnets will make sure they stay in place.
Press the buttons on the timers, and go back up. Deco. Beer on boat.
A week or two later, the timers reach zero.
An ex-colleague of mine used to spend many weekends diving in the North Sea, in not much shallower waters. The team he was part of located several World War 1 wrecks, mainly submarines.
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.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Not sure why people are assuming state actors here. 150 feet of water is 45m. Which you can do on normal Scuba (I’ve done it) though you’d be well advised to go mixed gas if you are doing work at that depth.
Rock up in your yacht. Find the pipeline with a weighted line. If you are being fancy, send a GoPro down with a cable feed back to the surface. For the really fancy, you can buy a small ROV in quite a few dive shops.
So you have a dive line. Hang your deco tanks on it. Drop another line for equipment descent. Send your divers down. Drop the explosives in prepared watertight containers (various sizes of boxes proof to various depths available online, or you can weld up your own) down the equipment line - ballasted to sink moderately slowly, for easy handling.
Divers shove the boxes next to the pipeline. A few rare-Earth magnets will make sure they stay in place.
Press the buttons on the timers, and go back up. Deco. Beer on boat.
A week or two later, the timers reach zero.
I've only done a small amount of scuba, and only inland. But I've known people who were semi-pro, and chatted to professionals. Yes, your scenario could work; but there's also a lot that could go wrong, and be detected. As an example, leaving aside the divers, you need timers. These are simple, but also complex to make reliable (and waterproof, etc). even access to suitable explosives.
The more complex you make it, the less likely it is to be relative amateurs. That does not mean it is a state actor (it might have been PMCs, companies or mercenaries), but it is far from unskilled.
Ukrainian minister shrugging his shoulders and saying “nothing to do with us” on Swedish news. Hilariously unconvincing.
Whoever blew up the pipelines (note after the Russians had already stopped supplying gas to Germany) was surely at least sending a message to Germany. If it was Ukrainian actors (not inconceivable) it was an extremely risky move. Ukraine's strategic interest is getting western countries particularly including Germany to support them. This act, of no practical value, risks that support.
Not sure why people are assuming state actors here. 150 feet of water is 45m. Which you can do on normal Scuba (I’ve done it) though you’d be well advised to go mixed gas if you are doing work at that depth.
Rock up in your yacht. Find the pipeline with a weighted line. If you are being fancy, send a GoPro down with a cable feed back to the surface. For the really fancy, you can buy a small ROV in quite a few dive shops.
So you have a dive line. Hang your deco tanks on it. Drop another line for equipment descent. Send your divers down. Drop the explosives in prepared watertight containers (various sizes of boxes proof to various depths available online, or you can weld up your own) down the equipment line - ballasted to sink moderately slowly, for easy handling.
Divers shove the boxes next to the pipeline. A few rare-Earth magnets will make sure they stay in place.
Press the buttons on the timers, and go back up. Deco. Beer on boat.
A week or two later, the timers reach zero.
An ex-colleague of mine used to spend many weekends diving in the North Sea, in not much shallower waters. The team he was part of located several World War 1 wrecks, mainly submarines.
He would almost certainly have been on mixed gas - the North Sea is generally a bit deep for regular air. I’d love to visit some of the Jutland wrecks, but I would need to do the training all over again, now.
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.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
Countdown wasn’t adversely affected when it dumped Vorderman for Rachel Riley who came in for a considerably lower salary.
Do people tune in to MOTD for Lineker and his insight or to see the Soccer ? I suspect if you had Alex Scott or Alan Shearer, for example, in that role the viewing figures would not suffer.
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.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Josh @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.
Except that in a Scottish context the Labour Party is well to the right of the SNP. Which makes it so interesting a situation, admittedly.
For now, if Kate Forbes is elected by SNP members to succeed Sturgeon, the SNP will be well to the right of Sunak's Conservative Party let alone Starmer's Labour Party
From a purely 'popcorn' aspect - Forbes winning would be the most fun.
Not saying that's best for Scotland. But it might generate quite a few headers on PB. Which is almost as important.
It's difficult to see how she could be as bad as Yousaf, who is completely without redeeming features, or significantly worse than Regan, who is a single issue obsessive.
So she almost certainly would be best for Scotland as well.
Admittedly, in the same way being shot is preferable to being boiled alive.
