LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
Like I said, just walk away from Sport.
Close it down. Other providers now do it far, far better.
Put the money into original content.
What sort of content? The Government don't want the BBC producing anything funny as left wing comedy is funny, or cultural because they don't like cultural diversity, or environmental, because they don't like left wing "green bollocks"
I don't think the latter is right. I'm still a bit unclear on what the Attenborough situation currently is, but the government of today is pretty darn green if you compare it to, say, a government of the 80s and 90s. As Green as it could be? I doubt it, plenty for campaigners to get worked up about, but the main parties are not anti-green anymore - its one reason the Greens probably feel the need to focus so much on non Green policies.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
I do not support the sacking of Lineker for this. But the people concerned are implicitly supporting his statements, and therefore proving that the BBC has an institutional left wing bias. If there aren't any presenters left who don't think policies to reduce migrant inflows are reminiscent of the 3rd Reich, it is not a particularly good sign.
Or, if you’re prepared to remove the blinkers for a moment, they’re calling attention to hypocrisy and political interference. They might disagree vehemently with what Lineker wrote but support his right to write it.
That maybe true but the tories now have ammunition for an all out attack on the bbc.
Agreed, I doubt it was intentional but for the section of the Tory party desperate to destroy the BBC to keep their donors happy, this has fallen into their lap. It’s the only part of this that makes me sad.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
I do not support the sacking of Lineker for this. But the people concerned are implicitly supporting his statements, and therefore proving that the BBC has an institutional left wing bias. If there aren't any presenters left who don't think policies to reduce migrant inflows are reminiscent of the 3rd Reich, it is not a particularly good sign.
Or, if you’re prepared to remove the blinkers for a moment, they’re calling attention to hypocrisy and political interference. They might disagree vehemently with what Lineker wrote but support his right to write it.
That maybe true but the tories now have ammunition for an all out attack on the bbc.
What would this all out attack look like? I think this BBC Sport wildcat strike will embolden its employees at least to fight off a lame duck Tory government at the fag end of its time in office, and rightly so.
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
Like I said, just walk away from Sport.
Close it down. Other providers now do it far, far better.
Put the money into original content.
What sort of content? The Government don't want the BBC producing anything funny as left wing comedy is funny, or cultural because they don't like cultural diversity, or environmental, because they don't like left wing "green bollocks"
When has the government ever opposed environmental or travel programs?
They refused to show up to the C4 debate on climate change...
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
I do not support the sacking of Lineker for this. But the people concerned are implicitly supporting his statements, and therefore proving that the BBC has an institutional left wing bias. If there aren't any presenters left who don't think policies to reduce migrant inflows are reminiscent of the 3rd Reich, it is not a particularly good sign.
But what's the answer? Quotas based on the ideological leanings of job candidates?
Exactly. Either you say their views don't matter, if it does not affect their job (hard for news, easy for football presenters), or you say it is the most important thing and you have to reject plenty of good candidates because they admit to voting Tory/Labour.
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
Like I said, just walk away from Sport.
Close it down. Other providers now do it far, far better.
Put the money into original content.
IIRC, Match of the Day is the single most expensive programme on BBC television. They pay eight figures per season for the highlights rights to the Premier League.
Whoever did their deal, allowing Sky to publish highlights on YouTube for free before them seems like massively undercutting the value of such contract. Its one thing Sky showing extended highlights behind a paywall on Sky Sports before MOTD, but being able to watch free highlights on YouTube at 5pm seems like a very poor end of the stick. I rarely watch MOTD because of this.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
It’s not just the pundits. It’s the reporters, camera people, engineers…the whole thing
Even the engineers at the bbc are lefties lol. Need some bnp supporting engineers for balance.
Just being employed means you are going to be less reactionary than the pensioner generation
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
Like I said, just walk away from Sport.
Close it down. Other providers now do it far, far better.
Put the money into original content.
IIRC, Match of the Day is the single most expensive programme on BBC television. They pay eight figures per season for the highlights rights to the Premier League.
Nonsense. The budget for a soap like Eastenders will be well into 8 figures per annum.
The BBC should have said Lineker will continue as MOTD host while discussions continue and they look again at the guidelines.
Instead they’ve made a decision which is now snow balling and have now shone a spotlight on the shady goings on with Sharp and Johnson .
Highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards also regarding Sugar.
If Lineker goes Sharp needs to go aswell . The latter situation clearly is much more serious but strangely the right wing press seem to be very quiet on this .
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
I do not support the sacking of Lineker for this. But the people concerned are implicitly supporting his statements, and therefore proving that the BBC has an institutional left wing bias. If there aren't any presenters left who don't think policies to reduce migrant inflows are reminiscent of the 3rd Reich, it is not a particularly good sign.
Or, if you’re prepared to remove the blinkers for a moment, they’re calling attention to hypocrisy and political interference. They might disagree vehemently with what Lineker wrote but support his right to write it.
That maybe true but the tories now have ammunition for an all out attack on the bbc.
Why would they do that? They run the bloody thing.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
It’s not just the pundits. It’s the reporters, camera people, engineers…the whole thing
Even the engineers at the bbc are lefties lol. Need some bnp supporting engineers for balance.
Just being employed means you are going to be less reactionary than the pensioner generation
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
Like I said, just walk away from Sport.
Close it down. Other providers now do it far, far better.
Put the money into original content.
IIRC, Match of the Day is the single most expensive programme on BBC television. They pay eight figures per season for the highlights rights to the Premier League.
Nonsense. The budget for a soap like Eastenders will be well into 8 figures per annum.
Extraordinary. Leaverism is rapidly becoming a seriously niche position. You can argue over the theory of Brexit, but surely no one can now argue that it's actual implementation has been abysmal.
Bring on another referendum. You will lose again.
Actually, I'm not sure I'd vote to re-join the EU. There are several reasons for this, which I won't go into now. But, bizarrely, that position now puts me in the minority. I'd be regarded now as something of a euro-sceptic.
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
In the real world there no absolutist free speech, as any consideration of the N word or 'fire' in a crowded theatre will show.
The Lineker issue is not, of course, about free speech. It is the issue of the consequences of particular free speaking. This is always going to be particular and relative.
The lining up of groups depending on whether or not they agree with him is of no value whatever.
Equivocation (evasive and situational decisions and indecisions) is inevitable. This is about jostling for power, victim status and bragging rights.
Neither right or wrong, nor the interests of lots of very cold foreigners on French shores comes into it.
“ 'They got this one badly wrong and now they’re very, very exposed' - Starmer on BBC Labour leader Keir Starmer has weighed in on the Lineker row.
“It is not impartial for BBC to cave in to Tory MPs complaining about Gary Lineker, it’s the opposite of impartial,” he said, while at the Welsh Labour conference in Llandundo.
“They got this one badly wrong and now they’re very, very exposed.”
Starmer said the crux of the issue was that the government had failed with their asylum system and was looking to blame others.
"What they should be doing is standing up, accepting they've broken the asylum system, and telling us what they're going to do to actually fix it, not whingeing on about Gary Lineker."
In a statement on Friday, responding to the decision to take Lineker off air, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said: "Individual cases are a matter for the BBC."
The BBC should have said Lineker will continue as MOTD host while discussions continue and they look again at the guidelines.
Instead they’ve made a decision which is now snow balling and have now shone a spotlight on the shady goings on with Sharp and Johnson .
Highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards also regarding Sugar.
If Lineker goes Sharp needs to go aswell . The latter situation clearly is much more serious but strangely the right wing press seem to be very quiet on this .
It is one of those situations where it is hard to see how they didn't see this reaction coming to at least some extent. Football punditry is pretty chummy, they all know one another and a fair number will be actual mates as well. Even if they didn't predict it snowballing quite as much as it has, they should have known it would stir it up considerably.
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
Like I said, just walk away from Sport.
Close it down. Other providers now do it far, far better.
Put the money into original content.
