OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
AIUI Lineker has been told by HMRC that he is an employee of the BBC. BBC have told Lineker and HMRC that he is not. One of the attack lines against Lineker is that he is a tax dodging bastard. For having a contract and employment status imposed on him by the BBC.
Yeah, I bet Lineker was BEGGING the BBC to allow him to pay National Insurance.
The BBC's quandary would be eased if they could find another so-called 'talent' prepared to tweet a diametrically opposite opinion to Lineker. Then they could demonstrate the 'balance' of their 'broad church'. But they probably can't find one because everyone agrees with Gary. That's their real problem.
it's not balanced or a broad Church.
Agreed but not in the way you think
If Andrew Marr is your idea of a Tory, I'm not surprised.
Why does Match of the Day need presenters? Just show the action.
You do need someone to do the links as well as opening and closing the show. If I was the BBC I'd go for someone completely removed from football or news.
As long as they can read an auto cue anyone could host that show honestly.
The harder part will be replacing the pundits if they all pull out in solidarity with Leftie Lineker...
A football presenter is forced off air for criticising government policy. A naturalist is cancelled for airing issues that might show the government in a bad light. Will we be going the whole hog and making all criticism of the government illegal? RIP free speech; hello Soviet Union 2.0.
Great to see another non-partisan post from non- partisan Casino. Before you off-topic me again, on- topic, I believe cancelling Lineker in the name of non-partisanship is very worrying.
"Non-partisan."
That's what you say when someone posts something that doesn't accord with your politics, right?
I don't care enough about you to off-topic you either. I tend to ignore your posts.
Sorry.
Conservative_Royale.
Whereas you wildly zig-zag your vote election by election like a nutcase and the have the temerity to critics others depending on how the wind subsequently blows.
I note you didn't take the opportunity to deny being a Tory Boy!
Jermaine Jenas @jjenas8 · 30m Been on air with the one show. I wasn’t down to be doing match of the day tomorrow, but if I was I would of said no and stood with my fellow pundits and @GaryLineker
The BBC's quandary would be eased if they could find another so-called 'talent' prepared to tweet a diametrically opposite opinion to Lineker. Then they could demonstrate the 'balance' of their 'broad church'. But they probably can't find one because everyone agrees with Gary. That's their real problem.
I don't think everyone agrees with him. In fact, I think those defending him on the basis of him being 'right' distract things a little bit, since that suggests he should be permitted to say things because he was right, rather than the more powerful defence that he should be permitted to say things even though he was wrong.
As in,"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
Why does Match of the Day need presenters? Just show the action.
You do need someone to do the links as well as opening and closing the show. If I was the BBC I'd go for someone completely removed from football or news.
As long as they can read an auto cue anyone could host that show honestly.
The harder part will be replacing the pundits if they all pull out in solidarity with Leftie Lineker...
I'd go for Vic'n'Bob. Take it in a different direction entirely.
The Tories will remain on the back foot regarding Lineker while Johnson's placement and financial fixer remains as Chair of the BBC. Whatever the truth of the matter it looks like a politically motivated attack on someone who opposes a government policy.
The BBC's quandary would be eased if they could find another so-called 'talent' prepared to tweet a diametrically opposite opinion to Lineker. Then they could demonstrate the 'balance' of their 'broad church'. But they probably can't find one because everyone agrees with Gary. That's their real problem.
Sorry - so you want the BBC to instruct its presenters to Tweet something?
I think Lineker's attack was ridiculous. The governments' migration policies are nothing like those of 1930s Nazi Germany, and nor is its rhetoric.
But that's his opinion. He's entitled to be wrong.
What I don't want is the government firing people - especially those who are not in news or current affairs roles - for expressing their personal opinions on Twitter.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
AIUI Lineker has been told by HMRC that he is an employee of the BBC. BBC have told Lineker and HMRC that he is not. One of the attack lines against Lineker is that he is a tax dodging bastard. For having a contract and employment status imposed on him by the BBC.
It hardly matters. Neither the BBC nor Lineker look good.
It is an especially poor look for a public sector organisation funded by taxation to be participating in tax avoidance.
The trouble is that the BBC know Lineker is making a coordinated political attack on the Government, with bedfellows like Alistair Campbell, and he knows it too - he has all but admitted he wants to be an MP.
He crossed a line by comparing them to Nazis, and well he knows it. He just think he has enough support out there to face the BBC down and call their bluff. He's goading them.
He will probably find that, just like Clarkson and Top Gear, he is not indispensable.
Why does Match of the Day need presenters? Just show the action.
You do need someone to do the links as well as opening and closing the show. If I was the BBC I'd go for someone completely removed from football or news.
As long as they can read an auto cue anyone could host that show honestly.
The harder part will be replacing the pundits if they all pull out in solidarity with Leftie Lineker...
I'd go for Vic'n'Bob. Take it in a different direction entirely.
A football presenter is forced off air for criticising government policy. A naturalist is cancelled for airing issues that might show the government in a bad light. Will we be going the whole hog and making all criticism of the government illegal? RIP free speech; hello Soviet Union 2.0.
Don't forget intermediate stops alone the Line . . . such as Viktor Orban . . . and Ron DeSantis . . .
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
AIUI Lineker has been told by HMRC that he is an employee of the BBC. BBC have told Lineker and HMRC that he is not. One of the attack lines against Lineker is that he is a tax dodging bastard. For having a contract and employment status imposed on him by the BBC.
Yeah, I bet Lineker was BEGGING the BBC to allow him to pay National Insurance.
Not.
Sure! But again, the accusation is that these freelancers are freelancers because they have cooked up a dodgy scheme to rip off the taxpayer. Whereas in reality most of the industry has had contractor arrangements for decades. Unless you are full time and exclusive to the broadcaster, you'll be a contractor because the broadcaster won't employ you.
The Tories will remain on the back foot regarding Lineker while Johnson's placement and financial fixer remains as Chair of the BBC. Whatever the truth of the matter it looks like a politically motivated attack on someone who opposes a government policy.
Yes. He's a repeat 'offender' of making political comments against BBC guidelines, but finally facing a consequence for it now, well, it's not a good look and so the BBC, they say, following the rules looks like government action, even if it is actually letter of the rules as the BBC claim.
