Find it hard to grasp why people are being agitated by Lineker either way. He’s a football pundit, quite a lot of them have strong political views - G.Nev, Carra etc being cases in point. Both are vocal leftwingers and Labour Party members.
The fact that the BBC are one of Lineker’s clients isn’t relevant, unless we are suggesting anyone who has ever invoiced the BBC should steer clear of expressing any view on any issue?
Nor is the scale of his fee, which is agreed between him and his client, pertinent to the debate.
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
Find it hard to grasp why people are being agitated by Lineker either way. He’s a football pundit, quite a lot of them have strong political views - G.Nev, Carra etc being cases in point. Both are vocal leftwingers and Labour Party members.
The fact that the BBC are one of Lineker’s clients isn’t relevant, unless we are suggesting anyone who has ever invoiced the BBC should steer clear of expressing any view on any issue?
Nor is the scale of his fee, which is agreed between him and his client, pertinent to the debate.
More confected outrage.
Gary Neville is he the guy who took money from the Quataris...
I assumed, probably along with the rest of the British public, that most MP’s were earning a decent whack on the side. Turns out not really to be the case.
The mean outside earnings per MP are rather unexciting.
And, sorted by political party, the outside earnings of everyone except Conservatives are very unexciting (except Lammy).
It suits many in the media to portray this as an issue for MPs as a whole. It’s much more accurate to portray it as an issue for the broken, corrupt Tory party.
I assumed, probably along with the rest of the British public, that most MP’s were earning a decent whack on the side. Turns out not really to be the case.
The mean outside earnings per MP are rather unexciting.
And, sorted by political party, the outside earnings of everyone except Conservatives are very unexciting (except Lammy).
It suits many in the media to portray this as an issue for MPs as a whole. It’s much more accurate to portray it as an issue for the broken, corrupt Tory party.
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
The BBC don’t want him to express political opinions on air.
But it’s interesting you now think his freedom of speech should be removed. I assume you’d say the same thing it it was something you agreed with? Yeah, right
I assumed, probably along with the rest of the British public, that most MP’s were earning a decent whack on the side. Turns out not really to be the case.
The mean outside earnings per MP are rather unexciting.
And, sorted by political party, the outside earnings of everyone except Conservatives are very unexciting (except Lammy).
It suits many in the media to portray this as an issue for MPs as a whole. It’s much more accurate to portray it as an issue for the broken, corrupt Tory party.
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
He didn't express his views via the BBC. He did it on twitter in a private capacity.
It really is quite an interesting test of free speech and "cancel culture" or are those only a problem when right wingers mouth off?
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
Not sure what’s in his contract, but it seems a bit unreasonable to insist a part time worker paid effectively on an agency basis should not say what he thinks on political matters outside of the time he is paid for.
Difficult to argue, for example, that it brings the organisation into disrepute, which might be the only grounds for doing so.
If they want him to stay politically neutral at all times they should bring him in house on a full time salary.
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
I assumed, probably along with the rest of the British public, that most MP’s were earning a decent whack on the side. Turns out not really to be the case.
The mean outside earnings per MP are rather unexciting.
And, sorted by political party, the outside earnings of everyone except Conservatives are very unexciting (except Lammy).
It suits many in the media to portray this as an issue for MPs as a whole. It’s much more accurate to portray it as an issue for the broken, corrupt Tory party.
What’s David Lammy earned?
£238 508 according to Tortoise.
How? Of all people in the Commons he isn’t one I expected to have lots of outside earnings.
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
The BBC don’t want him to express political opinions on air.
But it’s interesting you now think his freedom of speech should be removed. I assume you’d say the same thing it it was something you agreed with? Yeah, right
Nope noonecwho works for the BBC shoukd. They should keep.it buttoned.
I assumed, probably along with the rest of the British public, that most MP’s were earning a decent whack on the side. Turns out not really to be the case.
The mean outside earnings per MP are rather unexciting.
And, sorted by political party, the outside earnings of everyone except Conservatives are very unexciting (except Lammy).
It suits many in the media to portray this as an issue for MPs as a whole. It’s much more accurate to portray it as an issue for the broken, corrupt Tory party.
What’s David Lammy earned?
£238 508 according to Tortoise.
How? Of all people in the Commons he isn’t one I expected to have lots of outside earnings.
I assumed, probably along with the rest of the British public, that most MP’s were earning a decent whack on the side. Turns out not really to be the case.
The mean outside earnings per MP are rather unexciting.
And, sorted by political party, the outside earnings of everyone except Conservatives are very unexciting (except Lammy).
It suits many in the media to portray this as an issue for MPs as a whole. It’s much more accurate to portray it as an issue for the broken, corrupt Tory party.
What’s David Lammy earned?
£238 508 according to Tortoise.
How? Of all people in the Commons he isn’t one I expected to have lots of outside earnings.
He's a lawyer, people pay good for access to lawyers.
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
Not sure what’s in his contract, but it seems a bit unreasonable to insist a part time worker paid effectively on an agency basis should not say what he thinks on political matters outside of the time he is paid for.
Difficult to argue, for example, that it brings the organisation into disrepute, which might be the only grounds for doing so.
If they want him to stay politically neutral at all times they should bring him in house on a full time salary.
It's also fair to point out that he was well known long before spring for the Beeb. It's not even as though you could argue he's trading on his BBC status to gain attention for his political views.
I can understand Tories being riled by the comment. It's arguably a stretch to compare Braverman's unpleasant and inflammatory language with that of the 1930s Nazis - though I note a Holocaust survivor drew the same comparison a few weeks ago - but it's contemptible to say he doesn't have the right to express political views.
Boris Johnson warned Dominic Raab about his conduct when he was prime minister and has given evidence to the bullying inquiry into the justice secretary’s behaviour.
Johnson has been interviewed by Adam Tolley KC, the independent lawyer who is looking into a number of formal complaints made by senior civil servants against Raab. They are understood to relate to Raab’s roles as justice secretary and foreign secretary, appointments both made by Johnson.
The inquiry, which is not expected to conclude until the end of this month, is understood to have spoken to a number of officials who either complained about or witnessed Raab’s alleged behaviour. Ministers are also understood to have been spoken to.
What a third rate dump Oxford is, full of thieves.
Oxford has its fair share of students and alumni born with silver spoons in their mouths.
But some of its oldest colleges, including Boris Johnson’s alma mater, have told students to be less light-fingered with cutlery and crockery from its dining rooms.
Magdalen College, attended by several Conservative MPs including William Hague, Jeremy Hunt and Dominic Grieve, the former attorney-general, is the latest to warn students of dire consequences if they continue to pilfer from formal hall.
