The question that will be fascinating over the next few days is whether this has damaged the BBC or whether it has highlighted the boat crisis and how the public react
Good night folks
Has it damaged the BBC? No I don't think so. Has it damaged some of those who run the BBC and who seem to have stepped of a cliff for a completely pointless 'principle'? Yes I think so.
I disagree with Lineker's original comparison as I have already said. But I can't see any way he doesn't come out of this now with his reputation anything other than greatly enhanced.
I don't believe he can ever present MOtD again. But does he really care? He has made (probably inadvertently, and by their own folly) Johnsonian BBC appointees look very foolish.
With the backlash running contrary to the green's rub, the smug Robert Jenrick demanding Lineker's dismissal probably wasn't the stroke of genius he thought it was.
The question that will be fascinating over the next few days is whether this has damaged the BBC or whether it has highlighted the boat crisis and how the public react
Good night folks
Has it damaged the BBC? No I don't think so. Has it damaged some of those who run the BBC and who seem to have stepped of a cliff for a completely pointless 'principle'? Yes I think so.
I disagree with Lineker's original comparison as I have already said. But I can't see any way he doesn't come out of this now with his reputation anything other than greatly enhanced.
He simply gets replaced by someone who does the job better for 10% of the pay thereby showing that very few people are irreplaceable.
Whether the BBC has the sense to do that I rather doubt.
I think that is wishful thinking on your part. The BBC have not sacked him. And for good reason. He is incredibly popular and I suspect some deal will be done and he will be back very soon.
Just look at player reactions and the other presenters/pundits. No one will touch the BBC with a bargepole if they sack him.
The question that will be fascinating over the next few days is whether this has damaged the BBC or whether it has highlighted the boat crisis and how the public react
Good night folks
Has it damaged the BBC? No I don't think so. Has it damaged some of those who run the BBC and who seem to have stepped of a cliff for a completely pointless 'principle'? Yes I think so.
I disagree with Lineker's original comparison as I have already said. But I can't see any way he doesn't come out of this now with his reputation anything other than greatly enhanced.
He simply gets replaced by someone who does the job better for 10% of the pay thereby showing that very few people are irreplaceable.
Whether the BBC has the sense to do that I rather doubt.
With all due respect, that's a totally different point.
It may very well be that there is someone better, who can do it for 10% of the price.
But it seems awfully convenient that is those people who are most critical of his right to spout nonsense on Twitter who are suddenly concerned about his pay packet.
Well I'm not bothered about his twitter spouting but I've been concerned for years as to what he gets paid.
Given the way the BBC is funded then I think it is overdue for a maximum wage of 10x average earnings.
The question that will be fascinating over the next few days is whether this has damaged the BBC or whether it has highlighted the boat crisis and how the public react
Good night folks
Has it damaged the BBC? No I don't think so. Has it damaged some of those who run the BBC and who seem to have stepped of a cliff for a completely pointless 'principle'? Yes I think so.
I disagree with Lineker's original comparison as I have already said. But I can't see any way he doesn't come out of this now with his reputation anything other than greatly enhanced.
He simply gets replaced by someone who does the job better for 10% of the pay thereby showing that very few people are irreplaceable.
Whether the BBC has the sense to do that I rather doubt.
They'll appoint some self obsessed tosser like Dan Walker.
The question that will be fascinating over the next few days is whether this has damaged the BBC or whether it has highlighted the boat crisis and how the public react
Good night folks
Has it damaged the BBC? No I don't think so. Has it damaged some of those who run the BBC and who seem to have stepped of a cliff for a completely pointless 'principle'? Yes I think so.
I disagree with Lineker's original comparison as I have already said. But I can't see any way he doesn't come out of this now with his reputation anything other than greatly enhanced.
He simply gets replaced by someone who does the job better for 10% of the pay thereby showing that very few people are irreplaceable.
Whether the BBC has the sense to do that I rather doubt.
I think that is wishful thinking on your part. The BBC have not sacked him. And for good reason. He is incredibly popular and I suspect some deal will be done and he will be back very soon.