IIRC, Match of the Day is the single most expensive programme on BBC television. They pay eight figures per season for the highlights rights to the Premier League.
Whoever did their deal, allowing Sky to publish highlights on YouTube for free before them seems like massively undercutting the value of such contract. Its one thing Sky showing extended highlights behind a paywall on Sky Sports before MOTD, but being able to watch free highlights on YouTube at 5pm seems like a very poor end of the stick. I rarely watch MOTD because of this.
Oh, I didn’t know that. It does undermine somewhat the highlights broadcaster, if everyone in the country can watch the match highlights before their package goes out in the evening.
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
In the real world there no absolutist free speech, as any consideration of the N word or 'fire' in a crowded theatre will show.
The Lineker issue is not, of course, about free speech. It is the issue of the consequences of particular free speaking. This is always going to be particular and relative.
The lining up of groups depending on whether or not they agree with him is of no value whatever.
Equivocation (evasive and situational decisions and indecisions) is inevitable. This is about jostling for power, victim status and bragging rights.
Neither right or wrong, nor the interests of lots of very cold foreigners on French shores comes into it.
Of course you are right that you can’t just say anything. But you can (or should) be able to criticise the policies of the government of the day.
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
In the real world there no absolutist free speech, as any consideration of the N word or 'fire' in a crowded theatre will show.
The Lineker issue is not, of course, about free speech. It is the issue of the consequences of particular free speaking. This is always going to be particular and relative.
The lining up of groups depending on whether or not they agree with him is of no value whatever.
Equivocation (evasive and situational decisions and indecisions) is inevitable. This is about jostling for power, victim status and bragging rights.
Neither right or wrong, nor the interests of lots of very cold foreigners on French shores comes into it.
Linekers mistake was bringing the nazis into it like Bridgen did with the holocaust a few weeks ago.
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
Like I said, just walk away from Sport.
Close it down. Other providers now do it far, far better.
Put the money into original content.
IIRC, Match of the Day is the single most expensive programme on BBC television. They pay eight figures per season for the highlights rights to the Premier League.
Whoever did their deal, allowing Sky to publish highlights on YouTube for free before them seems like massively undercutting the value of such contract. Its one thing Sky showing extended highlights behind a paywall on Sky Sports before MOTD, but being able to watch free highlights on YouTube at 5pm seems like a very poor end of the stick. I rarely watch MOTD because of this.
Oh, I didn’t know that. It does undermine somewhat the highlights broadcaster, if everyone in the country can watch the match highlights before their package goes out in the evening.
Yes they publish them to their Youtube channel in a geolocked way, so only UK based viewers can see them (obviously you can just use a VPN). Each one gets roughly pushing a million views, the big matches often 2-3 million. Every EPL game goes up there, including midweeks.
And the upside is you don't then have to listen to moronic talking heads giving you idiotic "analysis" of what they think were the tactics (which are normally wrong *). I just tune into TIFO football / Athletic and get the breakdown from people who actually know.
* there is a great couple of videos Dyche did with a football tactics YouTube when he was out of work explaining Burley's tactics, absolutely fascinating to hear just how complex it was. All the talking heads are well they are direct, long ball, physical innit, I watched the him talk about it, its bloody complex how the system worked.
Extraordinary. Leaverism is rapidly becoming a seriously niche position. You can argue over the theory of Brexit, but surely no one can now argue that it's actual implementation has been abysmal.
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
In the real world there no absolutist free speech, as any consideration of the N word or 'fire' in a crowded theatre will show.
The Lineker issue is not, of course, about free speech. It is the issue of the consequences of particular free speaking. This is always going to be particular and relative.
The lining up of groups depending on whether or not they agree with him is of no value whatever.
Equivocation (evasive and situational decisions and indecisions) is inevitable. This is about jostling for power, victim status and bragging rights.
Neither right or wrong, nor the interests of lots of very cold foreigners on French shores comes into it.
Hasnt Lineker upset some jewish people too with his remarks.
One thing people are forgetting is that it's actually all a bit more personally felt for Lineker, for a particular reason.
He's been putting up refugees in his own house for years, because people have accused him of being a rich hypocrite, in the typical modern Daily Mail style for anyone usually on the more educated or affluent left. So in fact ,he isn't, and he's personally met more of the people who might be affected by the government's legislation than most.
Perhaps they're tax deductable.
You cant win. If you are poor and want to make a fairer society you are envious and jealous.If rich a champagne swilling socialust hypocrite.
I have no issue with rich people being socialists; Lineker's tax arrangements are where the hypocrisy comes in.
Ah, so there should be a personal financial hit - kind of like a fine - for holding left of centre political views then. You must make a point of paying more tax than you would if you were on the right. Gosh. That'll sort the real lefties from the fake ones, won't it? And there might be very few left but they'll be so so pure.
There is nothing stopping you voluntarily paying 70% tax kinabalu. The revenue needs the money.
Ho ho. But you take the point. It's such a nonsense. Is a small state free market absolutist a phony if they use the NHS?
Meanwhile the collapse of SVB is going to rattle the markets on Monday... Just when Sunak thought he had caught a break on the NI protocol it will be back to full on crisis mode...
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
In the real world there no absolutist free speech, as any consideration of the N word or 'fire' in a crowded theatre will show.
The Lineker issue is not, of course, about free speech. It is the issue of the consequences of particular free speaking. This is always going to be particular and relative.
The lining up of groups depending on whether or not they agree with him is of no value whatever.
Equivocation (evasive and situational decisions and indecisions) is inevitable. This is about jostling for power, victim status and bragging rights.
Neither right or wrong, nor the interests of lots of very cold foreigners on French shores comes into it.
Linekers mistake was bringing the nazis into it like Bridgen did with the holocaust a few weeks ago.
Lineker doesn’t give a damn. He has other work. The damage here is to the BBC and the Tories who pressured them into this self-defeating suspension.
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
In the real world there no absolutist free speech, as any consideration of the N word or 'fire' in a crowded theatre will show.
The Lineker issue is not, of course, about free speech. It is the issue of the consequences of particular free speaking. This is always going to be particular and relative.
The lining up of groups depending on whether or not they agree with him is of no value whatever.
Equivocation (evasive and situational decisions and indecisions) is inevitable. This is about jostling for power, victim status and bragging rights.
Neither right or wrong, nor the interests of lots of very cold foreigners on French shores comes into it.
I think this is broadly right. Some people are making it seem like no employer should be able to place limitations on your speech (via imposition of consequences for doing so). I don't think that is 100% the case, it's more about if it is reasonable for people in all the positions it currently is.
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
In the real world there no absolutist free speech, as any consideration of the N word or 'fire' in a crowded theatre will show.
The Lineker issue is not, of course, about free speech. It is the issue of the consequences of particular free speaking. This is always going to be particular and relative.
The lining up of groups depending on whether or not they agree with him is of no value whatever.
Equivocation (evasive and situational decisions and indecisions) is inevitable. This is about jostling for power, victim status and bragging rights.
Neither right or wrong, nor the interests of lots of very cold foreigners on French shores comes into it.
Hasnt Lineker upset some jewish people too with his remarks.
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
Like I said, just walk away from Sport.
Close it down. Other providers now do it far, far better.
Put the money into original content.
IIRC, Match of the Day is the single most expensive programme on BBC television. They pay eight figures per season for the highlights rights to the Premier League.
Nonsense. The budget for a soap like Eastenders will be well into 8 figures per annum.
So MOTD, a one hour programme that runs for about 32 weeks, has a budget in the same ballpark as a soap that runs 90 minutes a week for 52 weeks and is often the most watched programme on the channel?
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
Like I said, just walk away from Sport.
Close it down. Other providers now do it far, far better.
Put the money into original content.
IIRC, Match of the Day is the single most expensive programme on BBC television. They pay eight figures per season for the highlights rights to the Premier League.