The bursar emailed students today to announce a short amnesty period. He said: “The fad for taking souvenirs from hall and other dining rooms has worsened, recent losses of crockery and cutlery from the catering department is not acceptable or sustainable. However, we are giving you the opportunity to return these items before the end of term with no blame attached.
“Please return all items to the JCR dining room in cloisters by noon on Friday 10th March. The catering team will collect these items daily at noon on Thursday and Friday.
“Following this period, any items of college property found in a student’s possession will be regarded as theft and be treated as such.”....
....Last week, it was reported that Balliol College will no longer use college crested cups or placemats for dinners after numerous students were caught attempting to steal the items.
I assumed, probably along with the rest of the British public, that most MP’s were earning a decent whack on the side. Turns out not really to be the case.
The mean outside earnings per MP are rather unexciting.
And, sorted by political party, the outside earnings of everyone except Conservatives are very unexciting (except Lammy).
It suits many in the media to portray this as an issue for MPs as a whole. It’s much more accurate to portray it as an issue for the broken, corrupt Tory party.
What’s David Lammy earned?
£238 508 according to Tortoise.
How? Of all people in the Commons he isn’t one I expected to have lots of outside earnings.
An example I suppose of how a politician can be notable in one region and yet pass notice in another. I'd never thought of him as having a media career.
I see the PB free speech aficionados, so keen to defend Jeremy Clarkson when he advocated a misogynistic and brutally sexualised punishment of someone he didn’t like for the crime of…something…, are very keen to stop Gary Lineker tweeting his opinions. Funny that.
If these details are accurate, it's very good news for the economics of the RN being able to maintain its nuclear submarine capacity into the next decade.
AUKUS details trickling out. Bloomberg says Australia will go for "modified British design w/ US parts". Guardian says "British design" w/ "heavy use of US tech." That's late 2030s. Reuters says gap filled with US fwd deployment to Aus & then Aus operating 3-5 Virginia-class. https://mobile.twitter.com/shashj/status/1633594396619808768
I see the PB free speech aficionados, so keen to defend Jeremy Clarkson when he advocated a misogynistic and brutally sexualised punishment of someone he didn’t like for the crime of…something…, are very keen to stop Gary Lineker tweeting his opinions. Funny that.
They were also oddly quiet when Lineker repeatedly criticised Qatar.
Boris Johnson warned Dominic Raab about his conduct when he was prime minister and has given evidence to the bullying inquiry into the justice secretary’s behaviour.
Johnson has been interviewed by Adam Tolley KC, the independent lawyer who is looking into a number of formal complaints made by senior civil servants against Raab. They are understood to relate to Raab’s roles as justice secretary and foreign secretary, appointments both made by Johnson.
The inquiry, which is not expected to conclude until the end of this month, is understood to have spoken to a number of officials who either complained about or witnessed Raab’s alleged behaviour. Ministers are also understood to have been spoken to.
Boris Johnson warned Dominic Raab about his conduct when he was prime minister and has given evidence to the bullying inquiry into the justice secretary’s behaviour.
Johnson has been interviewed by Adam Tolley KC, the independent lawyer who is looking into a number of formal complaints made by senior civil servants against Raab. They are understood to relate to Raab’s roles as justice secretary and foreign secretary, appointments both made by Johnson.
The inquiry, which is not expected to conclude until the end of this month, is understood to have spoken to a number of officials who either complained about or witnessed Raab’s alleged behaviour. Ministers are also understood to have been spoken to.
Boris Johnson warned Dominic Raab about his conduct when he was prime minister and has given evidence to the bullying inquiry into the justice secretary’s behaviour.
Johnson has been interviewed by Adam Tolley KC, the independent lawyer who is looking into a number of formal complaints made by senior civil servants against Raab. They are understood to relate to Raab’s roles as justice secretary and foreign secretary, appointments both made by Johnson.
The inquiry, which is not expected to conclude until the end of this month, is understood to have spoken to a number of officials who either complained about or witnessed Raab’s alleged behaviour. Ministers are also understood to have been spoken to.
Hybrid workers take more exercise, get more sleep and eat healthier, according to a study conducted by IWG, a workspace provider.
A poll of 2,000 people who have become hybrid workers since the pandemic — meaning they spend only part of their week commuting into a city-centre office — found that they now had more time for fitness, cooking from scratch and sleep.
Dr Sara Kayat, an NHS GP, said: “There is no doubt that hybrid working has facilitated some major health benefits. A balanced diet, physical activity and good quality sleep are the bedrocks of a healthy lifestyle.”
The survey comes amid a government push to encourage employers to take more responsibility for the health of their workforce. The budget is expected to include a new subsidy for smaller firms to purchase occupational health services.
The study included people using local working hubs as well as city-centre headquarters and working from home. It found that the average hybrid worker was now getting 4.7 hours of exercise a week, compared with 3.4 hours before the pandemic, with the most common forms of exercise being walking, running and strength training.
Find it hard to grasp why people are being agitated by Lineker either way. He’s a football pundit, quite a lot of them have strong political views - G.Nev, Carra etc being cases in point. Both are vocal leftwingers and Labour Party members.
The fact that the BBC are one of Lineker’s clients isn’t relevant, unless we are suggesting anyone who has ever invoiced the BBC should steer clear of expressing any view on any issue?
Nor is the scale of his fee, which is agreed between him and his client, pertinent to the debate.
More confected outrage.
Gary Neville is he the guy who took money from the Quataris...
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
He didn't express his views via the BBC. He did it on twitter in a private capacity.
It really is quite an interesting test of free speech and "cancel culture" or are those only a problem when right wingers mouth off?
Yes, very well put. Was just thinking similarly but you articulated it well!
I see the PB free speech aficionados, so keen to defend Jeremy Clarkson when he advocated a misogynistic and brutally sexualised punishment of someone he didn’t like for the crime of…something…, are very keen to stop Gary Lineker tweeting his opinions. Funny that.
No different to those who are keen to support Lineker and his tweets who opposed Clarksons right to his comments.
Some people are hypocrites and some only see fault in the side they oppose.
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
The BBC don’t want him to express political opinions on air.
But it’s interesting you now think his freedom of speech should be removed. I assume you’d say the same thing it it was something you agreed with? Yeah, right
Nope noonecwho works for the BBC shoukd. They should keep.it buttoned.
Any minor celebrity who goes on a game show to raise money for a charity is making a political statement by supporting that charity. Do you think that everyone who makes regular appearances on BBC media should not be allowed to appear on such shows?
If these details are accurate, it's very good news for the economics of the RN being able to maintain its nuclear submarine capacity into the next decade.