Just look at player reactions and the other presenters/pundits. No one will touch the BBC with a bargepole if they sack him.
The step over the cliff has been taken by both sides. There is no going back for either party. Gibb and Sharpe's futures rest on not rowing back from Lineker's removal, so he's toast. Imagine the uproar from Jenrick, Braverman and the wild-eyed Dorries if Lineker is presenting MOtD next week.
The question that will be fascinating over the next few days is whether this has damaged the BBC or whether it has highlighted the boat crisis and how the public react
Good night folks
Has it damaged the BBC? No I don't think so. Has it damaged some of those who run the BBC and who seem to have stepped of a cliff for a completely pointless 'principle'? Yes I think so.
I disagree with Lineker's original comparison as I have already said. But I can't see any way he doesn't come out of this now with his reputation anything other than greatly enhanced.
He simply gets replaced by someone who does the job better for 10% of the pay thereby showing that very few people are irreplaceable.
Whether the BBC has the sense to do that I rather doubt.
I think that is wishful thinking on your part. The BBC have not sacked him. And for good reason. He is incredibly popular and I suspect some deal will be done and he will be back very soon.
Just look at player reactions and the other presenters/pundits. No one will touch the BBC with a bargepole if they sack him.
Maybe for a few weeks but then the world moves on.
Sometimes in better ways, sometimes worse and most likely without anyone noticing.
The question that will be fascinating over the next few days is whether this has damaged the BBC or whether it has highlighted the boat crisis and how the public react
Good night folks
Has it damaged the BBC? No I don't think so. Has it damaged some of those who run the BBC and who seem to have stepped of a cliff for a completely pointless 'principle'? Yes I think so.
I disagree with Lineker's original comparison as I have already said. But I can't see any way he doesn't come out of this now with his reputation anything other than greatly enhanced.
He simply gets replaced by someone who does the job better for 10% of the pay thereby showing that very few people are irreplaceable.
Whether the BBC has the sense to do that I rather doubt.
I think that is wishful thinking on your part. The BBC have not sacked him. And for good reason. He is incredibly popular and I suspect some deal will be done and he will be back very soon.
Just look at player reactions and the other presenters/pundits. No one will touch the BBC with a bargepole if they sack him.
Maybe for a few weeks but then the world moves on.
Sometimes in better ways, sometimes worse and most likely without anyone noticing.
This is a polarising event. It will be a day which will be remembered in history for the BBC political appointees, trying to nip impartiality in the bud with a crass act of impartiality. Ministers demanding BBC talent is removed for disagreeing with the Executive give the optical illusion (or reality?) that as a nation we look to be just a cigarette paper depth away from Putin's Russia.
Moronic and deeply sinister action by the BBC. They really do tie themselves in ludicrous knots.
Impartiality is a chimera.
There's no such thing and the only way to achieve anything balanced is by having a rich diversity of represented opinions which you allow to be expressed when appropriate.
The question that will be fascinating over the next few days is whether this has damaged the BBC or whether it has highlighted the boat crisis and how the public react
Good night folks
Has it damaged the BBC? No I don't think so. Has it damaged some of those who run the BBC and who seem to have stepped of a cliff for a completely pointless 'principle'? Yes I think so.
I disagree with Lineker's original comparison as I have already said. But I can't see any way he doesn't come out of this now with his reputation anything other than greatly enhanced.
He simply gets replaced by someone who does the job better for 10% of the pay thereby showing that very few people are irreplaceable.
Whether the BBC has the sense to do that I rather doubt.
Getting "someone" to do it for less than Lineker, no problem.
Getting "someone to do it better, problematically.
Might be possible, but hardly a sure thing as you seem to be saying.
The question that will be fascinating over the next few days is whether this has damaged the BBC or whether it has highlighted the boat crisis and how the public react
Good night folks
Has it damaged the BBC? No I don't think so. Has it damaged some of those who run the BBC and who seem to have stepped of a cliff for a completely pointless 'principle'? Yes I think so.
I disagree with Lineker's original comparison as I have already said. But I can't see any way he doesn't come out of this now with his reputation anything other than greatly enhanced.