They should have learned to let things go - this hasn't kept their migration plan in the news, as they probably hoped it would, just the row about harmless, not as smart as he probably thinks he is Lineker.
Why does Match of the Day need presenters? Just show the action.
You do need someone to do the links as well as opening and closing the show. If I was the BBC I'd go for someone completely removed from football or news.
As long as they can read an auto cue anyone could host that show honestly.
The harder part will be replacing the pundits if they all pull out in solidarity with Leftie Lineker...
"Gary is just another Lefty Lineker standing in our way!"
Jermaine Jenas @jjenas8 · 30m Been on air with the one show. I wasn’t down to be doing match of the day tomorrow, but if I was I would of said no and stood with my fellow pundits and @GaryLineker
How about they get someone who can add a bit of useful analysis.
Really I think the lesson from all this, as Taz says, is that we need to modernise the BBC in taking it away from being a government-appointed operation , to an independently-appointed one.
I don't agree with him on the other point about taking away the license fee, but this sort of nonsense just can't go on if the BBC wants to retain any credibility as an independent broadcaster, and so I hope Starmer will show some genuine leadership on this, rather than appointing Greg-Dykealikes.
Great to see another non-partisan post from non- partisan Casino. Before you off-topic me again, on- topic, I believe cancelling Lineker in the name of non-partisanship is very worrying.
"Non-partisan."
That's what you say when someone posts something that doesn't accord with your politics, right?
I don't care enough about you to off-topic you either. I tend to ignore your posts.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
Is this the most ridiculous OTT dead cat to cover up the Attenborough cancellation?
That move is far more insidious and important, especially given the BBC's role in educating us about the long-term stuff that isn't part of day-to-day political discourse.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
Great to see another non-partisan post from non- partisan Casino. Before you off-topic me again, on- topic, I believe cancelling Lineker in the name of non-partisanship is very worrying.
"Non-partisan."
That's what you say when someone posts something that doesn't accord with your politics, right?
I don't care enough about you to off-topic you either. I tend to ignore your posts.
Sorry.
Sorry, I don't off topic you.
You must be unpopular with someone else (I suspect multiple people) and also rather self-obsessed to boot.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
I'm not sure the BBC should exist. But he's not a news presenter, he's a sports presenter. And he's allowed to have his own views (however foolish) and to disseminate them on Twitter.
He is, but right now with the BBC he's trying to have his cake and eat it.
But you wouldn't support kicking Clarkson off the BBC for expressing political views on Twitter or in his Sunday Times column, right?
Clarkson isn't on the BBC.
On the one occasion he did firmly cross the line he was kicked off it.
The BBC's quandary would be eased if they could find another so-called 'talent' prepared to tweet a diametrically opposite opinion to Lineker. Then they could demonstrate the 'balance' of their 'broad church'. But they probably can't find one because everyone agrees with Gary. That's their real problem.
No they don't. They might be terrified for their career if they stepped in though....
So does everyone, from time to time, in varying degrees.
Which is major flaw in the Tory (and Republican) "cancel culture" mantra, methinks. Precisely because it's so clearly case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Same with the Wack War on Woke. Seeing as how one person's woke is another's wack, and visa versa.
I commented last evening Lineker's initial tweet was intemperate but that's now being matched by the response.
Are we to believe Lineker is such an influential figure his every utterance is of cosmic import? I don't think so either.
After nearly 14 years in Government, you have to expect a little criticism and negative comment - the notion of popular acclaim and rose petals strewn where'er a Minister strides is fanciful in extremis.
The other side is the extent to which Lineker, as a BBC employee, is bound by the charter of the Corporation. Does a individual, posting from their own Twitter account, speak for the organisation for whom they work?
That leads to the question of whether the BBC should be neutral or impartial and there's a big difference between the two. Neutrality is more about saying nothing - impartiality is showing both sides of an argument and allowing the viewer/listener to make up their own mind.
I don't want to be told what to think by any news organisation - indeed, as soon as they claim they are "fair and balanced" I assume the very opposite is the case. I'm happy to hear the arguments from both sides and indeed all sides - the role of the investigator is to ask the difficult questions, probe the weaknesses and uncover the fallacies in the argument. That's what I want the BBC to do (because Sky, GB News and Talk TV won't).
Asking questions about the legislation, asking questions about the £500 million we are handing over to France to help them stop the boats - that's how democracy works and that's how political decisions should be questioned.
Lineker is irrelevant to this - he's a football pundit. A more self-confident Government would ignore his views - a more self-confident BBC would ignore the calls of Government supporters and treat it as an internal matter. The fact both have seen fit to respond as they have speaks volumes.
Great post - to answer your question - why would anyone think that an individual, posting from their own Twitter account, speaks for the organisation for whom they work? Bizarre to me that anyone would think that. Working for an organisation doesn't control your life 24/7.
I mentioned it because I know many organisations are incredibly sensitive about social media perceptions and how their employees use that media.
A lot depends on how much who you work for is known beyond your immediate circle. Lineker's employment is known and it becomes difficult for some to disassociate his personal comments from his employment.
In local Government, there are "politically restricted" posts which effectively embargo the employee from any form of political activity such as membership of a party.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
It's all probably fair under the terms of his employment. I do think people are expressing a wee bit too much outrage at the very idea of any restriction on an employee's speech, since that rule has always been there for the BBC it seems, if not consistently applied. Plenty of jobs have restrictions.
But it blew up because it was political, and the rule is pretty unenforceable if there is mass outrage, and the fact the rule seems pretty pointless for sports commentators (since no one is suddenly going to suspect his analysis of the Liverpool - Aston Villa game is tained by the fact he dislikes Tory policy on refugees) makes it a fight the BBC and government will struggle to win.
Why does Match of the Day need presenters? Just show the action.
They might well do that, essentially just extended highlights. Might need to cut out the post match interview clips they do sometimes as well, in case they spend all their time going on about this controversy.
Viewing figures might even be ok. But if viewers really only wanted highlights packages without punditry I feel like that would have happened before now - people like to see some old pros trading banter and stock analysis, makes it feel more chummy, the sort of thing millions of people do themselves when discussing the matches the next day at work or school.
They are strictly limited in the amount of actual footage they can contractually show. So. It would be a shortened rather than extended show.
Is this the most ridiculous OTT dead cat to cover up the Attenborough cancellation?
