Sounds like BBC's non MOTD tv and radio coverage of today's football is also going to be affected by the Tory impartiality brigade.
Perhaps Richard Sharp will present MOTD in his underpants.
When the Cameramen and Production staff refuse to Scab the Beeb should go for extended highlights of the Tory non neutral Hierarchy (Chairman, DG, head of News) being undressed and ejected by the staff from the Neutral National Broadcasters Premises
Complete with slow motion replays of the de robing of course (I have heard they all have big knobs or was that are rather than have
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.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
She isn't and that's good news. Esp since she's the Home Secretary.
But here's the bad news. She whips up fear and hatred of migrants, dehumanizes them, talks about 'swarming' and 'swamping', exaggerates and lies about numbers and motives, talks of the "Establishment" being against her, talks of the "betrayal" of the "hard working" (code for real) "British people".
Anybody comfortable with this - or even worse relishing it - needs to take a long hard look at themselves imo, regardless of their politics unless their politics is genuinely hard right.
Word like hatred and dehumanisation are thrown around far too casually. It is not dehumanising to question somebody's right to come to the UK, neither is it an expression of hatred to place limits on our capacity to accept refugees.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
The thrust of the argument, which I think is an interesting one, is that Yousaf would lose less of the SNP vote than Forbes.
If we accept that argument, we might suggest Forbes could sow the seeds of an SNP renewal even while losing votes faster.
As said upthread a swing of SNP to SLab could see a lot of seats revert to their pre 2015 norm with SLab dominating. It would make Starmers job a lot easier.
39% seems the tipping point for the SNP. Below that they start losing loads of seats to Labour, and even a couple to the Tories.
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.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
Do you ever post anything that isn't an inane question? Have you thought of a posting on a more juvenile site?
I noticed that earlier on you were questioning the anecdote about American ordnance in the Vietnam war being so powerful on the Ho Chi Minh trail it made eyes pop out of skulls
You claimed it is urban myth
Here is the quote, from the book The Vietnam War: an Intimate History - based on the award winning tv documentary by Ken Burns
“The earth-shaking concussions had blown the eyeballs of some of them from their heads.” - page 224 if you want to check
Now, it might still be urban myth. And you’re a doctor. But that’s the claim and this is a famously detailed and fastidious investigation of the war
Note how the claim has seamlessly transmuted from "all" to "some".
I’m assuming that the frothing Rightists on here complaining about Lineker comparing the words coming out of the Home Office to those coming out of Nazi Germany were similarly outraged by a similar comment by an actual Holocaust survivor
So what are the words? Lineker has talked about the words, the lady who was interviewed in the linked piece has conplained about the words - where are the words? Let's see the words so we can make a judgement.
Football Focus (the BBC lunchtime preview show of the weekend's football) has also been pulled now.
And all this - ALL THIS - could have been avoided if Gary had just been a bit more mature, and a little less vain, and said “yeah sorry, the Nazi thing was a bit excessive, I got over emotional coz I care”
That’s all he had to do! What a wanker
Change is rarely achieved by people doing what they are told to do.
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.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
No. But I do think her dog whistling on asylum seekers is close to incitement to violence, even though that is clearly not her intention. If I were an asylum seeker being put up in a hotel, I would not feel safe. I'd be very concerned that any publicity could lead to right-wing mobs assaulting me. And I hold Braverman and her allies in the press responsible for that.
If Suella Braverman were assassinated by somebody who took the comparison to heart, would you feel responsible?
I don't know what you're on about. I'm not aware of anybody comparing Braverman to a Nazi, though you seem keen to invent this myth for some reason. As I said, I think her gutter politics presents a risk to asylum seekers/refugees.
Now you're aware:
@SholaMos1 That Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Home Secretary Suella Braverman are the Brown faces of a Tory ‘Nazi ‘Britain is unspeakably shameful.
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Get on the blower to Keysie and Greyio. They'll do it and won't give a fuck.
There are plenty of people out there who neither like nor agree with Lineker, and some of them are even footballers.
It shouldn't be that hard. The issue is the timescale.
Perversely...MOTD may well prove much more popular without the punditry. It would be very funny if this proved to be the case.
More time watching football, less time watching others talking about football. What’s not to like?
It would be like Election Night programmes without the politicians, just the results.
Fantastic. More time checking your bets, and less time watching the inane drivel that goes for election night programming.
Right wingers, why stop there, just go full Trump, cancel any independent voices, question the results, follow the dear leader and storm the Capitol.
If I went back two months precisely the same people complaining on here about the "cancelling" of Lineker on the BBC would have been demanding the cancelling of Clarkson on Amazon & in The Sun for his remarks on Meghan Markle.
On a more serious note. With the collapse of silicon vallet bank looks like there is another banking crisis incoming. Given the tories remaining support is asset rich old people could be disastrous for them.
Yes, I've noticed there's been very little reporting on this, in the last couple of days.
Another Lehman's-style canary in the coalmine, or a drop in oceania?
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
There is an old joke about an engineer called to fix some recalcitrant piece of equipment. After some study he hits it with a hammer, and produces a bill for $100. When asked to justify the price, he replies "It's $5 for the hit, and $95 for knowing where to hit it."
So, to answer your question, that's the going rate for Lineker's knowledge and experience.
They could get someone cheaper to talk about football. It wouldn't be the same.
How is it the going rate? Do you have any evidence?
I am sincerely curious
I learnt long ago is that the price of X is whatever the buyer and seller agree. So, yes, Mr L is paid the going rate for MotD presenters.
Morning Carnyx, it is very easy when you are spaffing other people's cash about and don't need to have any commercial or business concerns.
Morning Malky!
The BBC do however have a very beady eye on sales abroad. The Clarkson broom-broom show was very popular in Oz - I remember being on an Adelaide-Sydney flight when it was put on the screen - most of the males on the plane were laughing out loud.
Everyone should watch MOTD tonight, so that the BBC realise they could save a lot of money by always broadcasting the show with just the action and no punditry.
Except it's a condition of their contract with the PL that they provide punditry.
Then let's have a HIGNFY-style guest pundit. Start with Brian Blessed.
On a more serious note. With the collapse of silicon vallet bank looks like there is another banking crisis incoming. Given the tories remaining support is asset rich old people could be disastrous for them.
15 years since the last financial crisis, so there is one due. Rising interest rates worldwide are going to hit those holding bonds, and over indebted companies.
Financial markets have the memory of a goldfish with dementia coupled with the fortitude of headless chickens.
Markets look a bit toppy to me, so I have done some profit taking and shifted to a more defensive position.
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.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
She isn't and that's good news. Esp since she's the Home Secretary.