AUKUS details trickling out. Bloomberg says Australia will go for "modified British design w/ US parts". Guardian says "British design" w/ "heavy use of US tech." That's late 2030s. Reuters says gap filled with US fwd deployment to Aus & then Aus operating 3-5 Virginia-class. https://mobile.twitter.com/shashj/status/1633594396619808768
I seem to remember France saying that the UK was just the fifth wheel on the carriage in the deal so it wasn't even worth recalling the ambassador.
I see the PB free speech aficionados, so keen to defend Jeremy Clarkson when he advocated a misogynistic and brutally sexualised punishment of someone he didn’t like for the crime of…something…, are very keen to stop Gary Lineker tweeting his opinions. Funny that.
No different to those who are keen to support Lineker and his tweets who opposed Clarksons right to his comments.
Some people are hypocrites and some only see fault in the side they oppose.
Funny that.
Very different. Clarkson was criticised for what he said, not his right to say it. See also my comment above about the substance of Lineker's remarks versus his right to express them.
I see the PB free speech aficionados, so keen to defend Jeremy Clarkson when he advocated a misogynistic and brutally sexualised punishment of someone he didn’t like for the crime of…something…, are very keen to stop Gary Lineker tweeting his opinions. Funny that.
No different to those who are keen to support Lineker and his tweets who opposed Clarksons right to his comments.
Some people are hypocrites and some only see fault in the side they oppose.
Funny that.
There is a difference between opposing that person's political opinion and opposing them being allowed to say it.
Some posho on R4 (calls football "soccer" - always a bad sign) trying to make out that Lineker expressing his opinion and the BBC chair getting his job after helping Johnson get a bung from a mate are somehow equivalent - let left and right both have their scalp and move on. Have we really become so tolerant of corruption and intolerant of dissent that we can accept this kind of false equivalence? Shocking.
If these details are accurate, it's very good news for the economics of the RN being able to maintain its nuclear submarine capacity into the next decade.
AUKUS details trickling out. Bloomberg says Australia will go for "modified British design w/ US parts". Guardian says "British design" w/ "heavy use of US tech." That's late 2030s. Reuters says gap filled with US fwd deployment to Aus & then Aus operating 3-5 Virginia-class. https://mobile.twitter.com/shashj/status/1633594396619808768
I seem to remember France saying that the UK was just the fifth wheel on the carriage in the deal so it wasn't even worth recalling the ambassador.
What did it have to do with the French in the first place?
Boris Johnson warned Dominic Raab about his conduct when he was prime minister and has given evidence to the bullying inquiry into the justice secretary’s behaviour.
Johnson has been interviewed by Adam Tolley KC, the independent lawyer who is looking into a number of formal complaints made by senior civil servants against Raab. They are understood to relate to Raab’s roles as justice secretary and foreign secretary, appointments both made by Johnson.
The inquiry, which is not expected to conclude until the end of this month, is understood to have spoken to a number of officials who either complained about or witnessed Raab’s alleged behaviour. Ministers are also understood to have been spoken to.
Hybrid workers take more exercise, get more sleep and eat healthier, according to a study conducted by IWG, a workspace provider.
A poll of 2,000 people who have become hybrid workers since the pandemic — meaning they spend only part of their week commuting into a city-centre office — found that they now had more time for fitness, cooking from scratch and sleep.
Dr Sara Kayat, an NHS GP, said: “There is no doubt that hybrid working has facilitated some major health benefits. A balanced diet, physical activity and good quality sleep are the bedrocks of a healthy lifestyle.”
The survey comes amid a government push to encourage employers to take more responsibility for the health of their workforce. The budget is expected to include a new subsidy for smaller firms to purchase occupational health services.
The study included people using local working hubs as well as city-centre headquarters and working from home. It found that the average hybrid worker was now getting 4.7 hours of exercise a week, compared with 3.4 hours before the pandemic, with the most common forms of exercise being walking, running and strength training.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
Some posho on R4 (calls football "soccer" - always a bad sign) trying to make out that Lineker expressing his opinion and the BBC chair getting his job after helping Johnson get a bung from a mate are somehow equivalent - let left and right both have their scalp and move on. Have we really become so tolerant of corruption and intolerant of dissent that we can accept this kind of false equivalence? Shocking.
Quite possibly.
I really don't like reading the a actions of the current government and their hangers-on through the lens of the behaviour of teenage boys, I really don't. But it's just so instructive.
In this case "but look at what they're doing over there, you're being such a hypocrite" is exactly what Kevin says when caught out.
Some posho on R4 (calls football "soccer" - always a bad sign) trying to make out that Lineker expressing his opinion and the BBC chair getting his job after helping Johnson get a bung from a mate are somehow equivalent - let left and right both have their scalp and move on. Have we really become so tolerant of corruption and intolerant of dissent that we can accept this kind of false equivalence? Shocking.
My uncle, a Navy man, now in his late 80’s, always used to confuse me by asking how my football was going. I don’t play football, I play rugby, I’d say. He, being a classical scholar, always referred to rugby as football and football as soccer. We sometimes get sniffy about football being called soccer (e.g. by the Americans) yet it’s use here has long, long roots, to differentiate from rugby football vs association football.
Jim Davidson is a vocal Thatcherite with a side huddle in racist end of the pier stand-up.
Presumably Square Root 2 and his fellow travellers were standing outside Broadcasting House with placards during the decade in which he presented BBC One prime time quiz show Big Break?
I've never understood why a top BBC sports presenter was allowed to have a job selling fat, starch and salt pouched in litter, to children
Walkers crisps started in the late 1940s by a butcher on Leicester Market, to give him a new product during meat rationing. The shop is about 100 yards from where Linekers greengrocers stall was. Walkers is still a big employer locally.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
As celebrity endorsements go they don't come much stronger than the most popular presenter on the BBC. I see Carol Vordeman has piled in as will many others....
If the most popular presenter of our most popular sport which by taking the knee has tried to put compassion at it's heart has declared that our Home Secretary is behaving in a cruel and vindictive manner it should worry Ministers greatly.
The BBC with its reputation still intact would be well advised to keep out of it.
Some posho on R4 (calls football "soccer" - always a bad sign) trying to make out that Lineker expressing his opinion and the BBC chair getting his job after helping Johnson get a bung from a mate are somehow equivalent - let left and right both have their scalp and move on. Have we really become so tolerant of corruption and intolerant of dissent that we can accept this kind of false equivalence? Shocking.
My uncle, a Navy man, now in his late 80’s, always used to confuse me by asking how my football was going. I don’t play football, I play rugby, I’d say. He, being a classical scholar, always referred to rugby as football and football as soccer. We sometimes get sniffy about football being called soccer (e.g. by the Americans) yet it’s use here has long, long roots, to differentiate from rugby football vs association football.