He simply gets replaced by someone who does the job better for 10% of the pay thereby showing that very few people are irreplaceable.
Whether the BBC has the sense to do that I rather doubt.
I think that is wishful thinking on your part. The BBC have not sacked him. And for good reason. He is incredibly popular and I suspect some deal will be done and he will be back very soon.
Just look at player reactions and the other presenters/pundits. No one will touch the BBC with a bargepole if they sack him.
Maybe for a few weeks but then the world moves on.
Sometimes in better ways, sometimes worse and most likely without anyone noticing.
This is a polarising event. It will be a day which will be remembered in history for the BBC political appointees, trying to nip impartiality in the bud with a crass act of impartiality. Ministers demanding BBC talent is removed for disagreeing with the Executive give the optical illusion (or reality?) that as a nation we look to be just a cigarette paper depth away from Putin's Russia.
That would be a very, very wide cigarette paper.
But the whole silly affair illustrates how the BBC model is now outdated - take away the licence fee and there wouldn't be the aggravation about political views or pay levels.
And perhaps is another example of the malign effect of social media - there's never been any shortage of TV presenters with political views, Boris as an easy example, but its the twatter spouting which leads to the all round posturing.
The question that will be fascinating over the next few days is whether this has damaged the BBC or whether it has highlighted the boat crisis and how the public react
Good night folks
Has it damaged the BBC? No I don't think so. Has it damaged some of those who run the BBC and who seem to have stepped of a cliff for a completely pointless 'principle'? Yes I think so.
I disagree with Lineker's original comparison as I have already said. But I can't see any way he doesn't come out of this now with his reputation anything other than greatly enhanced.
He simply gets replaced by someone who does the job better for 10% of the pay thereby showing that very few people are irreplaceable.
Whether the BBC has the sense to do that I rather doubt.
I think that is wishful thinking on your part. The BBC have not sacked him. And for good reason. He is incredibly popular and I suspect some deal will be done and he will be back very soon.
Just look at player reactions and the other presenters/pundits. No one will touch the BBC with a bargepole if they sack him.
Maybe for a few weeks but then the world moves on.
Sometimes in better ways, sometimes worse and most likely without anyone noticing.
This is a polarising event. It will be a day which will be remembered in history for the BBC political appointees, trying to nip impartiality in the bud with a crass act of impartiality. Ministers demanding BBC talent is removed for disagreeing with the Executive give the optical illusion (or reality?) that as a nation we look to be just a cigarette paper depth away from Putin's Russia.
That would be a very, very wide cigarette paper.
But the whole silly affair illustrates how the BBC model is now outdated - take away the licence fee and there wouldn't be the aggravation about political views or pay levels.
And perhaps is another example of the malign effect of social media - there's never been any shortage of TV presenters with political views, Boris as an easy example, but its the twatter spouting which leads to the all round posturing.
The question that will be fascinating over the next few days is whether this has damaged the BBC or whether it has highlighted the boat crisis and how the public react
Good night folks
Has it damaged the BBC? No I don't think so. Has it damaged some of those who run the BBC and who seem to have stepped of a cliff for a completely pointless 'principle'? Yes I think so.
I disagree with Lineker's original comparison as I have already said. But I can't see any way he doesn't come out of this now with his reputation anything other than greatly enhanced.
He simply gets replaced by someone who does the job better for 10% of the pay thereby showing that very few people are irreplaceable.
Whether the BBC has the sense to do that I rather doubt.
I think that is wishful thinking on your part. The BBC have not sacked him. And for good reason. He is incredibly popular and I suspect some deal will be done and he will be back very soon.
Just look at player reactions and the other presenters/pundits. No one will touch the BBC with a bargepole if they sack him.
Maybe for a few weeks but then the world moves on.
Sometimes in better ways, sometimes worse and most likely without anyone noticing.
This is a polarising event. It will be a day which will be remembered in history for the BBC political appointees, trying to nip impartiality in the bud with a crass act of impartiality. Ministers demanding BBC talent is removed for disagreeing with the Executive give the optical illusion (or reality?) that as a nation we look to be just a cigarette paper depth away from Putin's Russia.