Whoever did their deal, allowing Sky to publish highlights on YouTube for free before them seems like massively undercutting the value of such contract. Its one thing Sky showing extended highlights behind a paywall on Sky Sports before MOTD, but being able to watch free highlights on YouTube at 5pm seems like a very poor end of the stick. I rarely watch MOTD because of this.
Oh, I didn’t know that. It does undermine somewhat the highlights broadcaster, if everyone in the country can watch the match highlights before their package goes out in the evening.
Yes they publish them to their Youtube channel in a geolocked way, so only UK based viewers can see them (obviously you can just use a VPN). Each one gets roughly pushing a million views, the big matches often 2-3 million. Every EPL game goes up there, including midweeks.
And the upside is you don't then have to listen to moronic talking heads giving you idiotic "analysis" of what they think were the tactics (which are normally wrong *). I just tune into TIFO football / Athletic and get the breakdown from people who actually know.
* there is a great couple of videos Dyche did with a football tactics YouTube when he was out of work explaining Burley's tactics, absolutely fascinating to hear just how complex it was. All the talking heads are well they are direct, long ball, physical innit, I watched the him talk about it, its bloody complex how the system worked.
George Burley? He hasn’t been in management for a very long time.
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
Like I said, just walk away from Sport.
Close it down. Other providers now do it far, far better.
Put the money into original content.
IIRC, Match of the Day is the single most expensive programme on BBC television. They pay eight figures per season for the highlights rights to the Premier League.
Whoever did their deal, allowing Sky to publish highlights on YouTube for free before them seems like massively undercutting the value of such contract. Its one thing Sky showing extended highlights behind a paywall on Sky Sports before MOTD, but being able to watch free highlights on YouTube at 5pm seems like a very poor end of the stick. I rarely watch MOTD because of this.
Oh, I didn’t know that. It does undermine somewhat the highlights broadcaster, if everyone in the country can watch the match highlights before their package goes out in the evening.
Yes they publish them to their Youtube channel in a geolocked way, so only UK based viewers can see them (obviously you can just use a VPN). Each one gets roughly pushing a million views, the big matches often 2-3 million. Every EPL game goes up there, including midweeks.
And the upside is you don't then have to listen to moronic talking heads giving you idiotic "analysis" of what they think were the tactics (which are normally wrong *). I just tune into TIFO football / Athletic and get the breakdown from people who actually know.
* there is a great couple of videos Dyche did with a football tactics YouTube when he was out of work explaining Burley's tactics, absolutely fascinating to hear just how complex it was. All the talking heads are well they are direct, long ball, physical innit, I watched the him talk about it, its bloody complex how the system worked.
George Burley? He hasn’t been in management for a very long time.
Meanwhile the collapse of SVB is going to rattle the markets on Monday... Just when Sunak thought he had caught a break on the NI protocol it will be back to full on crisis mode...
A number of smaller SV companies might go under on Monday unless they can put bridge loans in place over the weekend. They simply won’t be able to make payroll otherwise.
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
Like I said, just walk away from Sport.
Close it down. Other providers now do it far, far better.
Put the money into original content.
IIRC, Match of the Day is the single most expensive programme on BBC television. They pay eight figures per season for the highlights rights to the Premier League.
Nonsense. The budget for a soap like Eastenders will be well into 8 figures per annum.
So MOTD, a one hour programme that runs for about 32 weeks, has a budget in the same ballpark as a soap that runs 90 minutes a week for 52 weeks and is often the most watched programme on the channel?
Don't forget that 2019 Labour voters supported Corbyn, probably especially in Scotland. So the polling is probably correct this far out. Closer to an election, voters will be squeezed and will need to decide whether they want the Tories to stay in government.
We're looking at the propensity to vote of 2019 Labour voters, those who actually dragged themselves to vote Labour largely in spite of Corbyn. R&W's polling is claiming that just over a third of those now consider that they won't vote or probably won't vote in the next GE. Whereas between only 8% and 11% of those who voted for the other three main parties in 2019 are recorded as saying that they probably or definitely won't vote.
So if your conclusion that the R&W Scottish "polling is probably correct" is to stand you have to explain: 1. Why there's such a huge differential in those figures between previous Labour voters and the consistent result for the other three main Scottish parties. 2. Why such a huge differential has suddenly emerged in the latest R&W poll, when it was completely absent in their previous 2022 polls.
Frankly it defies any rational explanation. The latest R&W turnout adjustment is frankly ludicrous. And without it, or with a turnout adjustment with similar effect to that used in previous R&W polling, Labour would be level pegging with the SNP in the Scottish polling for a general election.
Perhaps there are few Scottish BJOs who were appalled at the news Mike Gapes has rejoined Labour?
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
In the real world there no absolutist free speech, as any consideration of the N word or 'fire' in a crowded theatre will show.
The Lineker issue is not, of course, about free speech. It is the issue of the consequences of particular free speaking. This is always going to be particular and relative.
The lining up of groups depending on whether or not they agree with him is of no value whatever.
Equivocation (evasive and situational decisions and indecisions) is inevitable. This is about jostling for power, victim status and bragging rights.
Neither right or wrong, nor the interests of lots of very cold foreigners on French shores comes into it.
Hasnt Lineker upset some jewish people too with his remarks.
Lord Dubs, a 1930's Jewish refugee, supports him.
I was amazed to learn the other day that Lord Dubs is still with us. He is 90. Which on thinking about it is in the "OK, he's had a good innings - but why would he be dead yet?" area.
One issue I have always had with Lineker's large salary at the BBC, he doesn't actually provide very many hours of coverage for that. He doesn't even do all MOTD, taking regular breaks, and only does the odd other bits and pieces for the BBC.
When Sky pay for these kind of people, they are contracted to provide a hell of a lot more content. Neville and Carragher do commentary, analysis, player interviews, pre-match, post-match, regular appearances on Sky Sports News to give their views on the days topic etc.
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
Like I said, just walk away from Sport.
Close it down. Other providers now do it far, far better.
Put the money into original content.
IIRC, Match of the Day is the single most expensive programme on BBC television. They pay eight figures per season for the highlights rights to the Premier League.
Nonsense. The budget for a soap like Eastenders will be well into 8 figures per annum.
So MOTD, a one hour programme that runs for about 32 weeks, has a budget in the same ballpark as a soap that runs 90 minutes a week for 52 weeks and is often the most watched programme on the channel?
That's a ballpark the size of Belgium
Okay, so I looked it up. BBC pays £70.5m a season.
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
In the real world there no absolutist free speech, as any consideration of the N word or 'fire' in a crowded theatre will show.
The Lineker issue is not, of course, about free speech. It is the issue of the consequences of particular free speaking. This is always going to be particular and relative.
The lining up of groups depending on whether or not they agree with him is of no value whatever.
Equivocation (evasive and situational decisions and indecisions) is inevitable. This is about jostling for power, victim status and bragging rights.
Neither right or wrong, nor the interests of lots of very cold foreigners on French shores comes into it.
I think this is broadly right. Some people are making it seem like no employer should be able to place limitations on your speech (via imposition of consequences for doing so). I don't think that is 100% the case, it's more about if it is reasonable for people in all the positions it currently is.
Yes. Very broad free speech is a constitutional necessity, even though it cannot be absolute - shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
What the consequences are of speaking freely is a separate subject and are litmus tests of how power works within society and its institutions, and who is in charge of things like the Overton window. Enjoy the show.
If anyone thinks this is about abstract ideals and principles, Brooklyn Bridge is up for sale at this address.
Meanwhile the collapse of SVB is going to rattle the markets on Monday... Just when Sunak thought he had caught a break on the NI protocol it will be back to full on crisis mode...
A number of smaller SV companies might go under on Monday unless they can put bridge loans in place over the weekend. They simply won’t be able to make payroll otherwise.
Hearing there's a big push in the Tech Bro community to get Jeremy Hunt to intervene to help SVB UK.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
I think I'm right in saying that there has never been a conviction on the evidence supplied by a detector van. Because they have never existed....