Not sure what studying the classics has to do with it, as far as I am aware neither the Romans nor the ancient Greeks played either game...
Some posho on R4 (calls football "soccer" - always a bad sign) trying to make out that Lineker expressing his opinion and the BBC chair getting his job after helping Johnson get a bung from a mate are somehow equivalent - let left and right both have their scalp and move on. Have we really become so tolerant of corruption and intolerant of dissent that we can accept this kind of false equivalence? Shocking.
I've never understood why a top BBC sports presenter was allowed to have a job selling fat, starch and salt pouched in litter, to children
Walkers crisps started in the late 1940s by a butcher on Leicester Market, to give him a new product during meat rationing. The shop is about 100 yards from where Linekers greengrocers stall was. Walkers is still a big employer locally.
Some posho on R4 (calls football "soccer" - always a bad sign) trying to make out that Lineker expressing his opinion and the BBC chair getting his job after helping Johnson get a bung from a mate are somehow equivalent - let left and right both have their scalp and move on. Have we really become so tolerant of corruption and intolerant of dissent that we can accept this kind of false equivalence? Shocking.
My uncle, a Navy man, now in his late 80’s, always used to confuse me by asking how my football was going. I don’t play football, I play rugby, I’d say. He, being a classical scholar, always referred to rugby as football and football as soccer. We sometimes get sniffy about football being called soccer (e.g. by the Americans) yet it’s use here has long, long roots, to differentiate from rugby football vs association football.
Not sure what studying the classics has to do with it, as far as I am aware neither the Romans nor the ancient Greeks played either game...
I was associating it with the great rugby playing public schools.
Hybrid workers take more exercise, get more sleep and eat healthier, according to a study conducted by IWG, a workspace provider.
A poll of 2,000 people who have become hybrid workers since the pandemic — meaning they spend only part of their week commuting into a city-centre office — found that they now had more time for fitness, cooking from scratch and sleep.
Dr Sara Kayat, an NHS GP, said: “There is no doubt that hybrid working has facilitated some major health benefits. A balanced diet, physical activity and good quality sleep are the bedrocks of a healthy lifestyle.”
The survey comes amid a government push to encourage employers to take more responsibility for the health of their workforce. The budget is expected to include a new subsidy for smaller firms to purchase occupational health services.
The study included people using local working hubs as well as city-centre headquarters and working from home. It found that the average hybrid worker was now getting 4.7 hours of exercise a week, compared with 3.4 hours before the pandemic, with the most common forms of exercise being walking, running and strength training.
I suspect that people who haven't commuted into a city centre office in recent years haven't clocked quite how much time gets wasted by people having to do that. (And those who do don't necessarily clock how bad it's got as the commute time has crept up).
I've never understood why a top BBC sports presenter was allowed to have a job selling fat, starch and salt pouched in litter, to children
Walkers crisps started in the late 1940s by a butcher on Leicester Market, to give him a new product during meat rationing. The shop is about 100 yards from where Linekers greengrocers stall was. Walkers is still a big employer locally.
They are awful crisps though, in fairness. The big standard brand that gives you the sinking feeling when you fancy a snack down the pub.
This will inevitably sold on a false prospectus of automation leading to a much smaller crew. This was a concern that the RAN had with Virginia (and the fact that Congress told them to GTFO). They've struggled to crew the Collins which only has a complement of 50 so full fat Virginia at 130+ always looked like a stretch.
The RAN started off wanting an established design to derisk the program avoiding a repeat of the Barracuda experience but now they've ended up with the exact opposite of that.
Good news/bad news for the RN. There will be some economies of scale and production that they badly need (average Astute build time: 10 years 3 months, average Virginia build time: 3 years 0 months) but they are definitely going to lose some officers and rates that are very hard to replace to lateral transfers.
I see the PB free speech aficionados, so keen to defend Jeremy Clarkson when he advocated a misogynistic and brutally sexualised punishment of someone he didn’t like for the crime of…something…, are very keen to stop Gary Lineker tweeting his opinions. Funny that.
No different to those who are keen to support Lineker and his tweets who opposed Clarksons right to his comments.
Some people are hypocrites and some only see fault in the side they oppose.
Funny that.
There is a difference between opposing that person's political opinion and opposing them being allowed to say it.
Well, several right wing papers are calling for Lineker to be sacked for expressing his opinion.
Indeed, one might opine that sacking vocal critics in the media does rather whiff of the 1930s...
Some posho on R4 (calls football "soccer" - always a bad sign) trying to make out that Lineker expressing his opinion and the BBC chair getting his job after helping Johnson get a bung from a mate are somehow equivalent - let left and right both have their scalp and move on. Have we really become so tolerant of corruption and intolerant of dissent that we can accept this kind of false equivalence? Shocking.
Why is a “posho” calling it “soccer” a bad sign? Depending where he went to school, association football will have been soccer to him and whatever variant team ball game they played at school would have been football - whether Rugby Football, Winchester Football, Eton Football, Harrow Football or any other obscure but earlier game.
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
The BBC don’t want him to express political opinions on air.
But it’s interesting you now think his freedom of speech should be removed. I assume you’d say the same thing it it was something you agreed with? Yeah, right
Nope noonecwho works for the BBC shoukd. They should keep.it buttoned.
Why?
Why are you removing free speech? He is a football pundit. He can say what he likes on politics. Same goes for Clarkson. Nowt to do with the BBC or you.
I've never understood why a top BBC sports presenter was allowed to have a job selling fat, starch and salt pouched in litter, to children
Walkers crisps started in the late 1940s by a butcher on Leicester Market, to give him a new product during meat rationing. The shop is about 100 yards from where Linekers greengrocers stall was. Walkers is still a big employer locally.
Such a heartwarming story! Pepsico are truly wonderful! He isn't advertising for a junk food manufacturer that doesn't employ any people!
Some posho on R4 (calls football "soccer" - always a bad sign) trying to make out that Lineker expressing his opinion and the BBC chair getting his job after helping Johnson get a bung from a mate are somehow equivalent - let left and right both have their scalp and move on. Have we really become so tolerant of corruption and intolerant of dissent that we can accept this kind of false equivalence? Shocking.
My uncle, a Navy man, now in his late 80’s, always used to confuse me by asking how my football was going. I don’t play football, I play rugby, I’d say. He, being a classical scholar, always referred to rugby as football and football as soccer. We sometimes get sniffy about football being called soccer (e.g. by the Americans) yet it’s use here has long, long roots, to differentiate from rugby football vs association football.