How has she done with actual Government portfolio she has had? Aside from the witch burning etc.
The former police detective who exposed Jimmy Savile a decade ago says that he is now working on bringing down another famous “very significant” and “untouchable” sex offender.
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.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Yes, the ODI the other morning, after I spent nearly 20 minutes trying to find something called Talksport2. Awful. Just awful.
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.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Decades ago, the ITV Saturday morning show had a competition for a new (teenage) presenter. They made a lot about it, and a young lad won. I think I saw him a couple of times after, as he really was not very good.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
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.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Would it get the same views without Linkeer, the was replaced with someone else at a quarter the pay? (Which would still be a good salary).
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
It's a view but what if the presenters are really no good?
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
Can't get bloody talk sport 2 on my radio. And when I tried their main programme they were doing some boring commentary on the current state of the premier league.
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.
"The idea viewing figures don't matter in commissioning decisions, contract discussions and so on shows no understanding whatever if how the BBC works. "
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
As someone who has no interest in football, why are you bothered who presents it?
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
Why am I bothered? Because of what he is paid.
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
I suspect the cost per minute of MOTD is actually quite low compared with most prime time shows, and it is popular. It gets seven million viewers on Saturday nights, the most popular UK sports programme by a comfortable margin.
Because of Lineker? I doubt it. It’s not called Gary Linekers big footy show, after all. Football is the national game, Saturday (just about hanging on) the day for football, certainly for real fans who support non Premier league teams, but want to watch the premier highlights.
Comments
And that's despite the fact he plays for Manchester United.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11800537/Gary-Linekers-lawyers-say-HMRC-assessed-BBC-4-9-million-tax-battle.html
Which is human nature, sure, but less OK when it's the government doing it.
Apart from that, good point.
Problem here is that the UKG has been doing its level best to trash the Union in recent years. I think if there is a weakening support for independence in Scotland it's more to do with travails in the SNP than any new acceptance of the status quo. Yes was well ahead of No as recently as last December.
‘Keir Starmer just ordered an alpaca airstrike!’ The game that holds up a dystopian mirror to the UK
Its political forces. They get their revenue from politics, not the market.
If you want market forces, then enter the market, and privatise the BBC. Then market forces would apply. If they did that, then you might see his salary stay the same, go down, or go up, but it would now be subject to market forces either way.
But so long as it is the threat of imprisonment, not free choice, that determines decisions and funding then it is and will remain political forces.
You need to learn the difference between politics and the market.
You said, in response to a comment calling him smooth talking, that he had the charisma and presence of a wet lettuce. I merely offered the view that I do not see him that way and don't get the impression a lot of others do either.
You seem to have extrapolated a lot more from that comment than was intended or stated. It was no more and no less than contrasting your opinion of his media skills as a presenter with my opinion.
The Birmingham Six say 'hi!'
'Traces of explosives' is a very subjective term. Be careful with it, and always ask questions.
In Wales it is less of an issue given the 2 main parties are still the Unionist Conservatives and Labour, Plaid have never got anywhere near winning most seats in Wales let alone a majority
If only Murdoch had actually trusted his gut and been an “editor” of Fox (for once Murdoch actually dictating to one of his mouthpieces would have produced a better result) then the stolen election BS would have been nipped in the bud at the time.
Adam Smith had a few pungent remarks on that sort of thing (edited out IIRC by one K. Joseph).
Its a lot more left-wing, sure, and it is state-owned, but it generates its revenue privately so I'm perfectly fine with it. 👍
Yet that is what we see, time and time again. They are obsessed with ratings, but they are also obsessed with celebrity, and its-who-you-know-you-know.
Otherwise there would be a constant churn as they look for new talent that could increase the ratings, rather than employing Lineker for 25 years or so.
Market forces apply in market conditions. If its political conditions that apply though, like the threat of imprisonment, then its not a free market. I pay the BBC not because I watch the BBC (I don't) but because I would go to prison if I didn't pay them.
Similarly the BBC chasing ratings as they're worried about politicians dropping the licence fee if they don't is also politics, not the market.
Politics at times may be like the market, but its not the market, its politics. There'd be a very simple solution to have market conditions affecting the BBC, but at present it does not, not freely. Same for any other public sector role, if MPs vote themselves a 25% pay rise that too is politics and not "market conditions".