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
All Lineker had to do was say a qualified Sorry. His moral vanity is entirely to blame. And he’s fucked up the BBC, which all his PB supporters profess to love
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
All Lineker had to do was say a qualified Sorry. His moral vanity is entirely to blame. And he’s fucked up the BBC, which all his PB supporters profess to love
I disagree with Lineker, but let's be honest, this has unravelled entirely in his favour. The fault lies with the BBC. Taking him off air without any consistent standard declared compared to previous peope saying political views was terrible judgment.
Meanwhile the collapse of SVB is going to rattle the markets on Monday... Just when Sunak thought he had caught a break on the NI protocol it will be back to full on crisis mode...
A number of smaller SV companies might go under on Monday unless they can put bridge loans in place over the weekend. They simply won’t be able to make payroll otherwise.
Hearing there's a big push in the Tech Bro community to get Jeremy Hunt to intervene to help SVB UK.
What would they want him to do?
Apparently the BoE is putting it into resolution. Whatever that means.
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
At the moment, their position appears to be closer to the former with some caveats:
i.e. "No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media, in so far as they are going to make any comment critical of a Conservative Government or Conservative politicians.”
And without the last bit that would still be at variance with the BBC's own guidelines, which state that the ability to comment depends on the sort of work a presenter is involved in, and give a specific illustrative example differentiating between restrictions on those involved in current affairs and those involved in sporting programmes.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
Yes. They are playing repeats of podcasts just now. There'll be no Six Nations commentary. It's wider than presenters and football. It's a wildcat strike by the whole sports department. Better hope it doesn't spread to news.
Will even one PB lefty admit that Lineker has fucked this all up?
Meanwhile the collapse of SVB is going to rattle the markets on Monday... Just when Sunak thought he had caught a break on the NI protocol it will be back to full on crisis mode...
A number of smaller SV companies might go under on Monday unless they can put bridge loans in place over the weekend. They simply won’t be able to make payroll otherwise.
Hearing there's a big push in the Tech Bro community to get Jeremy Hunt to intervene to help SVB UK.
What would they want him to do?
Apparently the BoE is putting it into resolution. Whatever that means.
Means the bank's failure happens in an orderly way to protect depositors, and to stop contagion.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Took you a while. All greats. Lineker is a unicorn. A footballer who reached the very top of the world game AND a charismatic broadcaster.
Anyway. I guess the more we talk about how much he’s made and less about the government dehumanising people and playing fast and loose with the law, the more it suits you.
The reason Lineker is getting so much support on here (all from precisely the people you'd expect) is because of his politics.
Extraordinary. Leaverism is rapidly becoming a seriously niche position. You can argue over the theory of Brexit, but surely no one can now argue that it's actual implementation has been abysmal.
Bring on another referendum. You will lose again.
“Ah, Hubris! I believe you’ve met my friend…”
I look forward to you making the case for more immigration and scrapping the pound.
Also, the 350m a week number is correct when the rebate is gone!
Can't believe that people are still talking about Lineker. It's just not that interesting. BBC management incompetent: who knew? BBC employs and grossly overpays prima donnas? Colour me astonished. Said overpaid prima donna proves Cameron's lasting contribution to public life yet again: quelle surprise.
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
All Lineker had to do was say a qualified Sorry. His moral vanity is entirely to blame. And he’s fucked up the BBC, which all his PB supporters profess to love
If we live in a society whose citizens are obliged to issue apologies to the government then that is truly frightening.
No one seems to have asked an obvious question about pay
What do the French, Spanish and German equivalents of Mr Lineker get paid?
Obviously somewhat different markets, but it would give a clue
What about in American Baseball and Football - big money sports? Seem to recall ex players can get pretty nice fees for commentating.
I don't think you can compare US sports. Again I think you will find that those on big money in US sports do more than just present a highlight package programme some of the time it is on. They like Sky Sports well paid "presenters" asked to do commentary, analysis, interviews, appears on the connected sports talk radio / tv. Also their market is 300 million Americans, plus they syndicate a lot of it to other countries.
But even then, Scott Hanson who presents RedZone, the massively popular NFL show, he does 7hrs a week live, every week, and the reports are he gets $200k a year.
Charles Barkley is one of the biggest names in US punditry, he gets $1.5 million a year, but that is a sport that basically plays every night and he is expected to be on a lot more than 20-30 nights a year.
Linekar’s comments were self-indulgent. The BBC ought to have clear guidelines, they obviously don’t. BBC management have fucked this up. The government remain a disgrace.
No one seems to have asked an obvious question about pay
What do the French, Spanish and German equivalents of Mr Lineker get paid?
Obviously somewhat different markets, but it would give a clue
What about in American Baseball and Football - big money sports? Seem to recall ex players can get pretty nice fees for commentating.
I don't think you can compare US sports. Again I think you will find that those on big money in US sports do more than just present a highlight package programme some of the time it is on. They like Sky Sports well paid "presenters" asked to do commentary, analysis, interviews, appears on the connected sports talk radio / tv. Also their market is 300 million Americans, plus they syndicate a lot of it to other countries.
But even then, Scott Hanson who presents RedZone, the massively popular NFL show, he does 7hrs a week live, every week, and the reports are he gets $200k a year.
On the other hand, Tom Brady’s pundit contract with Fox Sports is allegedly $37.5m per year, for 10 years.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
I think I'm right in saying that there has never been a conviction on the evidence supplied by a detector van. Because they have never existed....
"Detection" involved peering through windows to see the tell-tale brightening and darkening light given off by a telly.
Watch a TV behind thick curtains and with the lights on.
Or buy a licence, of course. Which I still do. Well, somebody has to keep Garry Lineker in gold bars.
Although its days may be limited. With the very few series I watch on "live" TV, it would be cheaper to buy the series I want.
Post the acquisition of Starlink, I have been enjoying various "Walter Presents" on the computer.
Any Walter Presents recommendations?
I watched all 5 series of Ice Cold Murders, set in the Val D'Aosta north of Turin. A rather cranky detective banished there from Rome, I probably enjoyed it more than most would because I have stayed in a friend's place up there - and the detective very much reminds me of a chain-smoking friend. Plus he gets a dog that steals every scene!
There's Deutchsland 83, 86 and 89 of course. Agatha Christie's Hjerson is determinedly quirky but was worth watching through. Just started watching Arctic Circle set in Lapland. Told me of the concept of the Whore Bus, that, er, straddles northern Finland and Russia (not sure they will survive Finland joining NATO...).
Linekar’s comments were self-indulgent. The BBC ought to have clear guidelines, they obviously don’t. BBC management have fucked this up. The government remain a disgrace.
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
In the real world there no absolutist free speech, as any consideration of the N word or 'fire' in a crowded theatre will show.
The Lineker issue is not, of course, about free speech. It is the issue of the consequences of particular free speaking. This is always going to be particular and relative.
The lining up of groups depending on whether or not they agree with him is of no value whatever.
Equivocation (evasive and situational decisions and indecisions) is inevitable. This is about jostling for power, victim status and bragging rights.
Neither right or wrong, nor the interests of lots of very cold foreigners on French shores comes into it.
Hasnt Lineker upset some jewish people too with his remarks.
Lord Dubs, a 1930's Jewish refugee, supports him.
As do others, but not everyone. FWIW, I thought the comparison unduly hyperbolic, but not outside the bounds if reasonable discourse.
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
In the real world there no absolutist free speech, as any consideration of the N word or 'fire' in a crowded theatre will show.
The Lineker issue is not, of course, about free speech. It is the issue of the consequences of particular free speaking. This is always going to be particular and relative.
The lining up of groups depending on whether or not they agree with him is of no value whatever.
Equivocation (evasive and situational decisions and indecisions) is inevitable. This is about jostling for power, victim status and bragging rights.
Neither right or wrong, nor the interests of lots of very cold foreigners on French shores comes into it.
I think this is broadly right. Some people are making it seem like no employer should be able to place limitations on your speech (via imposition of consequences for doing so). I don't think that is 100% the case, it's more about if it is reasonable for people in all the positions it currently is.