Not sure what studying the classics has to do with it, as far as I am aware neither the Romans nor the ancient Greeks played either game...
I was associating it with the great rugby playing public schools.
Yeah sorry I was being unnecessarily obtuse. My dad went to a private school on a scholarship and has explained the whole rugby football vs association football thing to me. Since 99.9% of the population call football football and rugby rugby I think that people who cling to calling football soccer nowadays (in this country) are just trying to signal that "I am considerably posher than you". In any case, it immediately identifies them as elitist and out of touch, and proudly so, which is a useful tell.
Some posho on R4 (calls football "soccer" - always a bad sign) trying to make out that Lineker expressing his opinion and the BBC chair getting his job after helping Johnson get a bung from a mate are somehow equivalent - let left and right both have their scalp and move on. Have we really become so tolerant of corruption and intolerant of dissent that we can accept this kind of false equivalence? Shocking.
Why is a “posho” calling it “soccer” a bad sign? Depending where he went to school, association football will have been soccer to him and whatever variant team ball game they played at school would have been football - whether Rugby Football, Winchester Football, Eton Football, Harrow Football or any other obscure but earlier game.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
I’m really enjoying Clarkson’s Farm, and especially the planning meeting episode (no spoilers please - I’m only up to and including that episode).
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an interesting window on rural life.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
That was a very poor press release by the Council. It would have thought it would have been better to scale it back to just to say that Clarkson's Farm was edited and only tells his side of the story. Perhaps then put on a link to the full recording of the committee meeting in question.
I don’t really have a problem with Linekar saying whatever he likes, what I think is part of the issue here is the increasing politicisation of sport and the fact that it sits uneasy with the BBCs mandate.
Where now sports TV programmes can be platforms (rightly or wrongly) for people to air their opinions on political topics, there is the potential for blurred lines to be generated. In policy terms it feels like there is a dividing line, whereas it is becoming increasingly wobbly.
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
When BBC presenter Alan Sugar expressed his political opinions about Jeremy Coryn no-one who now criticises Gary Lineker seemed to mind very much.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
Trouble is, that's pretty much the Conservative core vote these days. And they seem happy to keep the lifestyle they're accustomed to, whatever the consequences for future generations.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
Like the councillors themselves, of course.
Edit - ironically, of course, like Clarkson too for most of his life.
I've never understood why a top BBC sports presenter was allowed to have a job selling fat, starch and salt pouched in litter, to children
Walkers crisps started in the late 1940s by a butcher on Leicester Market, to give him a new product during meat rationing. The shop is about 100 yards from where Linekers greengrocers stall was. Walkers is still a big employer locally.
I only came across Walkers for the first time when I moved to Brum in 1983. They weren’t in London back then, I don’t think. We had KP and Smiths. I couldn’t get my head around their cheese and onion flavour packet was blue. It had always been green for me before then!
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
Not sure what’s in his contract, but it seems a bit unreasonable to insist a part time worker paid effectively on an agency basis should not say what he thinks on political matters outside of the time he is paid for.
Difficult to argue, for example, that it brings the organisation into disrepute, which might be the only grounds for doing so.
If they want him to stay politically neutral at all times they should bring him in house on a full time salary.
I see the PB free speech aficionados, so keen to defend Jeremy Clarkson when he advocated a misogynistic and brutally sexualised punishment of someone he didn’t like for the crime of…something…, are very keen to stop Gary Lineker tweeting his opinions. Funny that.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
I’m really enjoying Clarkson’s Farm, and especially the planning meeting episode (no spoilers please - I’m only up to and including that episode).
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an interesting window on rural life.
I don't know whether anyone has seen Andrea Arnold's film "COW" but it is quite brilliant.
If these details are accurate, it's very good news for the economics of the RN being able to maintain its nuclear submarine capacity into the next decade.
AUKUS details trickling out. Bloomberg says Australia will go for "modified British design w/ US parts". Guardian says "British design" w/ "heavy use of US tech." That's late 2030s. Reuters says gap filled with US fwd deployment to Aus & then Aus operating 3-5 Virginia-class. https://mobile.twitter.com/shashj/status/1633594396619808768
I seem to remember France saying that the UK was just the fifth wheel on the carriage in the deal so it wasn't even worth recalling the ambassador.
There wasn't really much actual substance to the deal at the time. That appears to have changed.
I've never understood why a top BBC sports presenter was allowed to have a job selling fat, starch and salt pouched in litter, to children
Walkers crisps started in the late 1940s by a butcher on Leicester Market, to give him a new product during meat rationing. The shop is about 100 yards from where Linekers greengrocers stall was. Walkers is still a big employer locally.
Mr. Seal, not sure if you count me among the free speech types, but I did say here yesterday that while I thought Lineker's comments were a ridiculous over-reaction, the same was true of Jenrick calling for him to be fired.
I support Lineker's right to express his infantile and idiotic opinion.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
That was a very poor press release by the Council. It would have thought it would have been better to scale it back to just to say that Clarkson's Farm was edited and only tells his side of the story. Perhaps then put on a link to the full recording of the committee meeting in question.
It would get enough hits, that's for sure!
I'd genuinely be interested to see it. The obvious reason to refuse planning permission is that actually, it's not a very good place to have a busy shop or restaurant as the road's rather narrow.
Which, incidentally, begs the question why Clarkson didn't try to buy one of the many currently closed pubs or restaurants in the locality and relocate everything there, using the buildings in question for storage instead which he keeps complaining he doesn't have enough of.
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
When BBC presenter Alan Sugar expressed his political opinions about Jeremy Coryn no-one who now criticises Gary Lineker seemed to mind very much.
It's almost as though those who don't work full time for the BBC in current affairs have a right to express opinions outside of their work for the BBC.
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
The BBC don’t want him to express political opinions on air.
But it’s interesting you now think his freedom of speech should be removed. I assume you’d say the same thing it it was something you agreed with? Yeah, right
Nope noonecwho works for the BBC shoukd. They should keep.it buttoned.
Why?
Why are you removing free speech? He is a football pundit. He can say what he likes on politics. Same goes for Clarkson. Nowt to do with the BBC or you.
He works for the BBC there is a difference. If the BBC get rid of the license fee he can say what he likes. Until then he can stfu.
Hybrid workers take more exercise, get more sleep and eat healthier, according to a study conducted by IWG, a workspace provider.
A poll of 2,000 people who have become hybrid workers since the pandemic — meaning they spend only part of their week commuting into a city-centre office — found that they now had more time for fitness, cooking from scratch and sleep.
Dr Sara Kayat, an NHS GP, said: “There is no doubt that hybrid working has facilitated some major health benefits. A balanced diet, physical activity and good quality sleep are the bedrocks of a healthy lifestyle.”