That move is far more insidious and important, especially given the BBC's role in educating us about the long-term stuff that isn't part of day-to-day political discourse.
Why does Match of the Day need presenters? Just show the action.
They might well do that, essentially just extended highlights. Might need to cut out the post match interview clips they do sometimes as well, in case they spend all their time going on about this controversy.
Viewing figures might even be ok. But if viewers really only wanted highlights packages without punditry I feel like that would have happened before now - people like to see some old pros trading banter and stock analysis, makes it feel more chummy, the sort of thing millions of people do themselves when discussing the matches the next day at work or school.
They are strictly limited in the amount of actual footage they can contractually show. So. It would be a shortened rather than extended show.
Of course they don't show equal highlights of each game, since some are more exciting than others, so if the limit is amount per game they could probably squeeze it out to cover a similar time? Or is it overall amount?
"Could WhatsApp be banned in Britain? Boss of popular messaging service warns the app may soon be illegal in the UK because it will refuse to weaken encryption for new Online Safety Bill
WhatsApp could be blocked in Britain if the UK's new Online Safety Bill passes That is the warning from boss Will Cathcart, who is Meta's head of WhatsApp He said app will refuse to comply with Bill's bid to outlaw end-to-end encryption"
Broadcast union @bectu, which represents thousands of BBC staff, says Lineker decision is “deeply concerning”, a “bow to political pressure” and “double standards” compared to the appointment of Richard Sharp.
Could be disquiet among BBC staff behind the camera as well as on it.
The BBC's quandary would be eased if they could find another so-called 'talent' prepared to tweet a diametrically opposite opinion to Lineker. Then they could demonstrate the 'balance' of their 'broad church'. But they probably can't find one because everyone agrees with Gary. That's their real problem.
I don't think everyone agrees with him. In fact, I think those defending him on the basis of him being 'right' distract things a little bit, since that suggests he should be permitted to say things because he was right, rather than the more powerful defence that he should be permitted to say things even though he was wrong.
Of course such presenters should be permitted - providing they don’t blatantly bring the organisation into disrepute.
And like Richard_Tyndall earlier, I don’t agree with his choice of words about Braverman’s undoubtedly inflammatory language, FWIW.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
You want him to be cancelled.
Not really. But comparing the Government to Nazis and taking a seven-figure salary from licence-fee payers at the same time (which is compulsory, don't forget) and expecting no consequences for it, and goading those on top who disagree, isn't on.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
AIUI Lineker has been told by HMRC that he is an employee of the BBC. BBC have told Lineker and HMRC that he is not. One of the attack lines against Lineker is that he is a tax dodging bastard. For having a contract and employment status imposed on him by the BBC.
Yeah, I bet Lineker was BEGGING the BBC to allow him to pay National Insurance.
Not.
Sure! But again, the accusation is that these freelancers are freelancers because they have cooked up a dodgy scheme to rip off the taxpayer. Whereas in reality most of the industry has had contractor arrangements for decades. Unless you are full time and exclusive to the broadcaster, you'll be a contractor because the broadcaster won't employ you.
I find it difficult to believe they have no ability to do otherwise.
Great to see another non-partisan post from non- partisan Casino. Before you off-topic me again, on- topic, I believe cancelling Lineker in the name of non-partisanship is very worrying.
"Non-partisan."
That's what you say when someone posts something that doesn't accord with your politics, right?
I don't care enough about you to off-topic you either. I tend to ignore your posts.
Sorry.
Well you just gave me another so thanks for that.
I didn't, I don't care mate, and if you really don't believe me you can email the Mods to verify.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
You want him to be cancelled.
Not really. But comparing the Government to Nazis and taking a seven-figure salary from licence-fee payers at the same time (which is compulsory, don't forget) and expecting no consequences for it, and goading those on top who disagree, isn't on.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
This is my position. I don't care about him criticizing the government's policy, but the comparison to the Nazis really minimizes what was done to their victims.
The BBC's quandary would be eased if they could find another so-called 'talent' prepared to tweet a diametrically opposite opinion to Lineker. Then they could demonstrate the 'balance' of their 'broad church'. But they probably can't find one because everyone agrees with Gary. That's their real problem.
Sorry - so you want the BBC to instruct its presenters to Tweet something?
I think Lineker's attack was ridiculous. The governments' migration policies are nothing like those of 1930s Nazi Germany, and nor is its rhetoric.
But that's his opinion. He's entitled to be wrong.
What I don't want is the government firing people - especially those who are not in news or current affairs roles - for expressing their personal opinions on Twitter.
Indeed - that's exactly where I am.
All this has revealed is an extraordinary sensitivity probably derived from a sense of weakness from the Conservative Government. There were far stronger attacks on Government policy in the 80s but Government ignored them and carried on doing what they were elected to do.
If a Government can't take a little stupid criticism from a football pundit, it should fold its tents, call a General Election and put it out of our misery.
When Alan Sugar tweeted an image depicting Jeremy Corbyn as a Nazi (or indeed, when Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn"), that didn't cause the BBC to doubt their impartiality.
As for me I didnt call on them to be cancelled either as I am not a Fascist
Good on Lineker for forcing the BBC to demonstrate their obvious double standards, and poor form from those PB Tories who have proved they defend fascist actions of Tory dominated BBC
When Alan Sugar tweeted an image depicting Jeremy Corbyn as a Nazi (or indeed, when Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn"), that didn't cause the BBC to doubt their impartiality.
As for me I didnt call on them to be cancelled either as I am not a Fascist
Good on Lineker for forcing the BBC to demonstrate their obvious double standards, and poor form from those PB Tories who have proved they defend fascist actions of Tory dominated BBC
I wasn't aware that happened, but he absolutely should have faced repercussions for that.
I'm not sure the BBC should exist. But he's not a news presenter, he's a sports presenter. And he's allowed to have his own views (however foolish) and to disseminate them on Twitter.
He is, but right now with the BBC he's trying to have his cake and eat it.
But you wouldn't support kicking Clarkson off the BBC for expressing political views on Twitter or in his Sunday Times column, right?
Clarkson isn't on the BBC.
On the one occasion he did firmly cross the line he was kicked off it.
There are always boundaries.
"Clarkson isn't oin the BBC".
That's evasion. He *was* a *massive* figure on the BBC till he blotted his copybook in 2015. And that was not for political comments.