But here's the bad news. She whips up fear and hatred of migrants, dehumanizes them, talks about 'swarming' and 'swamping', exaggerates and lies about numbers and motives, talks of the "Establishment" being against her, talks of the "betrayal" of the "hard working" (code for real) "British people".
Anybody comfortable with this - or even worse relishing it - needs to take a long hard look at themselves imo, regardless of their politics unless their politics is genuinely hard right.
Word like hatred and dehumanisation are thrown around far too casually. It is not dehumanising to question somebody's right to come to the UK, neither is it an expression of hatred to place limits on our capacity to accept refugees.
Do you think Boris Johnson should apologise for comparing the EU to Nazi Germany?
If somebody is hired on a contractor basis and hence isn’t an employee, the employer cannot control what the person says when they are not representing or working for the company.
Lineker tweeted from his own Twitter account, clearly not representing anyone else but himself.
The BBC has got this wrong
That would depend what was in the contract of employment.
On a more serious note. With the collapse of silicon vallet bank looks like there is another banking crisis incoming. Given the tories remaining support is asset rich old people could be disastrous for them.
15 years since the last financial crisis, so there is one due. Rising interest rates worldwide are going to hit those holding bonds.
Financial markets have the memory of a goldfish with dementia coupled with the fortitude of headless chickens.
Markets look a bit toppy to me, so I have done some profit taking and shifted to a more defensive position.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
Yousaf will be the death knell for the SNP, though he is unlikely to last long. Some who declined are likely waiting to see how the court cases go and who if any of the cartel are left standing, ready to step up when Useless gets dumped.
Point of order Malc, if Yousaf doesn't last long he'll surely not be the death knell for the SNP.
Ben, One day of that turkey will be far too much I am afraid. However given who is running the voting and that only a select couple know how many actual members there are able to vote I fail to see how he can lose.
I wish that Forbes or Regan would announce the number of SNP members, and see whether the Murrells react.
Fairlie, no chance they will have seen the real numbers.
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
So freedom of speech directly correlates with pay? If a less well paid pundit, say John Virgo or Claire Balding, had tweeted this they would have been treated differently.
The efforts on here to tie how Lineker has been treated to his personal finances are really desperate. Leon’s “look at his taxes” to your “the issue is he’s paid too much” and positions in between are just deflections from the issue of free speech and government interference in the BBC’s editorial process. As can also be seen in the decision to pull the Attenborough episode that might, shockingly, mention the environment degradation of these islands.
You need to get out of your bubble of alternative facts. The episode in question was not part of the BBC series but an additional film that the BBC acquired for distribution on iPlayer. Even the WWF debunked the story.
TBF the Guardian didn't say the episode was pulled. The BBC press release carefully didn't provide the link, so people could easily confirm that the Guardian claim was that the BBC made the decision not to include the episode in the series on political grounds. The BBC claim implausibly that the extra film/episode made by the same people on the same contact was not excluded from the series by editorial decision because somehow it was completely separate from the other five episodes.
If they had said, it was placed on iPlayer only on editorial grounds it would have been a more convincing denial.
Its an absurd argument being made. Sir David is a national treasure, makes programmes that are literally one of the things the beeb uses to promote itself everywhere, and is at the stage in life where every series may be his last.
So the production company offer 6 episodes. The Beeb says "oh no, we don't want the last one. Well we do, just on iPlayer only"? Or was it only prepared to pay for 5 shows because the 6th isn't worth the money but is because we'll buy it for iPlayer?
Its preposterous. They will buy everything Sir National Treasure puts out. And they have - its going out on iPlayer. So what was it about episode 6 that spooked them? Oh yes, the political implications.
It’s a separate production company that is making the sixth film and it is in conjunction with the national Trust and WWF.
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Get on the blower to Keysie and Greyio. They'll do it and won't give a fuck.
There are plenty of people out there who neither like nor agree with Lineker, and some of them are even footballers.
It shouldn't be that hard. The issue is the timescale.
Perversely...MOTD may well prove much more popular without the punditry. It would be very funny if this proved to be the case.
More time watching football, less time watching others talking about football. What’s not to like?
It would be like Election Night programmes without the politicians, just the results.
Fantastic. More time checking your bets, and less time watching the inane drivel that goes for election night programming.
Right wingers, why stop there, just go full Trump, cancel any independent voices, question the results, follow the dear leader and storm the Capitol.
If I went back two months precisely the same people complaining on here about the "cancelling" of Lineker on the BBC would have been demanding the cancelling of Clarkson on Amazon & in The Sun for his remarks on Meghan Markle.
You might need to cite names. Many of us were quite happy to condemn Clarksons words but didn't call for him to be sanctioned.
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.
I can assure you that globally each of those has far more profile than Clarkson who is known primarily in English speaking countries only. Clarkson’s gammon demographic is somewhat limited.
Clarkson is recognised worldwide for Top Gear, as any of his Grand Tour episodes in the middle east, Asia or South America will show.
The place he's probably least well known is the US. Because that's Americans.
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.
Fair enough on Salenko who was a bit of a freak winner, but Suker was a world-class striker and Stoichkov was legitimately on of the greatest players of his generation. They may not be household names *here*, but that’s not the point, is it?
It is the point. Being a world cup golden boot winner doesn't automatically translate into the kind of global celebrity that can command multi-million media contracts.
Nobody gave him a job on the sole basis of him being a golden boot winner. You might not rate him as a host, but loads of people do. His history as one of England’s best strikers ever gives him a bit of legitimacy as a football presenter, but it’s not *why* he has the job.
However, by all means do continue to make your point
Spot on. Somehow, I can't see Wayne Rooney being selected as a replacement for Lineker, despite his similar footballing record.
While I don't think Lineker's salary is particularly relevant, I do agree with those that think it's preposterously high for what he does.
Not as high, though, as that of Bernard Looney (sic) whose pay, as CEO of BP, rose from £4.5m to £10m in one year, beating inflation rather comfortably. I don't recall all those objecting to Lineker's remuneration expressing outrage at this when it was reported last week - maybe I missed it.
And yes, of course, Lineker's wages are licence fee money. But I reckon us taxpayers have also contributed to Looney's wealth through our purchases.
You have the option of not buying anything from BP or becoming a shareholder of BP and then voting against the directors remuneration package.
Of course the investment funds who own the majority of shares will still vote for the higher pay rises because the people making the decisions have a vested interest in ever higher executive pay.
Just like the people who agree Lineker's remuneration have a vested interest in ever higher pay at the BBC.
Huge though the remuneration numbers of oil company execs are, they have been paid out under performance-linked pay schemes. Their performance is linked into how well they do at delivering value for shareholders. Many of those shareholders are pension schemes - schemes from which the great majority benefit.
The only person who benefits from Garry Linker's performance is one Garry Lineker.
Fair point.
But is not unknown for the basis of directors remuneration to be changed to something more generous if the original contract is not performing as well as was expected.