For exactly that reason.
There is no collective view at the times of a leadership election . . . and if she wins the race then her view could help shape the collective view of the party and the likes of Robison would need to decide if they can abide by that collective view and collective responsibility or not.
Its perfectly reasonable during a leadership contest to speak freely and suggest a change of course. Its not perfectly reasonable to do so, as a Cabinet Minister, in the open.
Supply and demand would suggest that MPs are overpaid in my humble opinion. There is a far greater supply of people wanting to become MPs than there are vacancies available. If market conditions applied then the pay could drop tremendously based on supply and demand, but politics applies instead.
The BBC has programmes for everyone, which has the flipside that there will be programmes that everyone dislikes too.
As a great man said, when buying and selling is controlled by politicians, the first thing bought and sold is politicians.
: When you were transport minister the trains were never on time, when you were justice minister the police were strained to breaking point and now as health minister we’ve got record high waiting times.”
Because I (willingly) pay the licence fee. The BBC keep on wittering about cancelling things I care about (*) for a few hundred thousands or a million pounds, whilst paying 'talent' massive amounts.
That's why I care.
Perhaps that's unreasonable. But hey, I'm a licence fee payer, and I'd rather my money not go into the hangers-on on a corrupt sport. And I don't mean F1 (because the BBC spends what it finds stuffed down the side of the green room sofa on that sport)
(*) e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-61591674
Yes, he said, we used cricket as afternoon filler and interrupted it at a drop of a hat. But it was *our* filler to muck around with.
* Edit I mean it serves no government's interest. Rogue elements in Ukraine, USA may have different views. Russia has already demonstrated its willingness to go against its own interest, not least in its own sabotage of its gas revenues.
Who objected to it being destroyed? The Germans didn't seem very bothered.
Not saying that's best for Scotland. But it might generate quite a few headers on PB. Which is almost as important.
Rock up in your yacht. Find the pipeline with a weighted line. If you are being fancy, send a GoPro down with a cable feed back to the surface. For the really fancy, you can buy a small ROV in quite a few dive shops.
So you have a dive line. Hang your deco tanks on it. Drop another line for equipment descent. Send your divers down. Drop the explosives in prepared watertight containers (various sizes of boxes proof to various depths available online, or you can weld up your own) down the equipment line - ballasted to sink moderately slowly, for easy handling.
Divers shove the boxes next to the pipeline. A few rare-Earth magnets will make sure they stay in place.
Press the buttons on the timers, and go back up. Deco. Beer on boat.
A week or two later, the timers reach zero.
So she almost certainly would be best for Scotland as well.
Admittedly, in the same way being shot is preferable to being boiled alive.
Are you saying people tune in saying: "I'm not interested in the football, but I really want to watch Lineker giving his views."
Only thrice has a serving Chancellor of the Exchequer stood for a party leadership election since 1945.*
John Major in 1990 was one.
Who were the other two?
*Discounting 1957 and 1963 which were not elections.
You’re getting angry about the wrong fucking boats lads.
https://twitter.com/danieljmath1/status/1633482334493081602?s=46
The gender pay gap, caring responsibilities and working patterns all impact women’s retirement savings. More here: spr.ly/60053xlPf
https://twitter.com/scottishwidows/status/1631724516186497037?s=46
Zahawi in 2022.
Brown in 2007.
Healey in 1976.
The more complex you make it, the less likely it is to be relative amateurs. That does not mean it is a state actor (it might have been PMCs, companies or mercenaries), but it is far from unskilled.
Do people tune in to MOTD for Lineker and his insight or to see the Soccer ? I suspect if you had Alex Scott or Alan Shearer, for example, in that role the viewing figures would not suffer.
Ever tried listening to the cricket on Talksport radio?
The former police detective who exposed Jimmy Savile a decade ago says that he is now working on bringing down another famous “very significant” and “untouchable” sex offender.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-cop-who-exposed-jimmy-28133232
https://twitter.com/myarrse/status/1633005284888137731?s=46
Mr Eagles' list is correct. The others were Healey and Zahawi.
But the point remains: Lineker has been working for the BBC for 25-30 years. When do they change, and why?
He received so many nominations that nobody else could stand.
His only rival was John McDonnell.
Amanda Spielman pretends she cares about the safety of children.
Just because people say things doesn't make them true.