Shooting public sector strikers? No problem. In 2011. *ON THE BBC ITSELF*
The BBC's quandary would be eased if they could find another so-called 'talent' prepared to tweet a diametrically opposite opinion to Lineker. Then they could demonstrate the 'balance' of their 'broad church'. But they probably can't find one because everyone agrees with Gary. That's their real problem.
Sorry - so you want the BBC to instruct its presenters to Tweet something?
I think Lineker's attack was ridiculous. The governments' migration policies are nothing like those of 1930s Nazi Germany, and nor is its rhetoric.
But that's his opinion. He's entitled to be wrong.
What I don't want is the government firing people - especially those who are not in news or current affairs roles - for expressing their personal opinions on Twitter.
Indeed - that's exactly where I am.
All this has revealed is an extraordinary sensitivity probably derived from a sense of weakness from the Conservative Government. There were far stronger attacks on Government policy in the 80s but Government ignored them and carried on doing what they were elected to do.
If a Government can't take a little stupid criticism from a football pundit, it should fold its tents, call a General Election and put it out of our misery.
It is rather snowflakey.
Braverman should get out in front of this and say that whilst she thinks what Lineker said was a load of nonsense, and that the BBC is right to remind its stars of their responsibilities to be impartial, she thinks taking him off air is disproportionate.
When Alan Sugar tweeted an image depicting Jeremy Corbyn as a Nazi (or indeed, when Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn"), that didn't cause the BBC to doubt their impartiality.
As for me I didnt call on them to be cancelled either as I am not a Fascist
Good on Lineker for forcing the BBC to demonstrate their obvious double standards, and poor form from those PB Tories who have proved they defend fascist actions of Tory dominated BBC
Lineker should be allowed to say what he wants.
But this week he's behaved like an arrogant prat who thinks he's irreplaceable.
He should be replaced by someone on 10% of his pay to show him, and all the other BBC 'stars', that he is easily replaceable.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
You want him to be cancelled.
Not really. But comparing the Government to Nazis and taking a seven-figure salary from licence-fee payers at the same time (which is compulsory, don't forget) and expecting no consequences for it, and goading those on top who disagree, isn't on.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
"taking a seven figure salary from licence fee payers"
That is not true, given how much commercial revenue the BBC gets.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
You want him to be cancelled.
Not really. But comparing the Government to Nazis and taking a seven-figure salary from licence-fee payers at the same time (which is compulsory, don't forget) and expecting no consequences for it, and goading those on top who disagree, isn't on.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
This is my position. I don't care about him criticizing the government's policy, but the comparison to the Nazis really minimizes what was done to their victims.
No it doesnt it highlights the dangerous path we are currently treading.
Where were you when Alan Sugar tweeted an image depicting Jeremy Corbyn as a Nazi (or indeed, when Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn"?
I was in the oh well its free speech camp same as now
Is this the most ridiculous OTT dead cat to cover up the Attenborough cancellation?
That move is far more insidious and important, especially given the BBC's role in educating us about the long-term stuff that isn't part of day-to-day political discourse.
Had exactly the opposite thought: that juxtaposition of Attenborough and Linneker non-broadcasting (striving for neutral description un-linked to exact or inexact job status) was likely to MAGNIFY the impact of BBC/government response.
Two long-time, high-profile broadcasters in two divergent, popular and (mostly) apolitical fields, nature & sport. Urging them (to put it mildly) both off the airwaves, expands the circle of the pissed-off who feel they've got (yet another) good reason for voting against the current regime.
I'm not sure the BBC should exist. But he's not a news presenter, he's a sports presenter. And he's allowed to have his own views (however foolish) and to disseminate them on Twitter.
He is, but right now with the BBC he's trying to have his cake and eat it.
But you wouldn't support kicking Clarkson off the BBC for expressing political views on Twitter or in his Sunday Times column, right?
Clarkson isn't on the BBC.
On the one occasion he did firmly cross the line he was kicked off it.
There are always boundaries.
"Clarkson isn't oin the BBC".
That's evasion. He *was* a *massive* figure on the BBC till he blotted his copybook in 2015. And that was not for political comments.
Shooting public sector strikers? No problem. In 2011. *ON THE BBC ITSELF*
If you don't approve of shooting strikers you're BETRAYING BRITAIN. The Prime Minister has promised to shag Macron shoot strikers and if you disagree you're a leftie civil servant.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
You want him to be cancelled.
Not really. But comparing the Government to Nazis and taking a seven-figure salary from licence-fee payers at the same time (which is compulsory, don't forget) and expecting no consequences for it, and goading those on top who disagree, isn't on.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
This is my position. I don't care about him criticizing the government's policy, but the comparison to the Nazis really minimizes what was done to their victims.
No it doesnt it highlights the dangerous path we are currently treading.
You seriously think the country is on it's way to becoming Nazi Germany?
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
Is it - and what evidence do you have for that ? “Disciplinary matter” doesn’t appear in the reporting. That’s just your imagination, IMO.
Great to see another non-partisan post from non- partisan Casino. Before you off-topic me again, on- topic, I believe cancelling Lineker in the name of non-partisanship is very worrying.
"Non-partisan."
That's what you say when someone posts something that doesn't accord with your politics, right?
I don't care enough about you to off-topic you either. I tend to ignore your posts.
Sorry.
Well you just gave me another so thanks for that.
I didn't, I don't care mate, and if you really don't believe me you can email the Mods to verify.
The BBC's quandary would be eased if they could find another so-called 'talent' prepared to tweet a diametrically opposite opinion to Lineker. Then they could demonstrate the 'balance' of their 'broad church'. But they probably can't find one because everyone agrees with Gary. That's their real problem.
Sorry - so you want the BBC to instruct its presenters to Tweet something?
I think Lineker's attack was ridiculous. The governments' migration policies are nothing like those of 1930s Nazi Germany, and nor is its rhetoric.
But that's his opinion. He's entitled to be wrong.
What I don't want is the government firing people - especially those who are not in news or current affairs roles - for expressing their personal opinions on Twitter.
I'm not suggesting the BBC can or should instruct someone to tweet. I'm saying they cannot demonstrate impartiality by pointing to such a person because they don't exist. Their problem is not that Lineker appears to be biased. Their problem is that the BBC appears to be biased because no-one is saying anything different. It's a problem of appearance and perception, which the former head of Corporate PR would surely recognise.