Oh, those schemes don't bear much scrutiny. But they are at least a fig leaf.
Everyone should watch MOTD tonight, so that the BBC realise they could save a lot of money by always broadcasting the show with just the action and no punditry.
Except it's a condition of their contract with the PL that they provide punditry.
Then let's have a HIGNFY-style guest pundit. Start with Brian Blessed.
Or sell the pundit places to fans who want to appear on MotD.
There's probably 100k blokes who would pay £100 to give their views on Bournemouth vs Brentford.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
There is an old joke about an engineer called to fix some recalcitrant piece of equipment. After some study he hits it with a hammer, and produces a bill for $100. When asked to justify the price, he replies "It's $5 for the hit, and $95 for knowing where to hit it."
So, to answer your question, that's the going rate for Lineker's knowledge and experience.
They could get someone cheaper to talk about football. It wouldn't be the same.
How is it the going rate? Do you have any evidence?
I am sincerely curious
I learnt long ago is that the price of X is whatever the buyer and seller agree. So, yes, Mr L is paid the going rate for MotD presenters.
Morning Carnyx, it is very easy when you are spaffing other people's cash about and don't need to have any commercial or business concerns.
Morning Malky!
The BBC do however have a very beady eye on sales abroad. The Clarkson broom-broom show was very popular in Oz - I remember being on an Adelaide-Sydney flight when it was put on the screen - most of the males on the plane were laughing out loud.
They will make bugger all on Linekar's mush and inane babble abroad though.
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.
The difference being there are many people who want to watch Clarkson do anything from driving a car around the world to running a farm.
How many people want to watch Lineker minus the football ?
He manages to compere several events not all football. What people don't seem to understand is that on the open market -promoting products for example he could earn fees that completely dwarf what he gets from the BBC and for considerably less work
Clarkson has an enormous 8M followers on Twitter. It is genuinely impressive. Whereas Lineker has only has following of 8.8M. Chalk and cheese. Completely different.
As I said yesterday, I think they are actually very similar and just playing to slightly different bases.
I noticed that earlier on you were questioning the anecdote about American ordnance in the Vietnam war being so powerful on the Ho Chi Minh trail it made eyes pop out of skulls
You claimed it is urban myth
Here is the quote, from the book The Vietnam War: an Intimate History - based on the award winning tv documentary by Ken Burns
“The earth-shaking concussions had blown the eyeballs of some of them from their heads.” - page 224 if you want to check
Now, it might still be urban myth. And you’re a doctor. But that’s the claim and this is a famously detailed and fastidious investigation of the war
Note how the claim has seamlessly transmuted from "all" to "some".
Yeah, ok - I probably jazzed that up. Can’t help it. Story telling gene
Nonetheless the central claim is true (and this is what @foxy disputed) - the American bombing of the jungle was so heavy it made eyeballs pop out of skulls by sheer concussive power. Allegedly
He never said the policy was Nazi. He said the language was similar to 1930s Germany and it is.
Which is an astonishingly weak defence.
We all know who was in office in 1930s Germany. And that their language and policy were one and the same.
People aren't stupid.
Yes, but the language used in the run up to Hitler gaining power in 1933 was similar. It didn't really reach the point of mass violence until Kristallnacht in 1938. Until then the violence was mostly against political opponents, trade unionists etc.
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.
If somebody is hired on a contractor basis and hence isn’t an employee, the employer cannot control what the person says when they are not representing or working for the company.
Lineker tweeted from his own Twitter account, clearly not representing anyone else but himself.
The BBC has got this wrong
Yes, Andrew Neil used to present a BBC show - don't think it shut him up in other media.
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.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
Do you ever post anything that isn't an inane question? Have you thought of a posting on a more juvenile site?
Quite impressive how you framed that point with two inane questions of your own. Very meta
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
Yes millions of Scots just waiting to follow Forbes in opposition to abortion and homosexual marriage
"in opposition"
I know you are utterly ignorant of Scotland, but you don't have to prove it daily.
Abortion and gay marriage - unlike your state church - are *already* permitted in Scotland.
So going on and on and on and on and on about it three or more times daily is completely pointless.
Now in retaliation PB Tories are demanding Lineker's tax affairs are investigated. Piss this Government off at your peril. One loose tweet about Suella Braverman's morality and your fortune and your liberty are put in jeopardy. Lineker's tweet is becoming more pertinent as the hours pass
Quite. The cries of “Lock Him Up” at Tory Party rallies are only months away. The authoritarian instincts of Tories and their fellow travellers on here are chilling.
Indeed. Reading the comments from the right-wing loons who live on this blog was amusing this morning.
Dud you read the ones from the left wing loons.. thought not...
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.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
No. Do you?
I am concerned about a government that dehumanises people and plays fast and loose with the law. Does that bother you, even a tiny bit?
Well said. The problem with Nazi comparisons, it allows people to imply moral acceptability purely because they have no intention of firing up the gas chambers.
Which is preposterous.
Lineker never said it was a Nazi policy though. Read what he actually wrote
TBH if you make comparisons with 1930s Germany that's a Nazi reference.
Does anyone think lineker has just got bored with football and is looking for a way out.
No
Does anyone think the BBC hierarchy is "Neutral" in its consistent treatment of Sugar and Lineker Political tweets
BJO you’ve been spot on about this whole affair.
If the BBC want to even pretend to be politically neutral they need to rid their board & platforms of Tory shills like Richard Sharp, Tim Davie, Laura K & Fiona Bruce, Gibb etc before stepping a sports presenter down. IMO
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.
It has nothing to do with free speech.
I am not convinced that you know my motivations better than myself.
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?
Yet again the pig ignorance of PB Tories shows. Not only has he other places to go, he’s there already. He did the BT CL coverage as on top of MOTD until he decided to quit the former last season. He’s also regularly been on NBC Sports Network, is on Fox Sports Eredivisie, and would be snapped up by Amazon if he left the BBC. All of the above have deeper pockets than the BBC. So the position is exactly the opposite to that you postulate. He doesn’t need the BBC.
Tories should stop talking about football. It’s embarrassing how little they know.
The news we hear over the transistor wireless, from the centre of the fighting, gets ever more serious - the announcers from Final Score have pulled out too.
These are dark days for Europe, and we may not be able to find out whether Forfar Athletic beat Cowdenbeath over tea and muffins, as the late winter twilight arrives.
He never said the policy was Nazi. He said the language was similar to 1930s Germany and it is.
Which is an astonishingly weak defence.
We all know who was in office in 1930s Germany. And that their language and policy were one and the same.
People aren't stupid.
The language used by the Nazis was along the lines of “plague rats”, “vermin”, “race polluters”, “bacilli”, “poisonous fungus”, “We think he committed suicide because he could no longer stomach his inherent racial stench” etc.