The survey comes amid a government push to encourage employers to take more responsibility for the health of their workforce. The budget is expected to include a new subsidy for smaller firms to purchase occupational health services.
The study included people using local working hubs as well as city-centre headquarters and working from home. It found that the average hybrid worker was now getting 4.7 hours of exercise a week, compared with 3.4 hours before the pandemic, with the most common forms of exercise being walking, running and strength training.
Jim Davidson is a vocal Thatcherite with a side huddle in racist end of the pier stand-up.
Presumably Square Root 2 and his fellow travellers were standing outside Broadcasting House with placards during the decade in which he presented BBC One prime time quiz show Big Break?
Kenny Everett spoke at the Tory Party Conference where he suggested we Nuke Russia.
By no means the most crazy speach at that conference
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
The BBC don’t want him to express political opinions on air.
But it’s interesting you now think his freedom of
speech should be removed. I assume you’d say the same thing it it was something you agreed with? Yeah, right
Nope noonecwho works for the BBC shoukd. They should keep.it buttoned.
Why?
Why are you removing free speech? He is a football pundit. He can say what he likes on politics. Same goes for Clarkson. Nowt to do with the BBC or you.
He works for the BBC there is a difference. If the BBC get rid of the license fee he can say what he likes. Until then he can stfu.
You have studiously ignored, I note, other examples cited such as Alan Sugar and Jim Davidson?
On the substance of what Lineker said, even though I get where he was coming from on the dehumanising and nationalist language the government uses, it’s wrong to reference Nazi Germany because we know how that ended and we know that’s not how it will end here. For that reason, it’s wrong to draw any kind of overall equivalence even when there are some small parallels in specific areas. More generally, if you haven’t read this, you should:
This will inevitably sold on a false prospectus of automation leading to a much smaller crew. This was a concern that the RAN had with Virginia (and the fact that Congress told them to GTFO). They've struggled to crew the Collins which only has a complement of 50 so full fat Virginia at 130+ always looked like a stretch.
The RAN started off wanting an established design to derisk the program avoiding a repeat of the Barracuda experience but now they've ended up with the exact opposite of that.
Good news/bad news for the RN. There will be some economies of scale and production that they badly need (average Astute build time: 10 years 3 months, average Virginia build time: 3 years 0 months) but they are definitely going to lose some officers and rates that are very hard to replace to lateral transfers.
I think the economies of scale probably outweigh the costs. Possibly by rather a lot ? Short and slow production runs just for the RN are heinously expensive.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
The difficult truth is that there isn't any point in large parts of the countryside. The very worst type of development that can take place is the type of incremental suburbanisation that happens by default over time... so people have no connection at all to the land, and lead urban lifestyles where they drive around long distances by car between restaurants, shops, schools, railway stations etc. There is also a whole load of weird stuff going on in remote fields far away from public views.
Regarding the countryside, it is better to have a plan to either a) develop it for housing/new communities b) use it for ecological enhancement c) protect it where it is a valued landscape d) use it for food production. But such a plan is politically impossible, it is held back by deeply entrenched conservative forces.
If you look at England - then 87% of the land falls in to this 'undeveloped' category'. The most obvious price of these 'deeply entrenched conservative forces' is massive missed opportunities to provide for the basic needs of an expanded population through housing; but also a failure to take advantage of the opportunities to build infrastructure, renewable energy, employment growth, jobs etc.
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
The difficult truth is that there isn't any point in large parts of the countryside. The very worst type of development that can take place is the type of incremental suburbanisation that happens by default over time... so people have no connection at all to the land, and lead urban lifestyles where they drive around long distances by car between restaurants, shops, schools, railway stations etc. There is also a whole load of weird stuff going on in remote fields far away from public views.
Regarding the countryside, it is better to have a plan to either a) develop it for housing/new communities b) use it for ecological enhancement c) protect it where it is a valued landscape d) use it for food production. But such a plan is politically impossible, it is held back by deeply entrenched conservative forces.
If you look at England - then 87% of the land falls in to this 'undeveloped' category'. The most obvious price of these 'deeply entrenched conservative forces' is massive missed opportunities to provide for the basic needs of an expanded population through housing; but also a failure to take advantage of the opportunities to build infrastructure, renewable energy, employment growth, jobs etc.
You don't think it might also be a missed opportunity to grow some food?
Because after all, it's not like there's currently a shortage of grain in the world, or water stress in many grain growing areas due to warming climates?
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
The BBC don’t want him to express political opinions on air.
But it’s interesting you now think his freedom of speech should be removed. I assume you’d say the same thing it it was something you agreed with? Yeah, right
Nope noonecwho works for the BBC shoukd. They should keep.it buttoned.
Why?
Why are you removing free speech? He is a football pundit. He can say what he likes on politics. Same goes for Clarkson. Nowt to do with the BBC or you.
He works for the BBC there is a difference. If the BBC get rid of the license fee he can say what he likes. Until then he can stfu.
So did Clarkson and he wrote for the Sun and the Times at that time, so what.
What about everyone else who works for the BBC as pundits, comedians, etc and make political comments. Are you going to fire every comedian, every talk show host?
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I’ve no doubt that the series presents one side of the story. And yet Clarkson is trying to farm, and is trying get a business going, and met a wall of objection, leading to things being far worse than needed. People in the countryside need jobs too, or soon it will all be rich folk who have either retired or who commute to London twice a week.
I’m really enjoying Clarkson’s Farm, and especially the planning meeting episode (no spoilers please - I’m only up to and including that episode).
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an interesting window on rural life.
I've been to too many planning meetings, I'm worried about watching that episode in case it triggers PTSD.
I've never understood why a top BBC sports presenter was allowed to have a job selling fat, starch and salt pouched in litter, to children
Walkers crisps started in the late 1940s by a butcher on Leicester Market, to give him a new product during meat rationing. The shop is about 100 yards from where Linekers greengrocers stall was. Walkers is still a big employer locally.
Also, crisps are great.
Not that brand!
Walkers ready salted are my second favourite crisp!
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
It is about competence now, this. No good the Conservative party pretending to be all Dick Dastardly on this when the Pigeon evades them year in, year out.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
If these details are accurate, it's very good news for the economics of the RN being able to maintain its nuclear submarine capacity into the next decade.
AUKUS details trickling out. Bloomberg says Australia will go for "modified British design w/ US parts". Guardian says "British design" w/ "heavy use of US tech." That's late 2030s. Reuters says gap filled with US fwd deployment to Aus & then Aus operating 3-5 Virginia-class. https://mobile.twitter.com/shashj/status/1633594396619808768
I seem to remember France saying that the UK was just the fifth wheel on the carriage in the deal so it wasn't even worth recalling the ambassador.