@SkyKaveh Gary Lineker suspended by the BBC for upsetting the Conservatives because he stood up for some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The same BBC whose chairman gave the Conservatives £400,000 before helping to arrange an £800,000 loan for Boris Johnson
Is this the most ridiculous OTT dead cat to cover up the Attenborough cancellation?
That move is far more insidious and important, especially given the BBC's role in educating us about the long-term stuff that isn't part of day-to-day political discourse.
Had exactly the opposite thought: that juxtaposition of Attenborough and Linneker non-broadcasting (striving for neutral description un-linked to exact or inexact job status) was likely to MAGNIFY the impact of BBC/government response.
Two long-time, high-profile broadcasters in two divergent, popular and (mostly) apolitical fields, nature & sport. Urging them (to put it mildly) both off the airwaves, expands the circle of the pissed-off who feel they've got (yet another) good reason for voting against the current regime.
Doesn't mean you aren't both right - intent and actual result can be very different. Streisand Effect as one of us pointed out earlier.
"Could WhatsApp be banned in Britain? Boss of popular messaging service warns the app may soon be illegal in the UK because it will refuse to weaken encryption for new Online Safety Bill
WhatsApp could be blocked in Britain if the UK's new Online Safety Bill passes That is the warning from boss Will Cathcart, who is Meta's head of WhatsApp He said app will refuse to comply with Bill's bid to outlaw end-to-end encryption"
One of the problems with WhatsApp is it is being used increasingly as a decision-making tool. The encryption removes accountability since it can't be established what was decided by whom and when.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
You want him to be cancelled.
Not really. But comparing the Government to Nazis and taking a seven-figure salary from licence-fee payers at the same time (which is compulsory, don't forget) and expecting no consequences for it, and goading those on top who disagree, isn't on.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
This is my position. I don't care about him criticizing the government's policy, but the comparison to the Nazis really minimizes what was done to their victims.
No it doesnt it highlights the dangerous path we are currently treading.
You seriously think the country is on it's way to becoming Nazi Germany?
Labour: “The BBC’s cowardly decision to take Gary Lineker off air is an assault on free speech in the face of political pressure. Tory politicians lobbying to get people sacked for disagreeing with Government policies should be laughed at, not pandered to. BBC should rethink.”
The BBC's quandary would be eased if they could find another so-called 'talent' prepared to tweet a diametrically opposite opinion to Lineker. Then they could demonstrate the 'balance' of their 'broad church'. But they probably can't find one because everyone agrees with Gary. That's their real problem.
Sorry - so you want the BBC to instruct its presenters to Tweet something?
I think Lineker's attack was ridiculous. The governments' migration policies are nothing like those of 1930s Nazi Germany, and nor is its rhetoric.
But that's his opinion. He's entitled to be wrong.
What I don't want is the government firing people - especially those who are not in news or current affairs roles - for expressing their personal opinions on Twitter.
Indeed - that's exactly where I am.
All this has revealed is an extraordinary sensitivity probably derived from a sense of weakness from the Conservative Government. There were far stronger attacks on Government policy in the 80s but Government ignored them and carried on doing what they were elected to do.
If a Government can't take a little stupid criticism from a football pundit, it should fold its tents, call a General Election and put it out of our misery.
But there's also the primary issue, I would say, that the government also should just not have this kind of power, in the first place. If we say the BBC is not a "state broadcaster" in the manner of Soviet regimes, we have to mean it.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
Is it - and what evidence do you have for that ? “Disciplinary matter” doesn’t appear in the reporting. That’s just your imagination, IMO.
That's entirely what's going on behind the scenes, hence the BBC conversations with him on his private social media use.
People's position on this is entirely predictable from their political position which, of course, is precisely Lineker's problem.
Great to see another non-partisan post from non- partisan Casino. Before you off-topic me again, on- topic, I believe cancelling Lineker in the name of non-partisanship is very worrying.
"Non-partisan."
That's what you say when someone posts something that doesn't accord with your politics, right?
I don't care enough about you to off-topic you either. I tend to ignore your posts.
Sorry.
Well you just gave me another so thanks for that.
I didn't, I don't care mate, and if you really don't believe me you can email the Mods to verify.
My very non political uncle is very exercised by this Lineker story, on the basis that he supposedly never made any Nazi era comparison anyway because he never used the word Nazi. I suggested referring to 1930s Germany makes it pretty clear, but he insists otherwise.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
You want him to be cancelled.
Not really. But comparing the Government to Nazis and taking a seven-figure salary from licence-fee payers at the same time (which is compulsory, don't forget) and expecting no consequences for it, and goading those on top who disagree, isn't on.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
This is my position. I don't care about him criticizing the government's policy, but the comparison to the Nazis really minimizes what was done to their victims.
No it doesnt it highlights the dangerous path we are currently treading.
You seriously think the country is on it's way to becoming Nazi Germany?
@SkyKaveh Gary Lineker suspended by the BBC for upsetting the Conservatives because he stood up for some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The same BBC whose chairman gave the Conservatives £400,000 before helping to arrange an £800,000 loan for Boris Johnson
Should have looked the other way. Having the government be mad at them for ignoring stars getting political is better than 'corrupt BBC Chair and other tories force popular presenter off air', as headlines go.
My very non political uncle is very exercised by this Lineker story, on the basis that he supposedly never made any Nazi era comparison anyway because he never used the word Nazi. I suggested referring to 1930s Germany makes it pretty clear, but he insists otherwise.
Technically he is correct. There is always 1930-1933. Some pretty extreme chappies around. Not just the NSDAP.
I'm not sure the BBC should exist. But he's not a news presenter, he's a sports presenter. And he's allowed to have his own views (however foolish) and to disseminate them on Twitter.
He is, but right now with the BBC he's trying to have his cake and eat it.
But you wouldn't support kicking Clarkson off the BBC for expressing political views on Twitter or in his Sunday Times column, right?
Clarkson isn't on the BBC.
On the one occasion he did firmly cross the line he was kicked off it.
There are always boundaries.
"Clarkson isn't oin the BBC".
That's evasion. He *was* a *massive* figure on the BBC till he blotted his copybook in 2015. And that was not for political comments.
Shooting public sector strikers? No problem. In 2011. *ON THE BBC ITSELF*
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
You want him to be cancelled.