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!
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.
The difference being there are many people who want to watch Clarkson do anything from driving a car around the world to running a farm.
How many people want to watch Lineker minus the football ?
He manages to compere several events not all football. What people don't seem to understand is that on the open market -promoting products for example he could earn fees that completely dwarf what he gets from the BBC and for considerably less work
It’s a strange day in British politics when @campbellclaret condemns an attack against Jeremy Corbyn.
"Alan Sugar’s post was outrageous 1,000 times worse and the BBC did absolutely nothing yet they’ll crack down against @GaryLineker for condemning the cruel and evil ‘stop the boats’ policy".
The Tory Party see immigrants and refugees as sub-human. How can anyone defend that
Yes dear, they’re just itching to fire up the gas ovens.
That is absurd. No one is saying that the Tories plan to exterminate asylum seekers, just that the dehumanising language and other ingredients is despicable.
Strikes me that a lot of this has been caused by the fact the BBC have been caught out in not having a clear and unambiguous policy in terms of social media use.
It’s not unusual for an employer to take action against an employee it feels has published things they shouldn’t* on social media. I think therefore this is slightly more nuanced than just a concept of free speech vs cancel culture. By seemingly making it an impartiality argument rather than a “this comment was offensive”* argument, it makes the whole thing murkier because again, the BBC has no clear and consistent policy on staff impartiality and as others have pointed out on here, where do you draw the line?
*I do think the key thing here though is whether you can say the comment was so offensive as to warrant disciplinary action. The Godwinning of it is the issue I suspect, but I am not sure that what was said was all that offensive. A bit close to the bone perhaps.
I do fear for all these individuals who have pulled out of broadcasting in “solidarity” though. Feels to me like we’re going to have a big left v right scuffle on our hands and I suspect the BBC will not be able to back down. We may realise when all the coverage is broadcast that these particular individuals don’t add much by way of value to the programming content…
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.
Fair enough on Salenko who was a bit of a freak winner, but Suker was a world-class striker and Stoichkov was legitimately on of the greatest players of his generation. They may not be household names *here*, but that’s not the point, is it?
It is the point. Being a world cup golden boot winner doesn't automatically translate into the kind of global celebrity that can command multi-million media contracts.
Nobody gave him a job on the sole basis of him being a golden boot winner. You might not rate him as a host, but loads of people do. His history as one of England’s best strikers ever gives him a bit of legitimacy as a football presenter, but it’s not *why* he has the job.
However, by all means do continue to make your point
Spot on. Somehow, I can't see Wayne Rooney being selected as a replacement for Lineker, despite his similar footballing record.
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.
It has nothing to do with free speech.
Rubbish. If Lineker had tweeted: Glad to see that the government is doing something to stop the small boats. About time. Far too many illegal immigrants I would have disagreed with him but defended his right to say it. And he'd still be presenting MotD.
If somebody is hired on a contractor basis and hence isn’t an employee, the employer cannot control what the person says when they are not representing or working for the company.
Lineker tweeted from his own Twitter account, clearly not representing anyone else but himself.
The BBC has got this wrong
That would depend what was in the contract of employment.
Though if Lineker's remarks went against his contract, I'm sure we'd know about it. So given all the "come to an understanding" talk, I think we can assume that GL is within his contractual rights to tweet what he did. Or at least that enforcing those responsibilities legally is a can of worms the BBC doesn't want to open.
Historically, the Beeb has form for saying that the show is the thing, not the star. See Simon Dee, Bruce Forsyth and Jeremy Clarkson. Their problem here is that it rather looks like their football people are all choosing to be on Team Gary. That's much harder to fix. But we saw with knee-taking that football is a hotbed of wokery.
How long before Gary is persuaded to give a "sorry if I caused offence for likening government language to 1930's Germany" non-apology?
It’s a strange day in British politics when @campbellclaret condemns an attack against Jeremy Corbyn.
"Alan Sugar’s post was outrageous 1,000 times worse and the BBC did absolutely nothing yet they’ll crack down against @GaryLineker for condemning the cruel and evil ‘stop the boats’ policy".
Worth noting that Corbyn backs Lineker, even though Lineker opposed him.
The Tory Party see immigrants and refugees as sub-human. How can anyone defend that
Yes dear, they’re just itching to fire up the gas ovens.
That is absurd. No one is saying that the Tories plan to exterminate asylum seekers, just that the dehumanising language and other ingredients is despicable.
Yes they are saying that. @Bigjohnowls said yesterday that he agreed with a post saying that would be the next step.
The BBC need to get a move on and sort this Lineker situation out.
They are showing two live FA Cup matches next weekend as well as a regular MOTD.
If the boycott is still in place….
They've made a monumental f*ck-up of this and now haven't a clue how to resolve the issue.
Not sure we should be surprised at that though, given two tories, Sharp and Davie are in charge. Sack them both.
No, it’s Lineker who has really fucked this up. Because he is a vain and silly man. All he had to do was delete the tweet and apologise and say “yeah, the comparison with Nazi germany was a bit over the top, sorry, I just feel passionately on this issue”. And everyone agrees it was over the top. Coz it was. Just apologise and move on. Crisis resolved. End of story
But he is so in love with the moral adoration he gets on Twitter he refused to do even that. His obstinacy and narcissism has now badly damaged the BBC. Which is ironic as all those defending him on here are lefties who love the BBC
Exactly. Spot on.
It's a very clear example of the corrosive effect that Twitter can have on your psychy.
I expect he is in no doubt whatsoever that everyone agrees with him, except hideous racists.
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.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
She isn't and that's good news. Esp since she's the Home Secretary.
But here's the bad news. She whips up fear and hatred of migrants, dehumanizes them, talks about 'swarming' and 'swamping', exaggerates and lies about numbers and motives, talks of the "Establishment" being against her, talks of the "betrayal" of the "hard working" (code for real) "British people".
Anybody comfortable with this - or even worse relishing it - needs to take a long hard look at themselves imo, regardless of their politics unless their politics is genuinely hard right.
Word like hatred and dehumanisation are thrown around far too casually. It is not dehumanising to question somebody's right to come to the UK, neither is it an expression of hatred to place limits on our capacity to accept refugees.
That wasn't what @kinabulu said. They aren't the one throwing assertions around far too casually!
Interesting interview with Greg Dyke on R4. After noting he'd refrained from commenting at all on BBC management ever since his departure, he was strongly of the opinion that it's simply not realistic to require 'impartiality' outside of work for anyone but those in news and current affairs.
Once you start unpicking it, it becomes insane.
What counts as making your opinions known? Talking to your family? Your mates down the pub? Commenting anonymously on a premier political blog? Using an easily-decoded nom-de-plume on said blog?