There wasn't really much actual substance to the deal at the time. That appears to have changed.
So...the scorn and mockery was not unreasonable because they didn't instantly jump from no deal to fully worked up proposals?
Morning all! Arrived home from Liverpool at 10:30 last night. -5 and snowing heavily on arrival, which on top of what we already had makes for winter wonderland this morning.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
The problem with this is if they have some success in the policy, and the boats stop because people realise that they are barred from claiming asylum upon getting here. What do Labour do then - agree to continue it or stop it?
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
When BBC presenter Alan Sugar expressed his political opinions about Jeremy Coryn no-one who now criticises Gary Lineker seemed to mind very much.
It's almost as though those who don't work full time for the BBC in current affairs have a right to express opinions outside of their work for the BBC.
Only when they say things that the right approves of.
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.
Lineker is Marmite, people tend to either
really dislike him or really like him, and I suspect the majority are in the latter camp. Clarkson is similar.
Personally, I like Lineker and I can't stand Clarkson but I wouldn't deny that both are popular.
I despise professional football, but Lineker seems not to have gone down the route of trying to be the worst behaved scumbag possible. So compared to many of his peers, I don’t mind him.
How many affairs has he had now?
I like Clarkson and don't like Lineker. He should stick to football or the BBC should give him the boot. I avoid all.the inane chat on MOTD. Has he mentioned the millions he has had to pay the taxman plus the NI contributions... now that is worth talking about.
Did you make the same argument about Clarkson's newspaper columns where he expressed political opinions?
No as he is being paid by the Times to write such columns. Lineker should stick to football ..the BBC don't want him to express political.opinions. its meant to be unbiased...
The BBC don’t want him to express political opinions on air.
But it’s interesting you now think his freedom of speech should be removed. I assume you’d say the same thing it it was something you agreed with? Yeah, right
Nope noonecwho works for the BBC shoukd. They should keep.it buttoned.
Why?
Why are you removing free speech? He is a football pundit. He can say what he likes on politics. Same goes for Clarkson. Nowt to do with the BBC or you.
He works for the BBC there is a difference. If the BBC get rid of the license fee he can say what he likes. Until then he can stfu.
So did Clarkson and he wrote for the Sun and the Times at that time, so what.
What about everyone else who works for the BBC as pundits, comedians, etc and make political comments. Are you going to fire every comedian, every talk show host?
You would be at home in the USSR.
There are quite a lot of comedians on the BBC who should be fired.
Not for that reason, just because they're a bit rubbish.
Comments
The fact that the BBC are one of Lineker’s clients isn’t relevant, unless we are suggesting anyone who has ever invoiced the BBC should steer clear of expressing any view on any issue?
Nor is the scale of his fee, which is agreed between him and his client, pertinent to the debate.
More confected outrage.
If the front page of the Mail is to be believed (insert "huge if" joke here) then there are people who think he shouldn't.
It suits many in the media to portray this as an issue for MPs as a whole. It’s much more accurate to portray it as an issue for the broken, corrupt Tory party.
The immigration policy will not solve the problem and instead just highlights how they’ve failed for 13 years. Labour can’t believe their luck.
But it’s interesting you now think his freedom of speech should be removed. I assume you’d say the same thing it it was something you agreed with? Yeah, right
It really is quite an interesting test of free speech and "cancel culture" or are those only a problem when right wingers mouth off?
Difficult to argue, for example, that it brings the organisation into disrepute, which might be the only grounds for doing so.
If they want him to stay politically neutral at all times they should bring him in house on a full time salary.
https://www.tortoisemedia.com/westminster-accounts-explore/
Plus he's got a regular gig at LBC.
It's not even as though you could argue he's trading on his BBC status to gain attention for his political views.
I can understand Tories being riled by the comment. It's arguably a stretch to compare Braverman's unpleasant and inflammatory
language with that of the 1930s Nazis - though I note a Holocaust survivor drew the same comparison a few weeks ago - but it's contemptible to say he doesn't have the right to express political views.
Johnson has been interviewed by Adam Tolley KC, the independent lawyer who is looking into a number of formal complaints made by senior civil servants against Raab. They are understood to relate to Raab’s roles as justice secretary and foreign secretary, appointments both made by Johnson.
The inquiry, which is not expected to conclude until the end of this month, is understood to have spoken to a number of officials who either complained about or witnessed Raab’s alleged behaviour. Ministers are also understood to have been spoken to.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/johnson-warned-raab-about-conduct-when-pm-539sk3hbs
Oxford has its fair share of students and alumni born with silver spoons in their mouths.
But some of its oldest colleges, including Boris Johnson’s alma mater, have told students to be less light-fingered with cutlery and crockery from its dining rooms.
Magdalen College, attended by several Conservative MPs including William Hague, Jeremy Hunt and Dominic Grieve, the former attorney-general, is the latest to warn students of dire consequences if they continue to pilfer from formal hall.
The bursar emailed students today to announce a short amnesty period. He said: “The fad for taking souvenirs from hall and other dining rooms has worsened, recent losses of crockery and cutlery from the catering department is not acceptable or sustainable. However, we are giving you the opportunity to return these items before the end of term with no blame attached.
“Please return all items to the JCR dining room in cloisters by noon on Friday 10th March. The catering team will collect these items daily at noon on Thursday and Friday.
“Following this period, any items of college property found in a student’s possession will be regarded as theft and be treated as such.”....
....Last week, it was reported that Balliol College will no longer use college crested cups or placemats for dinners after numerous students were caught attempting to steal the items.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/oxford-colleges-warns-students-to-stop-stealing-crockery-pxsg3xsww
An example I suppose of how a politician can be notable in one region and yet pass notice in another. I'd never thought of him as having a media career.
AUKUS details trickling out. Bloomberg says Australia will go for "modified British design w/ US parts". Guardian says "British design" w/ "heavy use of US tech." That's late 2030s. Reuters says gap filled with US fwd deployment to Aus & then Aus operating 3-5 Virginia-class.
https://mobile.twitter.com/shashj/status/1633594396619808768
Raab is a tosser of course, but that's a coincidence.
A poll of 2,000 people who have become hybrid workers since the pandemic — meaning they spend only part of their week commuting into a city-centre office — found that they now had more time for fitness, cooking from scratch and sleep.
Dr Sara Kayat, an NHS GP, said: “There is no doubt that hybrid working has facilitated some major health benefits. A balanced diet, physical activity and good quality sleep are the bedrocks of a healthy lifestyle.”