Not really. But comparing the Government to Nazis and taking a seven-figure salary from licence-fee payers at the same time (which is compulsory, don't forget) and expecting no consequences for it, and goading those on top who disagree, isn't on.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
This is my position. I don't care about him criticizing the government's policy, but the comparison to the Nazis really minimizes what was done to their victims.
No it doesnt it highlights the dangerous path we are currently treading.
You seriously think the country is on it's way to becoming Nazi Germany?
Did the Nazis try to make scapegoats of anyone or close down opponents?
You tell me How dare Lineker "trivialise" the Holocaust by comparing the Tory/Labour dehumanisation of refugees with the dehumanisation of Jews in 1930s Germany?
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
You want him to be cancelled.
Not really. But comparing the Government to Nazis and taking a seven-figure salary from licence-fee payers at the same time (which is compulsory, don't forget) and expecting no consequences for it, and goading those on top who disagree, isn't on.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
This is my position. I don't care about him criticizing the government's policy, but the comparison to the Nazis really minimizes what was done to their victims.
No it doesnt it highlights the dangerous path we are currently treading.
The idea that we are treading some path towards the gas chambers is propaganda designed to close down legitimate political choices. Ironically it is those who throw around comparisons with the Nazis who are the most guilty of dehumanising people.
The trouble is that the BBC know Lineker is making a coordinated political attack on the Government, with bedfellows like Alistair Campbell, and he knows it too - he has all but admitted he wants to be an MP.
He crossed a line by comparing them to Nazis, and well he knows it. He just think he has enough support out there to face the BBC down and call their bluff. He's goading them.
He will probably find that, just like Clarkson and Top Gear, he is not indispensable.
No-one is.
He compared the language used , he did not accuse the Tories of being Nazis. The whole thing got blown out of proportion because the Daily Hate decided they wouldn’t let it go until they had Lineker suspended.
"Could WhatsApp be banned in Britain? Boss of popular messaging service warns the app may soon be illegal in the UK because it will refuse to weaken encryption for new Online Safety Bill
WhatsApp could be blocked in Britain if the UK's new Online Safety Bill passes That is the warning from boss Will Cathcart, who is Meta's head of WhatsApp He said app will refuse to comply with Bill's bid to outlaw end-to-end encryption"
One of the problems with WhatsApp is it is being used increasingly as a decision-making tool. The encryption removes accountability since it can't be established what was decided by whom and when.
I wouldn't trust any privacy or encryption of WhatsApp.
If you want privacy, switch your phones off and have a quiet chat with your mate in the pub.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
You want him to be cancelled.
Not really. But comparing the Government to Nazis and taking a seven-figure salary from licence-fee payers at the same time (which is compulsory, don't forget) and expecting no consequences for it, and goading those on top who disagree, isn't on.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
This is my position. I don't care about him criticizing the government's policy, but the comparison to the Nazis really minimizes what was done to their victims.
No it doesnt it highlights the dangerous path we are currently treading.
You seriously think the country is on it's way to becoming Nazi Germany?
From little acorns oaktrees grow.
Oh give over and don't be so ridiculous.
We are not going to be putting people in concentration camps and murdering them, sending the RF in exile, and invading France, Belgium and Poland as we try and create a new Empire...
The BBC's quandary would be eased if they could find another so-called 'talent' prepared to tweet a diametrically opposite opinion to Lineker. Then they could demonstrate the 'balance' of their 'broad church'. But they probably can't find one because everyone agrees with Gary. That's their real problem.
Sorry - so you want the BBC to instruct its presenters to Tweet something?
I think Lineker's attack was ridiculous. The governments' migration policies are nothing like those of 1930s Nazi Germany, and nor is its rhetoric.
But that's his opinion. He's entitled to be wrong.
What I don't want is the government firing people - especially those who are not in news or current affairs roles - for expressing their personal opinions on Twitter.
Indeed - that's exactly where I am.
All this has revealed is an extraordinary sensitivity probably derived from a sense of weakness from the Conservative Government. There were far stronger attacks on Government policy in the 80s but Government ignored them and carried on doing what they were elected to do.
If a Government can't take a little stupid criticism from a football pundit, it should fold its tents, call a General Election and put it out of our misery.
Think there's much in what you say, though my take is slightly different, albeit directly related; that what currently passes for HMG is desperate to firm up the Tory base behind the PM and also to stop the rot in the Red Wave.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
You want him to be cancelled.
Not really. But comparing the Government to Nazis and taking a seven-figure salary from licence-fee payers at the same time (which is compulsory, don't forget) and expecting no consequences for it, and goading those on top who disagree, isn't on.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
This is my position. I don't care about him criticizing the government's policy, but the comparison to the Nazis really minimizes what was done to their victims.
No it doesnt it highlights the dangerous path we are currently treading.
You seriously think the country is on it's way to becoming Nazi Germany?
From little acorns oaktrees grow.
Oh give over and don't be so ridiculous.
We are not going to be putting people in concentration camps and murdering them, sending the RF in exile, and invading France, Belgium and Poland as we try and create a new Empire...
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
You want him to be cancelled.
Not really. But comparing the Government to Nazis and taking a seven-figure salary from licence-fee payers at the same time (which is compulsory, don't forget) and expecting no consequences for it, and goading those on top who disagree, isn't on.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
This is my position. I don't care about him criticizing the government's policy, but the comparison to the Nazis really minimizes what was done to their victims.
The trouble is that the BBC know Lineker is making a coordinated political attack on the Government, with bedfellows like Alistair Campbell, and he knows it too - he has all but admitted he wants to be an MP.
He crossed a line by comparing them to Nazis, and well he knows it. He just think he has enough support out there to face the BBC down and call their bluff. He's goading them.
He will probably find that, just like Clarkson and Top Gear, he is not indispensable.
No-one is.
He compared the language used , he did not accuse the Tories of being Nazis. The whole thing got blown out of proportion because the Daily Hate decided they wouldn’t let it go until they had Lineker suspended.
Well. They are going to have to continue cos he hasn't been suspended AIUI.