That would be a very, very wide cigarette paper.
But the whole silly affair illustrates how the BBC model is now outdated - take away the licence fee and there wouldn't be the aggravation about political views or pay levels.
And perhaps is another example of the malign effect of social media - there's never been any shortage of TV presenters with political views, Boris as an easy example, but its the twatter spouting which leads to the all round posturing.
Political appointees like the Tories' Chris Patten or Labour 's Gavyn Davies went native. Johnson's political appointees remain party loyalists to the core, with perhaps the exception of Davie. What should worry you, is PM Richard Burgon can justify his raving mad appointees, because they will be no more partisan than Johnson's.
The question that will be fascinating over the next few days is whether this has damaged the BBC or whether it has highlighted the boat crisis and how the public react
Good night folks
Has it damaged the BBC? No I don't think so. Has it damaged some of those who run the BBC and who seem to have stepped of a cliff for a completely pointless 'principle'? Yes I think so.
I disagree with Lineker's original comparison as I have already said. But I can't see any way he doesn't come out of this now with his reputation anything other than greatly enhanced.
He simply gets replaced by someone who does the job better for 10% of the pay thereby showing that very few people are irreplaceable.
Whether the BBC has the sense to do that I rather doubt.
I think that is wishful thinking on your part. The BBC have not sacked him. And for good reason. He is incredibly popular and I suspect some deal will be done and he will be back very soon.
Just look at player reactions and the other presenters/pundits. No one will touch the BBC with a bargepole if they sack him.
Maybe for a few weeks but then the world moves on.
Sometimes in better ways, sometimes worse and most likely without anyone noticing.
This is a polarising event. It will be a day which will be remembered in history for the BBC political appointees, trying to nip impartiality in the bud with a crass act of impartiality. Ministers demanding BBC talent is removed for disagreeing with the Executive give the optical illusion (or reality?) that as a nation we look to be just a cigarette paper depth away from Putin's Russia.
That would be a very, very wide cigarette paper.
But the whole silly affair illustrates how the BBC model is now outdated - take away the licence fee and there wouldn't be the aggravation about political views or pay levels.
And perhaps is another example of the malign effect of social media - there's never been any shortage of TV presenters with political views, Boris as an easy example, but its the twatter spouting which leads to the all round posturing.
Political appointees like the Tories' Chris Patten or Labour 's Gavyn Davies went native. Johnson's political appointees remain party loyalists to the core, with perhaps the exception of Davie. What should worry you, is PM Richard Burgon can justify his raving mad appointees, because they will be no more partisan than Johnson's.
Indeed.
And an alternative of various channels having their own political line is not something to wish for (see USA).
So what does that leave ?
TV channels where presenters can have and say their views but should do it with some moderation and professionalism and never on twatter.
Comments
With the backlash running contrary to the green's rub, the smug Robert Jenrick demanding Lineker's dismissal probably wasn't the stroke of genius he thought it was.
Just look at player reactions and the other presenters/pundits. No one will touch the BBC with a bargepole if they sack him.
Given the way the BBC is funded then I think it is overdue for a maximum wage of 10x average earnings.
Sometimes in better ways, sometimes worse and most likely without anyone noticing.
Moronic and deeply sinister action by the BBC. They really do tie themselves in ludicrous knots.
Impartiality is a chimera.
There's no such thing and the only way to achieve anything balanced is by having a rich diversity of represented opinions which you allow to be expressed when appropriate.
Probably a lot longer
Getting "someone to do it better, problematically.
Might be possible, but hardly a sure thing as you seem to be saying.
But the whole silly affair illustrates how the BBC model is now outdated - take away the licence fee and there wouldn't be the aggravation about political views or pay levels.
And perhaps is another example of the malign effect of social media - there's never been any shortage of TV presenters with political views, Boris as an easy example, but its the twatter spouting which leads to the all round posturing.
And an alternative of various channels having their own political line is not something to wish for (see USA).
So what does that leave ?
TV channels where presenters can have and say their views but should do it with some moderation and professionalism and never on twatter.