The survey comes amid a government push to encourage employers to take more responsibility for the health of their workforce. The budget is expected to include a new subsidy for smaller firms to purchase occupational health services.
The study included people using local working hubs as well as city-centre headquarters and working from home. It found that the average hybrid worker was now getting 4.7 hours of exercise a week, compared with 3.4 hours before the pandemic, with the most common forms of exercise being walking, running and strength training.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hybrid-workers-eat-better-sleep-more-and-stay-fitter-0czjm390n
But how is that relevant to this debate?
Evidence of near-ambient superconductivity in a N-doped lutetium hydride
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05742-0
Some people are hypocrites and some only see fault in the side they oppose.
Funny that.
Clarkson was criticised for what he said, not his right to say it.
See also my comment above about the substance of Lineker's remarks versus his right to express them.
Huge breakthrough if it holds though.
https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2023-03-08/clarksons-farm-tv-series-misleading-says-west-oxfordshire-district-council
It's undoubtedly true that they did discuss more than was shown in the film, but I note they are reluctant to say on *what* grounds they refused it if it wasn't pure nimbyism by the dark skies obsessive and the planning barrister who confused metres and acres (and claimed it was his dyslexia so that it doesn't matter that his legal documents are incorrect).
My understanding of planning law regarding farm tracks - which may of course be entirely wrong - is that they have also placed a somewhat novel interpretation on it.
The amusing part of that dispute really is that both of them deserve to look like idiots. WODC for being a bunch of third rate NIMBY muppets, and Clarkson, for being - well, Clarkson.
And they do...
I really don't like reading the a actions of the current government and their hangers-on through the lens of the behaviour of teenage boys, I really don't. But it's just so instructive.
In this case "but look at what they're doing over there, you're being such a hypocrite" is exactly what Kevin says when caught out.
We sometimes get sniffy about football being called soccer (e.g. by the Americans) yet it’s use here has long, long roots, to differentiate from rugby football vs association football.
Presumably Square Root 2 and his fellow travellers were standing outside Broadcasting House with placards during the decade in which he presented BBC One prime time quiz show Big Break?
If the most popular presenter of our most popular sport which by taking the knee has tried to put compassion at it's heart has declared that our Home Secretary is behaving in a cruel and vindictive manner it should worry Ministers greatly.
The BBC with its reputation still intact would be well advised to keep out of it.
Even 30 minutes each way is five hours a week.
The RAN started off wanting an established design to derisk the program avoiding a repeat of the Barracuda experience but now they've ended up with the exact opposite of that.
Good news/bad news for the RN. There will be some economies of scale and production that they badly need (average Astute build time: 10 years 3 months, average Virginia build time: 3 years 0 months) but they are definitely going to lose some officers and rates that are very hard to replace to lateral transfers.
Indeed, one might opine that sacking vocal critics in the media does rather whiff of the 1930s...
Far better to have a debate about whether GL can call them Nazis than to debate the actual Nazi policies...
Why are you removing free speech? He is a football pundit. He can say what he likes on politics. Same goes for Clarkson. Nowt to do with the BBC or you.
The farming scenes are absolutely excellent, if a struggle to watch at times (the calving was at once gross and heartwarming).
It does, of course, only show one side of the story vis a vis locals’ attitudes to economic development, but nevertheless offers an
interesting window on rural life.
Where now sports TV programmes can be platforms (rightly or wrongly) for people to air their opinions on political topics, there is the potential for blurred lines to be generated. In policy terms it feels like there is a dividing line, whereas it is becoming increasingly wobbly.
Edit - ironically, of course, like Clarkson too for most of his life.
I think the Tories are also in wonderland. Everyone is talking about Stop The Boats, Everyone is attacking only Gary Linekar, and the Labour plan proves they don't have a plan. The election fight is on!
But then we wipe the froth from our lips and consider what happens when the Daily Heil et al stop ramping this. The government can't annually announce a big clampdown on boats, do nothing, then blame everyone else when announcing the next big clampdown on boats.
Their voters expect immediate action to deliver past promises, and aren't going to be happy when "nothing" continues to be the delivery. Because Border Force and the Home Office aren't resourced, the detention centres don't exist, the locals go apeshit when a new detention centre is proposed, Rwanda won't take deportees and we don't have return agreements. But apart from that this policy will definitely work. I assume the hope is that "leftie lawyers and enemy civil servants" (all of whom work for Labour as Sue Gray proves) will block it so they can blame that on non-delivery.
I just don't see how this works. If that is a problem, legislate around it. They have had years to do so and instead just rehash slightly shoutier versions of the same failure.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/jan/15/cow-review-andrea-arnold-deeply-moving-chronicle-of-the-life-of-a-dairy-cow
That appears to have changed.
Mr. Seal, not sure if you count me among the free speech types, but I did say here yesterday that while I thought Lineker's comments were a ridiculous over-reaction, the same was true of Jenrick calling for him to be fired.
I support Lineker's right to express his infantile and idiotic opinion.
I'd genuinely be interested to see it. The obvious reason to refuse planning permission is that actually, it's not a very good place to have a busy shop or restaurant as the road's rather narrow.
Which, incidentally, begs the question why Clarkson didn't try to buy one of the many currently closed pubs or restaurants in the locality and relocate everything there, using the buildings in question for storage instead which he keeps complaining he doesn't have enough of.
By no means the most crazy speach at that conference
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Travellers-Third-Reich-Fascism-Everyday/dp/1783963816/ref=asc_df_1783963816/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=311024204769&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8692969205075900444&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1007073&hvtargid=pla-467607106943&psc=1&th=1&psc=1
Of course none of this is yet confirmed.
Regarding the countryside, it is better to have a plan to either a) develop it for housing/new communities b) use it for ecological enhancement c) protect it where it is a valued landscape d) use it for food production. But such a plan is politically impossible, it is held back by deeply entrenched conservative forces.
If you look at England - then 87% of the land falls in to this 'undeveloped' category'. The most obvious price of these 'deeply entrenched conservative forces' is massive missed opportunities to provide for the basic needs of an expanded population through housing; but also a failure to take advantage of the opportunities to build infrastructure, renewable energy, employment growth, jobs etc.
Because after all, it's not like there's currently a shortage of grain in the world, or water stress in many grain growing areas due to warming climates?
What about everyone else who works for the BBC as pundits, comedians, etc and make political comments. Are you going to fire every comedian, every talk show host?
You would be at home in the USSR.
We are nigh at 50 ways to botch asylum and the current round of 'Please just stop the boats, scrotes' lawmaking to all officialdom involved seems to have no more behind it that will actually achieve an end result as any of v the others.
What do Labour do then - agree to continue it or stop it?
Not for that reason, just because they're a bit rubbish.