"Could WhatsApp be banned in Britain? Boss of popular messaging service warns the app may soon be illegal in the UK because it will refuse to weaken encryption for new Online Safety Bill
WhatsApp could be blocked in Britain if the UK's new Online Safety Bill passes That is the warning from boss Will Cathcart, who is Meta's head of WhatsApp He said app will refuse to comply with Bill's bid to outlaw end-to-end encryption"
One of the problems with WhatsApp is it is being used increasingly as a decision-making tool. The encryption removes accountability since it can't be established what was decided by whom and when.
So ban government ministers from using it. Don't ban parents using it to organise their kids' birthday party.
@SkyKaveh Gary Lineker suspended by the BBC for upsetting the Conservatives because he stood up for some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The same BBC whose chairman gave the Conservatives £400,000 before helping to arrange an £800,000 loan for Boris Johnson
Should have looked the other way. Having the government be mad at them for ignoring stars getting political is better than 'corrupt BBC Chair and other tories force popular presenter off air', as headlines go.
There's a Dan Hodges tweet claiming that Ministers are not happy bunnies with what's happened.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
You want him to be cancelled.
Not really. But comparing the Government to Nazis and taking a seven-figure salary from licence-fee payers at the same time (which is compulsory, don't forget) and expecting no consequences for it, and goading those on top who disagree, isn't on.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
This is my position. I don't care about him criticizing the government's policy, but the comparison to the Nazis really minimizes what was done to their victims.
No it doesnt it highlights the dangerous path we are currently treading.
You seriously think the country is on it's way to becoming Nazi Germany?
From little acorns oaktrees grow.
Oh give over and don't be so ridiculous.
We are not going to be putting people in concentration camps and murdering them, sending the RF in exile, and invading France, Belgium and Poland as we try and create a new Empire...
Time for me to check out. Have a good night PB
No one except you is suggesting that.
This is what @bigjohnowls thinks we're heading towards:
Great to see another non-partisan post from non- partisan Casino. Before you off-topic me again, on- topic, I believe cancelling Lineker in the name of non-partisanship is very worrying.
"Non-partisan."
That's what you say when someone posts something that doesn't accord with your politics, right?
I don't care enough about you to off-topic you either. I tend to ignore your posts.
Sorry.
Well you just gave me another so thanks for that.
I didn't, I don't care mate, and if you really don't believe me you can email the Mods to verify.
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
Is it - and what evidence do you have for that ? “Disciplinary matter” doesn’t appear in the reporting. That’s just your imagination, IMO.
That's entirely what's going on behind the scenes, hence the BBC conversations with him on his private social media use.
People's position on this is entirely predictable from their political position which, of course, is precisely Lineker's problem.
Disciplinary matter has a specific meaning in employment law. And isn’t applicable here.
@SkyKaveh Gary Lineker suspended by the BBC for upsetting the Conservatives because he stood up for some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The same BBC whose chairman gave the Conservatives £400,000 before helping to arrange an £800,000 loan for Boris Johnson
Should have looked the other way. Having the government be mad at them for ignoring stars getting political is better than 'corrupt BBC Chair and other tories force popular presenter off air', as headlines go.
There's a Dan Hodges tweet claiming that Ministers are not happy bunnies with what's happened.
Replying to @RobDotHutton I actually wondered if that's the real story here - Beeb bosses managing up by saying "this is what happens when you get what you say you want."
OK... so, even if he is a prick, how is cancelling him gonna solve the Small Boats problem?
He's not being cancelled.
He is. He has been ousted by his employer for expressing an opinion.
Hang on, I thought the BBC wasn't his employer.
Which one is it?
Rather a side issue. Do you agree he should be losing his job for expressing political opinions on a site not linked to the BBC?
His form of contract is irrelevant. He is the highest paid BBC presenter and a major public face of the BBC. He's been able to tweet his views for years, unlikely many other BBC presenters I hasten to add, with impunity.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
You want him to be cancelled.
Not really. But comparing the Government to Nazis and taking a seven-figure salary from licence-fee payers at the same time (which is compulsory, don't forget) and expecting no consequences for it, and goading those on top who disagree, isn't on.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
This is my position. I don't care about him criticizing the government's policy, but the comparison to the Nazis really minimizes what was done to their victims.
"Comments criticising the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for saving these desperate boat people, instead of leaving them to drown, were shared openly and to applause from others in the audience. "
To think that controversy of last year might never have happened.
There's an open goal for a lengthy UnHerd article on the all pervasive evils of Cancel Culture. Will they sky it? Or slot it away like Gary Lineker would?
Now @jjenas8 has refused there is a real danger that the brilliant #motd brand starts to look toxic - they can’t have a Saturday football show that’s somehow carrying the weight of an asylum policy because of the move to silence its chief presenter.
Comments
Not.
So presenters are added for filler instead of having a half hour programme.
As long as they can read an auto cue anyone could host that show honestly.
The harder part will be replacing the pundits if they all pull out in solidarity with Leftie Lineker...
Best ring Frank Lampard
Jermaine Jenas
@jjenas8
·
30m
Been on air with the one show. I wasn’t down to be doing match of the day tomorrow, but if I was I would of said no and stood with my fellow pundits and
@GaryLineker
There is very little that is new.
I think Lineker's attack was ridiculous. The governments' migration policies are nothing like those of 1930s Nazi Germany, and nor is its rhetoric.
But that's his opinion. He's entitled to be wrong.
What I don't want is the government firing people - especially those who are not in news or current affairs roles - for expressing their personal opinions on Twitter.
It is an especially poor look for a public sector organisation funded by taxation to be participating in tax avoidance.
https://twitter.com/JamesEFoster/status/1634263771597119514/photo/1
They should have learned to let things go - this hasn't kept their migration plan in the news, as they probably hoped it would, just the row about harmless, not as smart as he probably thinks he is Lineker.
Which would rule out many, very many.
I don't agree with him on the other point about taking away the license fee, but this sort of nonsense just can't go on if the BBC wants to retain any credibility as an independent broadcaster, and so I hope Starmer will show some genuine leadership on this, rather than appointing Greg-Dykealikes.
On this occasion he didn't just cross the line. He ran over 400 yards beyond it, dropped his trousers, took a massive dump on the pitch and then shouted/goaded the BBC and flung some of his shit at them at the same time.
It's a disciplinary matter, which he's too arrogant to recognise, and he absolutely deserves what's coming to him.
That move is far more insidious and important, especially given the BBC's role in educating us about the long-term stuff that isn't part of day-to-day political discourse.