Yep. And actually I don't view this Lineker drama as primarily a Free Speech issue. For me, it's about the BBC pandering to its right wing critics (which include the government) and blundering into a decision that's both self-harming and logically indefensible.
No one seems to have asked an obvious question about pay
What do the French, Spanish and German equivalents of Mr Lineker get paid?
Obviously somewhat different markets, but it would give a clue
What about in American Baseball and Football - big money sports? Seem to recall ex players can get pretty nice fees for commentating.
I don't think you can compare US sports. Again I think you will find that those on big money in US sports do more than just present a highlight package programme some of the time it is on. They like Sky Sports well paid "presenters" asked to do commentary, analysis, interviews, appears on the connected sports talk radio / tv. Also their market is 300 million Americans, plus they syndicate a lot of it to other countries.
But even then, Scott Hanson who presents RedZone, the massively popular NFL show, he does 7hrs a week live, every week, and the reports are he gets $200k a year.
Charles Barkley is one of the biggest names in US punditry, $1.5 million a year.
Can't believe that people are still talking about Lineker. It's just not that interesting. BBC management incompetent: who knew? BBC employs and grossly overpays prima donnas? Colour me astonished. Said overpaid prima donna proves Cameron's lasting contribution to public life yet again: quelle surprise.
How on earth is this news?
I don't think there is anything wrong with the tweet. If he didn't work for the BBC it wouldn't be an issue.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
Yes. They are playing repeats of podcasts just now. There'll be no Six Nations commentary. It's wider than presenters and football. It's a wildcat strike by the whole sports department. Better hope it doesn't spread to news.
Will even one PB lefty admit that Lineker has fucked this all up?
Admit it. You'd love even a day of coverage like this. It is totally on-brand. And it gets him out of the BBC without looking like a profiteer.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
Yes. They are playing repeats of podcasts just now. There'll be no Six Nations commentary. It's wider than presenters and football. It's a wildcat strike by the whole sports department. Better hope it doesn't spread to news.
Will even one PB lefty admit that Lineker has fucked this all up?
But the BBC is going to back down and he will have won. The Beeb should have just said "He is free to discuss politics on his personal channels, but the Nazi comparison was inappropriate. The suffering of the Jews in the 1930s was a horrific genocide and comparisons of government policy to that is beneath the standards expected of the BBC. Gary Lineker has received a formal warning and we will not tolerate similar in future."
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
All Lineker had to do was say a qualified Sorry. His moral vanity is entirely to blame. And he’s fucked up the BBC, which all his PB supporters profess to love
If we live in a society whose citizens are obliged to issue apologies to the government then that is truly frightening.
No he would be apologising to BBC license fee payers. WHO PAY HIS WAGES
Can't believe that people are still talking about Lineker. It's just not that interesting. BBC management incompetent: who knew? BBC employs and grossly overpays prima donnas? Colour me astonished. Said overpaid prima donna proves Cameron's lasting contribution to public life yet again: quelle surprise.
How on earth is this news?
It's unprecedented for BBC radio not to be covering a Saturday afternoon of sport.
No one seems to have asked an obvious question about pay
What do the French, Spanish and German equivalents of Mr Lineker get paid?
Obviously somewhat different markets, but it would give a clue
What about in American Baseball and Football - big money sports? Seem to recall ex players can get pretty nice fees for commentating.
I don't think you can compare US sports. Again I think you will find that those on big money in US sports do more than just present a highlight package programme some of the time it is on. They like Sky Sports well paid "presenters" asked to do commentary, analysis, interviews, appears on the connected sports talk radio / tv. Also their market is 300 million Americans, plus they syndicate a lot of it to other countries.
But even then, Scott Hanson who presents RedZone, the massively popular NFL show, he does 7hrs a week live, every week, and the reports are he gets $200k a year.
Charles Barkley is one of the biggest names in US punditry, $1.5 million a year.
Scott Hanson is more the equivalent of Jeff Stelling
Charles Barkley isn't though. I would say (rightly or wrongly) he is the most popular and biggest name in basketball punditry. He works a lot more than 30 x 90 mins a year for his wage.
No one seems to have asked an obvious question about pay
What do the French, Spanish and German equivalents of Mr Lineker get paid?
Obviously somewhat different markets, but it would give a clue
What about in American Baseball and Football - big money sports? Seem to recall ex players can get pretty nice fees for commentating.
I don't think you can compare US sports. Again I think you will find that those on big money in US sports do more than just present a highlight package programme some of the time it is on. They like Sky Sports well paid "presenters" asked to do commentary, analysis, interviews, appears on the connected sports talk radio / tv. Also their market is 300 million Americans, plus they syndicate a lot of it to other countries.
But even then, Scott Hanson who presents RedZone, the massively popular NFL show, he does 7hrs a week live, every week, and the reports are he gets $200k a year.
On the other hand, Tom Brady’s pundit contract with Fox Sports is allegedly $37.5m per year, for 10 years.
Can't believe that people are still talking about Lineker. It's just not that interesting. BBC management incompetent: who knew? BBC employs and grossly overpays prima donnas? Colour me astonished. Said overpaid prima donna proves Cameron's lasting contribution to public life yet again: quelle surprise.
How on earth is this news?
I don't think there is anything wrong with the tweet. If he didn't work for the BBC it wouldn't be an issue.
It's an absurd comparator and shows a failure to either understand history or genuine evil but everyone is entitled to make a fool of themselves if they want. It is still a free country.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
Yes. They are playing repeats of podcasts just now. There'll be no Six Nations commentary. It's wider than presenters and football. It's a wildcat strike by the whole sports department. Better hope it doesn't spread to news.
Will even one PB lefty admit that Lineker has fucked this all up?
Not me. The BBC has fucked this up. Par for the course for an organisation run by the Tories. They've fucked every other one up.
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
At the moment, their position appears to be closer to the former with some caveats:
i.e. "No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media, in so far as they are going to make any comment critical of a Conservative Government or Conservative politicians.”
And without the last bit that would still be at variance with the BBC's own guidelines, which state that the ability to comment depends on the sort of work a presenter is involved in, and give a specific illustrative example differentiating between restrictions on those involved in current affairs and those involved in sporting programmes.
Lineker was a professional footballer well over 25 years ago - he retired in 1994. Even given his golden boot, his subsequent prominence is largely down to the gigs the BBC gives him.
The BBC has given him a post-retirement sinecure that is worthy of Croesus. A million, two million a year. And he doesn't do much for that; outside football and selling crisps, he's absent.
He uses that prominence - repeatedly - to score political points. Of course that reflects on the BBC.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
Yes. They are playing repeats of podcasts just now. There'll be no Six Nations commentary. It's wider than presenters and football. It's a wildcat strike by the whole sports department. Better hope it doesn't spread to news.
Will even one PB lefty admit that Lineker has fucked this all up?
He really hasn't. The fault lies entirely with the BBC and a clapped out Tory government.
Can't believe that people are still talking about Lineker. It's just not that interesting. BBC management incompetent: who knew? BBC employs and grossly overpays prima donnas? Colour me astonished. Said overpaid prima donna proves Cameron's lasting contribution to public life yet again: quelle surprise.
How on earth is this news?
Overshadowing Liverpool losing to Bournemouth. The week after the 7/0 v Man U. Funny old game.
Can't believe that people are still talking about Lineker. It's just not that interesting. BBC management incompetent: who knew? BBC employs and grossly overpays prima donnas? Colour me astonished. Said overpaid prima donna proves Cameron's lasting contribution to public life yet again: quelle surprise.
How on earth is this news?
Overshadowing Liverpool losing to Bournemouth. The week after the 7/0 v Man U. Funny old game.
Only Liverpool could smash Man United one week, then lose to Bournemouth seven days later. Salah missed a penalty as well, not something he does very often.
No one seems to have asked an obvious question about pay
What do the French, Spanish and German equivalents of Mr Lineker get paid?