What counts as contributing to the BBC? Does it go all the way down to Eric the Gardener who hosts the "Green Fingers" slot every week on BBC Radio Countyshire?
The only lines that make sense is the existing ones, that News people stay inscrutable and nobody causes a riot. And although I can understand some people not liking the 1930's Germany comparison, it doesn't do that.
So Lineker's comments don't come in that category. That's why the BBC can't just dump him- they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on. Hence the current impasse.
The current DG of the BBC has shown he isn't up to the job. He hasn't thought this through. He could well end up it's first casualty. People underestimate the 'talent' at their peril. The BBC have done reasonably well because of their reputation so can attract the best people without having to compete for them in the market. But that reputation can quickly disappear
The best football people aren't hosting football on the BBC.....the world has moved on and the MOTD talking heads show time and time again they don't actually know much about modern football tactics. You only have to compare TIFO football analysis and realise the difference in depth and understanding.
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.
The difference being there are many people who want to watch Clarkson do anything from driving a car around the world to running a farm.
How many people want to watch Lineker minus the football ?
He manages to compere several events not all football. What people don't seem to understand is that on the open market -promoting products for example he could earn fees that completely dwarf what he gets from the BBC and for considerably less work
Do Walkers crisps really pay that much ?
five or ten million is nothing for a big name to front a campaign. An average East Enders character will make one or two million. For maybe six days shooting in a year. Lineker could get five times that easily.
Lots of the PB Tory glitterati who have been sheepishly and quietly hiding behind the sofa for the last twelve months, for the most part, are back posting copiously and with their boots on! Remainer traitor surrender monkeys? Go get 'em boys!
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.
The difference being there are many people who want to watch Clarkson do anything from driving a car around the world to running a farm.
How many people want to watch Lineker minus the football ?
He manages to compere several events not all football. What people don't seem to understand is that on the open market -promoting products for example he could earn fees that completely dwarf what he gets from the BBC and for considerably less work
It’s a strange day in British politics when @campbellclaret condemns an attack against Jeremy Corbyn.
"Alan Sugar’s post was outrageous 1,000 times worse and the BBC did absolutely nothing yet they’ll crack down against @GaryLineker for condemning the cruel and evil ‘stop the boats’ policy".
He is as dishonest as ever. Lineker has not been cracked down on for condemning a govt policy. He’s been taken to task for how he did it. Other BBC staff have condemned it without a murmur,
Clarkson has an enormous 8M followers on Twitter. It is genuinely impressive. Whereas Lineker has only has following of 8.8M. Chalk and cheese. Completely different.
As I said yesterday, I think they are actually very similar and just playing to slightly different bases.
It's very easy to attribute bad motives to people we disagree with. Unless I have conclusive evidence I try not to do so.
For all its strengths I'm not sure these sorts of debates show pb at its best.
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.
It has nothing to do with free speech.
I am not convinced that you know my motivations better than myself.
So if this was, say, Jeremy Clarkson of the BBC getting into shit for comparing Keir Starmer to the Khmer Rouge you’d be vigorously defending Clarkson?
Interesting interview with Greg Dyke on R4. After noting he'd refrained from commenting at all on BBC management ever since his departure, he was strongly of the opinion that it's simply not realistic to require 'impartiality' outside of work for anyone but those in news and current affairs.
Once you start unpicking it, it becomes insane.
What counts as making your opinions known? Talking to your family? Your mates down the pub? Commenting anonymously on a premier political blog? Using an easily-decoded nom-de-plume on said blog?
What counts as contributing to the BBC? Does it go all the way down to Eric the Gardener who hosts the "Green Fingers" slot every week on BBC Radio Countyshire?
The only lines that make sense is the existing ones, that News people stay inscrutable and nobody causes a riot. And although I can understand some people not liking the 1930's Germany comparison, it doesn't do that.
So Lineker's comments don't come in that category. That's why the BBC can't just dump him- they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on. Hence the current impasse.
The current DG of the BBC has shown he isn't up to the job. He hasn't thought this through. He could well end up it's first casualty. People underestimate the 'talent' at their peril. The BBC have done reasonably well because of their reputation so can attract the best people without having to compete for them in the market. But that reputation can quickly disappear
The best football people aren't hosting football on the BBC.....the world has moved on and the MOTD talking heads show time and time again they don't actually know much about modern football tactics. You only have to compare TIFO football analysis and realise the difference in depth and understanding.
Yes exactly. I made this point earlier and the counterpoint is people watch the pundits for entertainment not information.
Interesting interview with Greg Dyke on R4. After noting he'd refrained from commenting at all on BBC management ever since his departure, he was strongly of the opinion that it's simply not realistic to require 'impartiality' outside of work for anyone but those in news and current affairs.
Once you start unpicking it, it becomes insane.
What counts as making your opinions known? Talking to your family? Your mates down the pub? Commenting anonymously on a premier political blog? Using an easily-decoded nom-de-plume on said blog?
What counts as contributing to the BBC? Does it go all the way down to Eric the Gardener who hosts the "Green Fingers" slot every week on BBC Radio Countyshire?
The only lines that make sense is the existing ones, that News people stay inscrutable and nobody causes a riot. And although I can understand some people not liking the 1930's Germany comparison, it doesn't do that.
So Lineker's comments don't come in that category. That's why the BBC can't just dump him- they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on. Hence the current impasse.
The current DG of the BBC has shown he isn't up to the job. He hasn't thought this through. He could well end up it's first casualty. People underestimate the 'talent' at their peril. The BBC have done reasonably well because of their reputation so can attract the best people without having to compete for them in the market. But that reputation can quickly disappear
The best football people aren't hosting football on the BBC.....the world has moved on and the MOTD talking heads show time and time again they don't actually know much about modern football tactics. You only have to compare TIFO football analysis and realise the difference in depth and understanding.
To be honest a clearout would be good. The motd pundits have got lazy and i dont rate shearer or wright.
Popcorn Scenario: Bojo is suspended from HoC and a Recall election is forced in Uxbridge. Lineker stands against him with Labour and LD endorsement. PB servers collapse....
If Labour have any sense they will sort something like this out (at deniable arms length) for the next GE. Like the Teals in Australia; independents running in seats where Labour don't have a chance but can deny the tories a seat.
Here’s a list of six Conservative seats where I can guarantee you that the opposite will happen: Labour will bust their guts trying to get their supporters to vote Tory. They have form.
Aberdeenshire Central Aberdeenshire North and Moray East Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Dumfries and Galloway Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn backing Humza. A bit surprised at that. Good news for those Tory MPs if he prevails.
Perhaps, at the margins.
But it’s swings and roundabouts.
The Tory brand is so trashed in Scotland that their elected representatives don’t even mention the name of their party on literature:
Don't even call themselves the D. Ross Say No to Letting the Scots Decide Party. He's missing a trick from his predecessor there.