You must be unpopular with someone else (I suspect multiple people) and also rather self-obsessed to boot.
On the one occasion he did firmly cross the line he was kicked off it.
There are always boundaries.
Which is major flaw in the Tory (and Republican) "cancel culture" mantra, methinks. Precisely because it's so clearly case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Same with the Wack War on Woke. Seeing as how one person's woke is another's wack, and visa versa.
A lot depends on how much who you work for is known beyond your immediate circle. Lineker's employment is known and it becomes difficult for some to disassociate his personal comments from his employment.
In local Government, there are "politically restricted" posts which effectively embargo the employee from any form of political activity such as membership of a party.
There are lots of people with a vested interest in their being too many presenters who are too well paid.
But it blew up because it was political, and the rule is pretty unenforceable if there is mass outrage, and the fact the rule seems pretty pointless for sports commentators (since no one is suddenly going to suspect his analysis of the Liverpool - Aston Villa game is tained by the fact he dislikes Tory policy on refugees) makes it a fight the BBC and government will struggle to win.
So. It would be a shortened rather than extended show.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/mar/10/prosecutors-pursue-case-against-barcelona-over-alleged-refereeing-deal
WhatsApp could be blocked in Britain if the UK's new Online Safety Bill passes
That is the warning from boss Will Cathcart, who is Meta's head of WhatsApp
He said app will refuse to comply with Bill's bid to outlaw end-to-end encryption"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11844065/WhatsApp-illegal-UK-wont-comply-Online-Safety-Bill.html
Broadcast union @bectu, which represents thousands of BBC staff, says Lineker decision is “deeply concerning”, a “bow to political pressure” and “double standards” compared to the appointment of Richard Sharp.
Could be disquiet among BBC staff behind the camera as well as on it.
And like Richard_Tyndall earlier, I don’t agree with his choice of words about Braverman’s undoubtedly inflammatory language, FWIW.
It's a disciplinary matter. Free speech isn't utterly and completely absolute, and it's not zero consequence speech.
I'd have a problem with my employer if I tweeted in a personal capacity and dropped the n-bomb on my political opponents too.
Sorry.
All this has revealed is an extraordinary sensitivity probably derived from a sense of weakness from the Conservative Government. There were far stronger attacks on Government policy in the 80s but Government ignored them and carried on doing what they were elected to do.
If a Government can't take a little stupid criticism from a football pundit, it should fold its tents, call a General Election and put it out of our misery.
As for me I didnt call on them to be cancelled either as I am not a Fascist
Good on Lineker for forcing the BBC to demonstrate their obvious double standards, and poor form from those PB Tories who have proved they defend fascist actions of Tory dominated BBC
That's evasion. He *was* a *massive* figure on the BBC till he blotted his copybook in 2015. And that was not for political comments.
Shooting public sector strikers? No problem. In 2011. *ON THE BBC ITSELF*
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/jeremy-clarkson-apologises-for-shoot-the-strikers-279972
He was still on the BBC till 2015.
But presumably you approve of shooting strikers?
Braverman should get out in front of this and say that whilst she thinks what Lineker said was a load of nonsense, and that the BBC is right to remind its stars of their responsibilities to be impartial, she thinks taking him off air is disproportionate.
But this week he's behaved like an arrogant prat who thinks he's irreplaceable.
He should be replaced by someone on 10% of his pay to show him, and all the other BBC 'stars', that he is easily replaceable.
That is not true, given how much commercial revenue the BBC gets.
Where were you when Alan Sugar tweeted an image depicting Jeremy Corbyn as a Nazi (or indeed, when Lineker tweeted "Bin Corbyn"?
I was in the oh well its free speech camp same as now
Two long-time, high-profile broadcasters in two divergent, popular and (mostly) apolitical fields, nature & sport. Urging them (to put it mildly) both off the airwaves, expands the circle of the pissed-off who feel they've got (yet another) good reason for voting against the current regime.
shag Macronshoot strikers and if you disagree you're a leftie civil servant.https://www.change.org/p/stand-by-gary-lineker?recruiter=1033339251&recruited_by_id=67e08420-330d-11ea-80f9-5f8c1f672722&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter
You seriously think the country is on it's way to becoming Nazi Germany?
Ah now who wants to guess what the interpreter is signing 😉
“Disciplinary matter” doesn’t appear in the reporting. That’s just your imagination, IMO.
Gary Lineker suspended by the BBC for upsetting the Conservatives because he stood up for some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The same BBC whose chairman gave the Conservatives £400,000 before helping to arrange an £800,000 loan for Boris Johnson
https://twitter.com/SkyKaveh/status/1634288030658842641
People's position on this is entirely predictable from their political position which, of course, is precisely Lineker's problem.
And various people got outraged about one side or the other and almost always without watching the whole thing.
You tell me How dare Lineker "trivialise" the Holocaust by comparing the Tory/Labour dehumanisation of refugees with the dehumanisation of Jews in 1930s Germany?
I agree with this tweet that we are at step 6
https://twitter.com/windsorvillhelm/status/1630139528361943041/photo/1
If you want privacy, switch your phones off and have a quiet chat with your mate in the pub.
We are not going to be putting people in concentration camps and murdering them, sending the RF in exile, and invading France, Belgium and Poland as we try and create a new Empire...
Time for me to check out. Have a good night PB
Given that a child survivor of the Holocaust made a very similar comparison, I think your claim that it “minimizes what was done to their victims” is more hyperbolic than Lineker’s remarks.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/17/confronted-suella-braverman-holocaust-survivor-refugees-home-secretary
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1634245671401168898
Got to wonder what ministers thought they were doing.
And isn’t applicable here.
Replying to @RobDotHutton
I actually wondered if that's the real story here - Beeb bosses managing up by saying "this is what happens when you get what you say you want."
To think that controversy of last year might never have happened.
Will they sky it?
Or slot it away like Gary Lineker would?
How was it in other parts of the country ?
It might give an insight into how many panickers / hoarders / sociopaths various places have.
Now @jjenas8 has refused there is a real danger that the brilliant #motd brand starts to look toxic - they can’t have a Saturday football show that’s somehow carrying the weight of an asylum policy because of the move to silence its chief presenter.
The whole BBC faces a crisis in credibility. Which is exactly what the Tories want