Obviously somewhat different markets, but it would give a clue
What about in American Baseball and Football - big money sports? Seem to recall ex players can get pretty nice fees for commentating.
I don't think you can compare US sports. Again I think you will find that those on big money in US sports do more than just present a highlight package programme some of the time it is on. They like Sky Sports well paid "presenters" asked to do commentary, analysis, interviews, appears on the connected sports talk radio / tv. Also their market is 300 million Americans, plus they syndicate a lot of it to other countries.
But even then, Scott Hanson who presents RedZone, the massively popular NFL show, he does 7hrs a week live, every week, and the reports are he gets $200k a year.
On the other hand, Tom Brady’s pundit contract with Fox Sports is allegedly $37.5m per year, for 10 years.
Not sure Gary Lineker and Tom Brady are quite comparable.....and I bet Fox get more than their pound of flesh out of him for that kind of money.
If I had to guess, I imagine Neville and Carragher are probably are Lineker money at Sky, but as I say, Sky in particular make their presenters do a lot more than just read the autocue on the highlights package. They are expected to be involved in lots of different elements of their coverage.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
Yes. They are playing repeats of podcasts just now. There'll be no Six Nations commentary. It's wider than presenters and football. It's a wildcat strike by the whole sports department. Better hope it doesn't spread to news.
Will even one PB lefty admit that Lineker has fucked this all up?
Not me. The BBC has fucked this up. Par for the course for an organisation run by the Tories. They've fucked every other one up.
If you think the BBC is run by 'the Tories', then you should really look at some official media in other countries to see real political bias. Or even the BBC post-Hutton. Or even the BBC.
The BBC has a difficult job trying to run a knife-edge between competing political parties. It is subjective, but the vast majority of its output manages to do that. Its position isn't helped by stupid, overpaid sports pundits weighing in with whatever verbal diarrhea passes through their mind at any moment.
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
All Lineker had to do was say a qualified Sorry. His moral vanity is entirely to blame. And he’s fucked up the BBC, which all his PB supporters profess to love
If we live in a society whose citizens are obliged to issue apologies to the government then that is truly frightening.
No he would be apologising to BBC license fee payers. WHO PAY HIS WAGES
Bit presumptuous though - that would be presupposing that all the licence-fee payers adored Rishi and thought his asylum policy was great. For an apology to make any sort of sense it would have to take the form 'I'm sorry I criticized and embarrassed you Mr Sunak. I promise not to be beastly about you again for all the time I remain in your service.'
Interesting to read that live blog. It isn't like the usual one. Quite obviously someone sitting at home watching BT Sport. No text in contributions. All opinion lifted directly from BT Sport quotes. Makes me wonder how the 3pm games will be covered Online.
Interesting to read that live blog. It isn't like the usual one. Quite obviously someone sitting at home watching BT Sport. No text in contributions. All opinion lifted directly from BT Sport quotes. Makes me wonder how the 3pm games will be covered Online.
Since pandemic, I think the lifting quotes from rival stations is pretty standard part of the coverage...and its well known a lot of them do work remotely now (in fact a lot of the sport shows like Friday night one, most of them aren't physically present, its all remote). The only thing missing is the public tweets, is that a big negative not to have Barry from Wirral tweeting Klopp should be sacked?
I think the BBC lower league coverage is now all just lifted from PA.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
I think I'm right in saying that there has never been a conviction on the evidence supplied by a detector van. Because they have never existed....
"Detection" involved peering through windows to see the tell-tale brightening and darkening light given off by a telly.
Watch a TV behind thick curtains and with the lights on.
Or buy a licence, of course. Which I still do. Well, somebody has to keep Garry Lineker in gold bars.
Although its days may be limited. With the very few series I watch on "live" TV, it would be cheaper to buy the series I want.
Post the acquisition of Starlink, I have been enjoying various "Walter Presents" on the computer.
Any Walter Presents recommendations?
Not a recommendation as such - but if you enjoy Walter Presents shows, then it's worth getting a VPN in Australia and grabbing stuff from SBS. https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/nordic-noir
Can't believe that people are still talking about Lineker. It's just not that interesting. BBC management incompetent: who knew? BBC employs and grossly overpays prima donnas? Colour me astonished. Said overpaid prima donna proves Cameron's lasting contribution to public life yet again: quelle surprise.
How on earth is this news?
Overshadowing Liverpool losing to Bournemouth. The week after the 7/0 v Man U. Funny old game.
Only Liverpool could smash Man United one week, then lose to Bournemouth seven days later. Salah missed a penalty as well, not something he does very often.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
Yes. They are playing repeats of podcasts just now. There'll be no Six Nations commentary. It's wider than presenters and football. It's a wildcat strike by the whole sports department. Better hope it doesn't spread to news.
Will even one PB lefty admit that Lineker has fucked this all up?
Not me. The BBC has fucked this up. Par for the course for an organisation run by the Tories. They've fucked every other one up.
If you think the BBC is run by 'the Tories', then you should really look at some official media in other countries to see real political bias. Or even the BBC post-Hutton. Or even the BBC.
The BBC has a difficult job trying to run a knife-edge between competing political parties. It is subjective, but the vast majority of its output manages to do that. Its position isn't helped by stupid, overpaid sports pundits weighing in with whatever verbal diarrhea passes through their mind at any moment.
But they have installed placemen and women all over the management of the organisation. The experience of other countries is precisely what they are working towards. Hence where we are.
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
I think I'm right in saying that there has never been a conviction on the evidence supplied by a detector van. Because they have never existed....
"Detection" involved peering through windows to see the tell-tale brightening and darkening light given off by a telly.
Watch a TV behind thick curtains and with the lights on.
Or buy a licence, of course. Which I still do. Well, somebody has to keep Garry Lineker in gold bars.
Although its days may be limited. With the very few series I watch on "live" TV, it would be cheaper to buy the series I want.
Post the acquisition of Starlink, I have been enjoying various "Walter Presents" on the computer.
Any Walter Presents recommendations?
I watched all 5 series of Ice Cold Murders, set in the Val D'Aosta north of Turin. A rather cranky detective banished there from Rome, I probably enjoyed it more than most would because I have stayed in a friend's place up there - and the detective very much reminds me of a chain-smoking friend. Plus he gets a dog that steals every scene!
There's Deutchsland 83, 86 and 89 of course. Agatha Christie's Hjerson is determinedly quirky but was worth watching through. Just started watching Arctic Circle set in Lapland. Told me of the concept of the Whore Bus, that, er, straddles northern Finland and Russia (not sure they will survive Finland joining NATO...).
Thanks. I trust your opinion on tv/film if not much else
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
At the moment, their position appears to be closer to the former with some caveats:
i.e. "No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media, in so far as they are going to make any comment critical of a Conservative Government or Conservative politicians.”
And without the last bit that would still be at variance with the BBC's own guidelines, which state that the ability to comment depends on the sort of work a presenter is involved in, and give a specific illustrative example differentiating between restrictions on those involved in current affairs and those involved in sporting programmes.
Lineker was a professional footballer well over 25 years ago - he retired in 1994. Even given his golden boot, his subsequent prominence is largely down to the gigs the BBC gives him.
The BBC has given him a post-retirement sinecure that is worthy of Croesus. A million, two million a year. And he doesn't do much for that; outside football and selling crisps, he's absent.
He uses that prominence - repeatedly - to score political points. Of course that reflects on the BBC.
In terms of loyalty to those who reward them handsomely, this episode has confirmed that Tim Davie and Richard Sharp are leading from the front. It stinks.
There is Six Nations coverage on Five Live - they are borrowing the BBC Radio Wales feed. Italian anthem was particularly passionate sounding today.
It'll be interesting to see whether Scotland vs Ireland on the TV about this time tomorrow gets replaced by repeats of Escape to the Country and Garden Rescue.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
Yes. They are playing repeats of podcasts just now. There'll be no Six Nations commentary. It's wider than presenters and football. It's a wildcat strike by the whole sports department. Better hope it doesn't spread to news.