Has this been discussed? (Sorry, slept in this morning.)
The BBC need to get a move on and sort this Lineker situation out.
They are showing two live FA Cup matches next weekend as well as a regular MOTD.
If the boycott is still in place….
They've made a monumental f*ck-up of this and now haven't a clue how to resolve the issue.
Not sure we should be surprised at that though, given two tories, Sharp and Davie are in charge. Sack them both.
No, it’s Lineker who has really fucked this up. Because he is a vain and silly man. All he had to do was delete the tweet and apologise and say “yeah, the comparison with Nazi germany was a bit over the top, sorry, I just feel passionately on this issue”. And everyone agrees it was over the top. Coz it was. Just apologise and move on. Crisis resolved. End of story
But he is so in love with the moral adoration he gets on Twitter he refused to do even that. His obstinacy and narcissism has now badly damaged the BBC. Which is ironic as all those defending him on here are lefties who love the BBC
Exactly. Spot on.
It's a very clear example of the corrosive effect that Twitter can have on your psychy.
I expect he is in no doubt whatsoever that everyone agrees with him, except hideous racists.
I have said for a while I think its a modern form of male midlife crisis. Look at how many have become totally unhinged on social media, desperately wanting that validation / ego trip of being talked about on social media every day. And it seems like once they start to get sucked in, it gets more and more ridiculous e.g. Laurence Fox on woke, Jeremy Vine on everybody is nasty to cyclists, etc.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the two cases, the optics for the Tory Party are absolutely terrible.
Attempting to Cancel David Attenborough is truly astonishing, and the world knows that Gary Lineker has opinions, its what they pay him for, and even if he was a bit too forthright, to make a martyr of him is quite stunningly stupid. I think the backlash to the backlash may lead to a yet further fall in Conservative fortunes. The truth is, they have lost the plot: either this is an accident, in which case they are incompetent, or deliberate in which case they are malevolent.
The BBC need to get a move on and sort this Lineker situation out.
They are showing two live FA Cup matches next weekend as well as a regular MOTD.
If the boycott is still in place….
They've made a monumental f*ck-up of this and now haven't a clue how to resolve the issue.
Not sure we should be surprised at that though, given two tories, Sharp and Davie are in charge. Sack them both.
No, it’s Lineker who has really fucked this up. Because he is a vain and silly man. All he had to do was delete the tweet and apologise and say “yeah, the comparison with Nazi germany was a bit over the top, sorry, I just feel passionately on this issue”. And everyone agrees it was over the top. Coz it was. Just apologise and move on. Crisis resolved. End of story
But he is so in love with the moral adoration he gets on Twitter he refused to do even that. His obstinacy and narcissism has now badly damaged the BBC. Which is ironic as all those defending him on here are lefties who love the BBC
Exactly. Spot on.
It's a very clear example of the corrosive effect that Twitter can have on your psychy.
I expect he is in no doubt whatsoever that everyone agrees with him, except hideous racists.
I have said for a while I think its a modern form of male midlife crisis. Look at how many have become totally unhinged on social media, desperately wanting that validation / ego trip of being talked about on social media every day.
Think twitter got worse during the pandemic when millions were stuck at home with nothing to do.
It’s a strange day in British politics when @campbellclaret condemns an attack against Jeremy Corbyn.
"Alan Sugar’s post was outrageous 1,000 times worse and the BBC did absolutely nothing yet they’ll crack down against @GaryLineker for condemning the cruel and evil ‘stop the boats’ policy".
He is as dishonest as ever. Lineker has not been cracked down on for condemning a govt policy. He’s been taken to task for how he did it. Other BBC staff have condemned it without a murmur,
It has been misrepresented as a Nazi slur. It wasn't. The Board of Deputies of British Jews are on side with Lineker, although the accusation is the Board has been taken over by the "left", so as you were.
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Lineker
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
Isn’t the reality with the shit in the rivers, that in order to not have shit in the rivers, requires replacing billions of miles of sewage pipes at an astronomical cost and decades of disruption?
Like, is there the democratic will to double everyone’s water bill for the next twenty years to actually fix the problem?
I suspect not.
Rivers are actually a problem in England and Wales.
We pump and drain far too much shit into them, for a first world country, and far too many of them are "private" and totally inaccessible to people.
I'd say there's also a problem with lack of access for bathing/swimming, which I'd love. But the problem with that is that if you get too many feral chavs and their dogs going there that's just as bad and will introduce all sorts of nasty chemical and bodily pollution back into the rivers, as well as tonnes of litter.
Spoken like a true Tory Boy. Harry Enfield eat your heart out.
Eh?
Widening access to rivers over private property rights could be construed as slightly left-wing, cleaning up rivers is basically centrist, and I've advocated for better bathing access but balanced that it would be abused in many places and could make pollution worse again. I've seen how 'not give a shit' many people are these days about litter, their own messages, and that their dogs, whose coats are often treated with chemicals to delouse them, have the right to do whatever they like wherever they please.
I've basically advocated an increase in access balanced by environmentalism - not exactly Harry Enfield, is it?
I can only conclude you either replied to the wrong post, didn't read my post, decided you're sore over the Scottish polling and wanted to rib a Tory for any reason whatsoever, with no context, or that you're a bit of a tool.
Popcorn Scenario: Bojo is suspended from HoC and a Recall election is forced in Uxbridge. Lineker stands against him with Labour and LD endorsement. PB servers collapse....
If Labour have any sense they will sort something like this out (at deniable arms length) for the next GE. Like the Teals in Australia; independents running in seats where Labour don't have a chance but can deny the tories a seat.
Here’s a list of six Conservative seats where I can guarantee you that the opposite will happen: Labour will bust their guts trying to get their supporters to vote Tory. They have form.
Aberdeenshire Central Aberdeenshire North and Moray East Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Dumfries and Galloway Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
SNP Westminster leader Stephen Flynn backing Humza. A bit surprised at that. Good news for those Tory MPs if he prevails.
Perhaps, at the margins.
But it’s swings and roundabouts.
The Tory brand is so trashed in Scotland that their elected representatives don’t even mention the name of their party on literature:
TBF my Tory MP in London has also removed all mention of the party from his literature/twitter page etc.
Thanks for the information. Very interesting.
Is that a new thing in London? Been a feature of Scottish politics for a couple of decades, in fact probably a lot longer than that.
On the question of the current DG, he isn't up to the job, but then a long list of political appointments haven't been. Alasdair Milne was a very interesting left-of-centre guy appointed under the Tories in error, in their more open-minded earlier period the year they also created Channel 4, but it's been all downhill since then, and there were also a number of blatantly political appointments at the BBC made by both Labour and the Tories during the 1970's.