Will even one PB lefty admit that Lineker has fucked this all up?
Not me. The BBC has fucked this up. Par for the course for an organisation run by the Tories. They've fucked every other one up.
This government is very light touch with the BBC, compared to that of Blair and Campbell in their pomp....
“No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media”
Or
“We believe in freedom of speech, and things said by individuals on their own channels are not representative of the BBC”.
My £10 says they instead try and equivocate between the two positions, depending on exactly who said what and when, thus making things even more of a mess and trying to police the internet.
Personally I’ll go with the free speech argument, whether that’s Jeremy Clarkson or Gary Lineker.
At the moment, their position appears to be closer to the former with some caveats:
i.e. "No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media, in so far as they are going to make any comment critical of a Conservative Government or Conservative politicians.”
And without the last bit that would still be at variance with the BBC's own guidelines, which state that the ability to comment depends on the sort of work a presenter is involved in, and give a specific illustrative example differentiating between restrictions on those involved in current affairs and those involved in sporting programmes.
Lineker was a professional footballer well over 25 years ago - he retired in 1994. Even given his golden boot, his subsequent prominence is largely down to the gigs the BBC gives him.
The BBC has given him a post-retirement sinecure that is worthy of Croesus. A million, two million a year. And he doesn't do much for that; outside football and selling crisps, he's absent.
He uses that prominence - repeatedly - to score political points. Of course that reflects on the BBC.
In terms of loyalty to those who reward them handsomely, this episode has confirmed that Tim Davie and Richard Sharp are leading from the front. It stinks.
This is the problem with political appointees - or appointees that can look political. It can be made to appear as though it stinks.
IMV, the question is: did Lineker's tweet reflect poorly on the BBC? I'd argue yes, given the number of followers his team-mates from the 1980s have. His prominence is largely down to his having been on the BBC for twenty years.
Lineker is frontman for what is probably the most popular and best-known TV show in Europe, and perhaps one of the most popular TV shows in the the world. I get that football is not electoral history or trainspotting, so perhaps hard to imagine the magnitude of popularity it enjoys, but we are talking about one of the biggest roles in entertainment. (Yes, it's even more popular than TOTP or Doctor Who.) And likely you would not get the requisite talent to beat Sky for, say, £150k. Also clear: if nobody paid attention to Lineker, this wouldn't be a story. I suspect Lineker, the BBC and the Tories all know he reaches large audiences that don't follow politics closely outside election time.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
Yes. They are playing repeats of podcasts just now. There'll be no Six Nations commentary. It's wider than presenters and football. It's a wildcat strike by the whole sports department. Better hope it doesn't spread to news.
Will even one PB lefty admit that Lineker has fucked this all up?
LOL You really live in a world of your own don't you? There are only two organisations that have f****d this up as you put it and they are:
The Tory party The BBC
The only thing Lineker did was tweet in his own time. Tell me how is this any different from Andrew Neil or Jeremy Clarkson who both did exactly the same thing all the time.
LOL at the BBC continuing to tie themselves up in knots over Gary Lineker. There’s now almost no good way out for them.
All Lineker had to do was say a qualified Sorry. His moral vanity is entirely to blame. And he’s fucked up the BBC, which all his PB supporters profess to love
If we live in a society whose citizens are obliged to issue apologies to the government then that is truly frightening.
No he would be apologising to BBC license fee payers. WHO PAY HIS WAGES
The licence fee take is surely going to dwindle away anyway, isn't it? My sons are all mid 20s, and haven't watched "proper" TV since they were kids. None of their girlfriends or mates do either. They watch the sports they like (MMA, MTB, Surfing, skateboarding, anything freestyle) and TV online from sources from god knows where. They would never sit down at a specified time to watch anything, and can't understand the logic behind the licence fee. Big money for BBC talent is a dwindling pot.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
Yes. They are playing repeats of podcasts just now. There'll be no Six Nations commentary. It's wider than presenters and football. It's a wildcat strike by the whole sports department. Better hope it doesn't spread to news.
Will even one PB lefty admit that Lineker has fucked this all up?
Not me. The BBC has fucked this up. Par for the course for an organisation run by the Tories. They've fucked every other one up.
This government is very light touch with the BBC, compared to that of Blair and Campbell in their pomp....
We don't have a TV licence, not because I'm anti BBC but because we genuinely don't watch any content on any platform that requires one. So I'm not really bothered by its tribulations, anti/pro Government bias or how it pays its talent-I dont pay for it, so it's none of my business. I do feel that Lineker should be able to say whatever he wants on social media-as should we all- and then be accountable for what we say. Lineker's word might have been a bit strong for some, but what I take from it was that he was concerned by the words spoken by the government, not actually comparing the government to 30s Germany. He shouldn't be sacked or suspended, and for a government so unpopular, picking manufactured fights with people more popular than them, and then conducting those fights so ineptly that a major BBC programme like MOTD is disrupted is beyond Darwinism!
The problem is if you want to watch non-BBC channels you still have to pay the BBC licence fee, even if you never watch BBC programmes.
Absolutely. Them's the rules, and if you watch or record anything "live" from a "recognised" broadcasting channel (youtube lives streams dont count, but something like watching live tennis on Prime does) or watch BBC iPlayer then you need a TV licence. You can watch any other On Demand stuff you want without a licence, so there's plenty to go at.
The law is so outdated that Sky News on YouTube that's illegal to watch without a licence, but any massive YouTuber / Twitch streamer who does live shows to much bigger audiences that's perfectly legal (because they aren't available over the air).
The reality of it, nothing is actually enforceable. The only people getting done for not having paid the telly tax are because they aren't very well educated and manage to basically incriminate themselves.
Yeah. The threatening letters Capita send out get ever more nasty, but the reality of it is that the letters hold no legal authority, and you can just ignore them. It's best to just go online and tell them you don't need a licence. Saves all the hassle, although I have had over 10 ever increasingly nastier letters from them at the house we own thar we're refurbing to move into, and can't be arsed to tell them again it doesn't need a licence.
Got those for my late dad's house. Even less sense as it's not even as much of an offence in Scotland as it is south of the border.
Though the BBC likes to keep such things in the dark, I believe Scotland has the highest refusal rate on the licence in the UK. I imagine discretion is the better part of valour north of Gretna, and the detector vans and associated bs are even more phantasmogoric.
I think I'm right in saying that there has never been a conviction on the evidence supplied by a detector van. Because they have never existed....
"Detection" involved peering through windows to see the tell-tale brightening and darkening light given off by a telly.
Watch a TV behind thick curtains and with the lights on.
Or buy a licence, of course. Which I still do. Well, somebody has to keep Garry Lineker in gold bars.
Although its days may be limited. With the very few series I watch on "live" TV, it would be cheaper to buy the series I want.
Post the acquisition of Starlink, I have been enjoying various "Walter Presents" on the computer.
Any Walter Presents recommendations?
I watched all 5 series of Ice Cold Murders, set in the Val D'Aosta north of Turin. A rather cranky detective banished there from Rome, I probably enjoyed it more than most would because I have stayed in a friend's place up there - and the detective very much reminds me of a chain-smoking friend. Plus he gets a dog that steals every scene!
There's Deutchsland 83, 86 and 89 of course. Agatha Christie's Hjerson is determinedly quirky but was worth watching through. Just started watching Arctic Circle set in Lapland. Told me of the concept of the Whore Bus, that, er, straddles northern Finland and Russia (not sure they will survive Finland joining NATO...).
Not sure if it's on Walter Presents - but you might enjoy 'Pagan Peak'. German/Austrian detective series set in the alps. Starts off and you think "Oh, this is just The Bridge, right?" then goes very much on it's own path. I've just started watching 'Dark Woods' and it seems pretty decent so far too.
Blimey. Five Live off air. I’m not sure what the off ramp is here. The BBC can’t really back down, but without Lineker being back on air will the rest come back? And why would Lineker now compromise if he has this much support?
Presumably the BBC sport producers are working hard to find people who will work, and I guess that for some of the pundits money will eventually talk.
Has the whole station gone off air ? They're really facing a strike situation if so.
Yes. They are playing repeats of podcasts just now. There'll be no Six Nations commentary. It's wider than presenters and football. It's a wildcat strike by the whole sports department. Better hope it doesn't spread to news.
Will even one PB lefty admit that Lineker has fucked this all up?
Not me. The BBC has fucked this up. Par for the course for an organisation run by the Tories. They've fucked every other one up.
If you think the BBC is run by 'the Tories', then you should really look at some official media in other countries to see real political bias. Or even the BBC post-Hutton. Or even the BBC.
The BBC has a difficult job trying to run a knife-edge between competing political parties. It is subjective, but the vast majority of its output manages to do that. Its position isn't helped by stupid, overpaid sports pundits weighing in with whatever verbal diarrhea passes through their mind at any moment.
But they have installed placemen and women all over the management of the organisation. The experience of other countries is precisely what they are working towards. Hence where we are.
I would refer you back twenty years to the Hutton mess - that saw someone sadly commit suicide. Do you condemn what the (Labour) government did then?
It's particularly hilarious seeing the piece of sh*t Alastair Campbell droning on about the Lineker case, given that.
Comments
They run the bloody thing.
The Lineker issue is not, of course, about free speech. It is the issue of the consequences of particular free speaking. This is always going to be particular and relative.
The lining up of groups depending on whether or not they agree with him is of no value whatever.
Equivocation (evasive and situational decisions and indecisions) is inevitable. This is about jostling for power, victim status and bragging rights.
Neither right or wrong, nor the interests of lots of very cold foreigners on French shores comes into it.
Labour leader Keir Starmer has weighed in on the Lineker row.
“It is not impartial for BBC to cave in to Tory MPs complaining about Gary Lineker, it’s the opposite of impartial,” he said, while at the Welsh Labour conference in Llandundo.
“They got this one badly wrong and now they’re very, very exposed.”
Starmer said the crux of the issue was that the government had failed with their asylum system and was looking to blame others.
"What they should be doing is standing up, accepting they've broken the asylum system, and telling us what they're going to do to actually fix it, not whingeing on about Gary Lineker."
In a statement on Friday, responding to the decision to take Lineker off air, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said: "Individual cases are a matter for the BBC."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/entertainment-arts-64895316?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=640c82c7f7ce9556ed0741cf&'They got this one badly wrong and now they’re very, very exposed' - Starmer on BBC&2023-03-11T13:37:17.501Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:35ed8e0b-9446-48c3-9047-9e3277427b1f&pinned_post_asset_id=640c82c7f7ce9556ed0741cf&pinned_post_type=share
And the upside is you don't then have to listen to moronic talking heads giving you idiotic "analysis" of what they think were the tactics (which are normally wrong *). I just tune into TIFO football / Athletic and get the breakdown from people who actually know.
* there is a great couple of videos Dyche did with a football tactics YouTube when he was out of work explaining Burley's tactics, absolutely fascinating to hear just how complex it was. All the talking heads are well they are direct, long ball, physical innit, I watched the him talk about it, its bloody complex how the system worked.
https://twitter.com/PieroCastellano/status/1634433955511377920?cxt=HHwWgIC98bvB1q4tAAAA
When Sky pay for these kind of people, they are contracted to provide a hell of a lot more content. Neville and Carragher do commentary, analysis, player interviews, pre-match, post-match, regular appearances on Sky Sports News to give their views on the days topic etc.
https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/bbc-renews-premier-league-highlights-deal-until-2022/?zephr_sso_ott=SSVJRA
So each week MOTD (plus MOTD2 and Football Focus) has roughly £2m of football rights, plus the cost of actually making the programme.
Edit: and here’s a source giving the cost of Eastenders as £30m a year.
https://www.ok.co.uk/lifestyle/eastenders-bbc-one-time-cost-14471874
What the consequences are of speaking freely is a separate subject and are litmus tests of how power works within society and its institutions, and who is in charge of things like the Overton window. Enjoy the show.
If anyone thinks this is about abstract ideals and principles, Brooklyn Bridge is up for sale at this address.
For added grins they did it "in the name of fairness and balance"
They deserve all the shit that's coming
What do the French, Spanish and German equivalents of Mr Lineker get paid?
Obviously somewhat different markets, but it would give a clue
What about in American Baseball and Football - big money sports? Seem to recall ex players can get pretty nice fees for commentating.
Apparently the BoE is putting it into resolution. Whatever that means.
Liverpool 0
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/football/64405193
i.e.
"No-one who works for us, or appears on our platforms, is allowed to get involved in politics or current affairs on social media, in so far as they are going to make any comment critical of a Conservative Government or Conservative politicians.”
And without the last bit that would still be at variance with the BBC's own guidelines, which state that the ability to comment depends on the sort of work a presenter is involved in, and give a specific illustrative example differentiating between restrictions on those involved in current affairs and those involved in sporting programmes.
Also, the 350m a week number is correct when the rebate is gone!
How on earth is this news?
But even then, Scott Hanson who presents RedZone, the massively popular NFL show, he does 7hrs a week live, every week, and the reports are he gets $200k a year.
Charles Barkley is one of the biggest names in US punditry, he gets $1.5 million a year, but that is a sport that basically plays every night and he is expected to be on a lot more than 20-30 nights a year.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/basketball/nba/nba-legend-charles-barkley-cheated-out-of-100-million/news-story/2a09bced53a70403375c84720175e1b2
The BBC ought to have clear guidelines, they obviously don’t.
BBC management have fucked this up.
The government remain a disgrace.
That is all.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35602512/tom-brady-says-start-fox-sports-2024
There's Deutchsland 83, 86 and 89 of course. Agatha Christie's Hjerson is determinedly quirky but was worth watching through. Just started watching Arctic Circle set in Lapland. Told me of the concept of the Whore Bus, that, er, straddles northern Finland and Russia (not sure they will survive Finland joining NATO...).
FWIW, I thought the comparison unduly hyperbolic, but not outside the bounds if reasonable discourse.
Instead they have shat the bed.
Gary Lineker? Not so much of a UK equivalent.
The BBC has fucked this up.
Par for the course for an organisation run by the Tories. They've fucked every other one up.
The BBC has given him a post-retirement sinecure that is worthy of Croesus. A million, two million a year. And he doesn't do much for that; outside football and selling crisps, he's absent.
He uses that prominence - repeatedly - to score political points. Of course that reflects on the BBC.
If I had to guess, I imagine Neville and Carragher are probably are Lineker money at Sky, but as I say, Sky in particular make their presenters do a lot more than just read the autocue on the highlights package. They are expected to be involved in lots of different elements of their coverage.
The BBC has a difficult job trying to run a knife-edge between competing political parties. It is subjective, but the vast majority of its output manages to do that. Its position isn't helped by stupid, overpaid sports pundits weighing in with whatever verbal diarrhea passes through their mind at any moment.
Quite obviously someone sitting at home watching BT Sport. No text in contributions. All opinion lifted directly from BT Sport quotes.
Makes me wonder how the 3pm games will be covered Online.
I think the BBC lower league coverage is now all just lifted from PA.
The experience of other countries is precisely what they are working towards.
Hence where we are.
IMV, the question is: did Lineker's tweet reflect poorly on the BBC? I'd argue yes, given the number of followers his team-mates from the 1980s have. His prominence is largely down to his having been on the BBC for twenty years.
The Tory party
The BBC
The only thing Lineker did was tweet in his own time. Tell me how is this any different from Andrew Neil or Jeremy Clarkson who both did exactly the same thing all the time.
Also 'The Minister' (Icelandic) is rather good I thought https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10087640/
But that isn't the question at hand at all.
It's particularly hilarious seeing the piece of sh*t Alastair Campbell droning on about the Lineker case, given that.