As discussed yesterday, the political appointments of Michael Checkland, John Birt and, to a lesser extent, Greg Dyke, all damaged the BBC, in some ways. Dyke made few changes compared to Birt, though, and even decelerated the movement of intellect and culture away from the BBC slightly.
The BBC need to get a move on and sort this Lineker situation out.
They are showing two live FA Cup matches next weekend as well as a regular MOTD.
If the boycott is still in place….
They've made a monumental f*ck-up of this and now haven't a clue how to resolve the issue.
Not sure we should be surprised at that though, given two tories, Sharp and Davie are in charge. Sack them both.
No, it’s Lineker who has really fucked this up. Because he is a vain and silly man. All he had to do was delete the tweet and apologise and say “yeah, the comparison with Nazi germany was a bit over the top, sorry, I just feel passionately on this issue”. And everyone agrees it was over the top. Coz it was. Just apologise and move on. Crisis resolved. End of story
But he is so in love with the moral adoration he gets on Twitter he refused to do even that. His obstinacy and narcissism has now badly damaged the BBC. Which is ironic as all those defending him on here are lefties who love the BBC
Exactly. Spot on.
It's a very clear example of the corrosive effect that Twitter can have on your psychy.
I expect he is in no doubt whatsoever that everyone agrees with him, except hideous racists.
I have said for a while I think its a modern form of male midlife crisis. Look at how many have become totally unhinged on social media, desperately wanting that validation / ego trip of being talked about on social media every day.
Think twitter got worse during the pandemic when millions were stuck at home with nothing to do.
I am sure it did. You aren't getting the face to face dopamine hit of getting that positive reinforcement, so people descended into social media more and more.
Wasn’t Clarkson sacked from the BBC because of an assault not for what he said? If Lineker had punched a junior member of staff , he would also have been sacked.
Interesting interview with Greg Dyke on R4. After noting he'd refrained from commenting at all on BBC management ever since his departure, he was strongly of the opinion that it's simply not realistic to require 'impartiality' outside of work for anyone but those in news and current affairs.
Once you start unpicking it, it becomes insane.
What counts as making your opinions known? Talking to your family? Your mates down the pub? Commenting anonymously on a premier political blog? Using an easily-decoded nom-de-plume on said blog?
What counts as contributing to the BBC? Does it go all the way down to Eric the Gardener who hosts the "Green Fingers" slot every week on BBC Radio Countyshire?
The only lines that make sense is the existing ones, that News people stay inscrutable and nobody causes a riot. And although I can understand some people not liking the 1930's Germany comparison, it doesn't do that.
So Lineker's comments don't come in that category. That's why the BBC can't just dump him- they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on. Hence the current impasse.
The current DG of the BBC has shown he isn't up to the job. He hasn't thought this through. He could well end up it's first casualty. People underestimate the 'talent' at their peril. The BBC have done reasonably well because of their reputation so can attract the best people without having to compete for them in the market. But that reputation can quickly disappear
The best football people aren't hosting football on the BBC.....the world has moved on and the MOTD talking heads show time and time again they don't actually know much about modern football tactics. You only have to compare TIFO football analysis and realise the difference in depth and understanding.
To be honest a clearout would be good. The motd pundits have got lazy and i dont rate shearer or wright.
Sky did that with the cricket and much the better it is for it. No longer do I have to listen to Botham, Holding and Lloyd talk absolute bollocks about modern cricket along the lines of just bowl faster, what's wrong with just bowling yorkers, why isn't he taking a run here....interestingly they also hired in Cricviz analysis team to provide even more behind the scenes insight, which they disseminate to the presenters.
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.
The difference being there are many people who want to watch Clarkson do anything from driving a car around the world to running a farm.
How many people want to watch Lineker minus the football ?
He manages to compere several events not all football. What people don't seem to understand is that on the open market -promoting products for example he could earn fees that completely dwarf what he gets from the BBC and for considerably less work
Do Walkers crisps really pay that much ?
five or ten million is nothing for a big name to front a campaign. An average East Enders character will make one or two million. For maybe six days shooting in a year. Lineker could get five times that easily.
I know something of this industry and I find that hard to believe. You’re claiming an average British soap star can make TWO MILLION QUID for a few crisp adverts?
I know this was your industry before you retired from the whole tampon thing, so I am happy to be educated, but are you sure this is right?
£2m is what a famous actor will make from a pretty big movie
The Tory Party see immigrants and refugees as sub-human. How can anyone defend that
Yes dear, they’re just itching to fire up the gas ovens.
That is absurd. No one is saying that the Tories plan to exterminate asylum seekers, just that the dehumanising language and other ingredients is despicable.
We live in an era when many people like to virtue signal their hatred.
This is often done by saying how filled with hatred the people you hate are.
Perhaps this has always been the case but twatter enables everything to be so much louder and more immediate now.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the two cases, the optics for the Tory Party are absolutely terrible.
Attempting to Cancel David Attenborough is truly astonishing, and the world knows that Gary Lineker has opinions, its what they pay him for, and even if he was a bit too forthright, to make a martyr of him is quite stunningly stupid. I think the backlash to the backlash may lead to a yet further fall in Conservative fortunes. The truth is, they have lost the plot: either this is an accident, in which case they are incompetent, or deliberate in which case they are malevolent.
Who could possibly want to damage the government and the BBC at the same time? The continuity Boris faction?
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Get on the blower to Keysie and Greyio. They'll do it and won't give a fuck.
There are plenty of people out there who neither like nor agree with Lineker, and some of them are even footballers.
It shouldn't be that hard. The issue is the timescale.
Perversely...MOTD may well prove much more popular without the punditry. It would be very funny if this proved to be the case.
More time watching football, less time watching others talking about football. What’s not to like?
It would be like Election Night programmes without the politicians, just the results.
Fantastic. More time checking your bets, and less time watching the inane drivel that goes for election night programming.
Right wingers, why stop there, just go full Trump, cancel any independent voices, question the results, follow the dear leader and storm the Capitol.
If I went back two months precisely the same people complaining on here about the "cancelling" of Lineker on the BBC would have been demanding the cancelling of Clarkson on Amazon & in The Sun for his remarks on Meghan Markle.
You might need to cite names. Many of us were quite happy to condemn Clarksons words but didn't call for him to be sanctioned.
It’s a strange day in British politics when @campbellclaret condemns an attack against Jeremy Corbyn.
"Alan Sugar’s post was outrageous 1,000 times worse and the BBC did absolutely nothing yet they’ll crack down against @GaryLineker for condemning the cruel and evil ‘stop the boats’ policy".
He is as dishonest as ever. Lineker has not been cracked down on for condemning a govt policy. He’s been taken to task for how he did it. Other BBC staff have condemned it without a murmur,
It has been misrepresented as a Nazi slur. It wasn't. The Board of Deputies of British Jews are on side with Lineker, although the accusation is the Board has been taken over by the "left", so as you were.
So there’s dishonest misrepresentation all around then. It doesn’t make the hypocritical Campbells comment any less dishonest.
Incidentally has Lineker, or anyone else spouting about 'dehumanizing' or '1930s Germany', said anything constructive about what to do with refugees / illegal immigrants ?
What another brilliant triumph for this government this is turning out to be.
Strikes me that it’s the sort of thing that is firing up the people who hate the government anyway (as shown by the general comment spread on here).
Its a desperate strategy from a failing govt. They have been in power 13 years. Any immigration failure they own.
I’m not talking about the immigration issue per se, I’m talking about the Lineker suspension related to it.
Obviously it angers people who don’t like the government because the government is rubbish and this just shows again how rubbish they are. The key issue is how this is going down with the average voter.I suspect that they are not quite as rage-filled at the BBC/Tory Party on this topic as people on here seem to think they are, but that is just my opinion.
Comments
Complete with slow motion replays of the de robing of course (I have heard they all have big knobs or was that are rather than have
@SholaMos1
That Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Home Secretary Suella Braverman are the Brown faces of a Tory ‘Nazi ‘Britain is unspeakably shameful.
https://twitter.com/SholaMos1/status/1633439925340102657
Another Lehman's-style canary in the coalmine, or a drop in oceania?
The BBC do however have a very beady eye on sales abroad. The Clarkson broom-broom show was very popular in Oz - I remember being on an Adelaide-Sydney flight when it was put on the screen - most of the males on the plane were laughing out loud.
https://twitter.com/bmay/status/1633362816613642240
He never said the policy was Nazi. He said the language was similar to 1930s Germany and it is.
Financial markets have the memory of a goldfish with dementia coupled with the fortitude of headless chickens.
Markets look a bit toppy to me, so I have done some profit taking and shifted to a more defensive position.
Does anyone think the BBC hierarchy is "Neutral" in its consistent treatment of Sugar and Lineker Political tweets
We all know who was in office in 1930s Germany. And that their language and policy were one and the same.
People aren't stupid.
The place he's probably least well known is the US. Because that's Americans.
One that Garry Lineker doesn't have.
There's probably 100k blokes who would pay £100 to give their views on Bournemouth vs Brentford.
Nonetheless the central claim is true (and this is what @foxy disputed) - the American bombing of the jungle was so heavy it made eyeballs pop out of skulls by sheer concussive power. Allegedly
It has nothing to do with free speech.
I know you are utterly ignorant of Scotland, but you don't have to prove it daily.
Abortion and gay marriage - unlike your state church - are *already* permitted in Scotland.
So going on
and on
and on
and on
and on
about it three or more times daily is completely pointless.
These are dark days for Europe, and we may not be able to find out whether Forfar Athletic beat Cowdenbeath over tea and muffins, as the late winter twilight arrives.
It wasn't a "Nazi Tweet". The Mail is lying!
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!
"Alan Sugar’s post was outrageous 1,000 times worse and the BBC did absolutely nothing yet they’ll crack down against @GaryLineker for condemning the cruel and evil ‘stop the boats’ policy".
It’s not unusual for an employer to take action against an employee it feels has published things they shouldn’t* on social media. I think therefore this is slightly more nuanced than just a concept of free speech vs cancel culture. By seemingly making it an impartiality argument rather than a “this comment was offensive”* argument, it makes the whole thing murkier because again, the BBC has no clear and consistent policy on staff impartiality and as others have pointed out on here, where do you draw the line?
*I do think the key thing here though is whether you can say the comment was so offensive as to warrant disciplinary action. The Godwinning of it is the issue I suspect, but I am not sure that what was said was all that offensive. A bit close to the bone perhaps.
I do fear for all these individuals who have pulled out of broadcasting in “solidarity” though. Feels to me like we’re going to have a big left v right scuffle on our hands and I suspect the BBC will not be able to back down. We may realise when all the coverage is broadcast that these particular individuals don’t add much by way of value to the programming content…
Historically, the Beeb has form for saying that the show is the thing, not the star. See Simon Dee, Bruce Forsyth and Jeremy Clarkson. Their problem here is that it rather looks like their football people are all choosing to be on Team Gary. That's much harder to fix. But we saw with knee-taking that football is a hotbed of wokery.
How long before Gary is persuaded to give a "sorry if I caused offence for likening government language to 1930's Germany" non-apology?
It's a very clear example of the corrosive effect that Twitter can have on your psychy.
I expect he is in no doubt whatsoever that everyone agrees with him, except hideous racists.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zkdvnrd
For all its strengths I'm not sure these sorts of debates show pb at its best.
Yeah, right
Or maybe not.
Attempting to Cancel David Attenborough is truly astonishing, and the world knows that Gary Lineker has opinions, its what they pay him for, and even if he was a bit too forthright, to make a martyr of him is quite stunningly stupid. I think the backlash to the backlash may lead to a yet further fall in Conservative fortunes. The truth is, they have lost the plot: either this is an accident, in which case they are incompetent, or deliberate in which case they are malevolent.
Widening access to rivers over private property rights could be construed as slightly left-wing, cleaning up rivers is basically centrist, and I've advocated for better bathing access but balanced that it would be abused in many places and could make pollution worse again. I've seen how 'not give a shit' many people are these days about litter, their own messages, and that their dogs, whose coats are often treated with chemicals to delouse them, have the right to do whatever they like wherever they please.
I've basically advocated an increase in access balanced by environmentalism - not exactly Harry Enfield, is it?
I can only conclude you either replied to the wrong post, didn't read my post, decided you're sore over the Scottish polling and wanted to rib a Tory for any reason whatsoever, with no context, or that you're a bit of a tool.
Or possibly all of the above.
Is that a new thing in London? Been a feature of Scottish politics for a couple of decades, in fact probably a lot longer than that.
As discussed yesterday, the political appointments of Michael Checkland, John Birt and, to a lesser extent, Greg Dyke, all damaged the BBC, in some ways. Dyke made few changes compared to Birt, though, and even decelerated the movement of intellect and culture away from the BBC slightly.
I know this was your industry before you retired from the whole tampon thing, so I am happy to be educated, but are you sure this is right?
£2m is what a famous actor will make from a pretty big movie
This is often done by saying how filled with hatred the people you hate are.
Perhaps this has always been the case but twatter enables everything to be so much louder and more immediate now.
Obviously it angers people who don’t like the government because the government is rubbish and this just shows again how rubbish they are. The key issue is how this is going down with the average voter.I suspect that they are not quite as rage-filled at the BBC/Tory Party on this topic as people on here seem to think they are, but that is just my opinion.