The funny thing is you can just imagine the kind of discussion that took place.
"Prime Minister, in line with your cunning plan of getting tough with migrants to win back the racist vote, let's really get the BBC to crack the whip against broadcasters who aren't toeing the line. Good idea?"
Sunak grins inanely.
Phone call to BBC ...
.. And now this ...
It may have been a distraction tactic on their part to get Sunak bunging the French £500mn in return for being smiled at for a couple of hours off the front pages.
I'd imagine the Government were hoping for the Macron-Sunak deal to be leading on all the Sunday front pages. Now no-one is going to notice.
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 proposed legislation than most . Hence he doesn't feel any reason to back down.
The funny thing is you can just imagine the kind of discussion that took place.
"Prime Minister, in line with your cunning plan of getting tough with migrants to win back the racist vote, let's really get the BBC to crack the whip against broadcasters who aren't toeing the line. Good idea?"
Sunak grins inanely.
Phone call to BBC ...
.. And now this ...
It may have been a distraction tactic on their part to get Sunak bunging the French £500mn in return for being smiled at for a couple of hours off the front pages.
If they had any sense, yes. But I suspect that they thought paying half a billion - for what the right-wing press had been saying the French should have been doing all along, as a matter of absolute duty - would be some kind of public relations triumph.
I wonder how many times Sunak grinned inanely at Macron during the negotiations.
Haven't seen any PB Tories quoting Kipling: not that I think it is modern Danegeld, but some folk sure will:
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say: –
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!"
We paid Dane-geld when we paid the Americans compensation for the Alabama affair. And that was in our pomp. Arguably we should have told them to fuck off then too.
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.
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.
I don't believe this is quite true. I believe he took a couple, each for a 2-3 weeks. I don't think he has turned into some who have housed refugees week in week out for years e.g. the couple that housed the guy who blew himself up in Liverpool.
e.g. Gary explained how he went through the screening process before Rasheed came to stay with him for a total of three weeks.
Today, we have learnt that Lefties are thick, predictable, stupid, herd-like, hyberbolic, surprisingly sensitive, entirely lacking in self-awareness, dumb, possess no sense of irony, hysterical, brainless, and enthusiastic sheep.
Actually, maybe we already knew that.
Did I mention they were idiots?
Anyway, my day beckons.
Happy frothing everyone.
Sounds like it's you that's losing it, yet again.
He'll tell you or me to fuck off or challenge us to a fight soon.
Which you richly deserved.
You drove two friends of mine off the site- @Charles and @Cyclefree - who I know in real life, and you've been personally abusive to me (repeatedly) for no reason other than the fact you dislike my politics.
I am sympathetic to the fact you have mental health issues - and I don't want anyone to suffer from that - but your needy behaviour where you are desperate to be both right and liked (coupled with nastiness and abuse on top) is totally unacceptable - and has real world impacts - and doesn't get a free pass from me for its impact on people I care about. You more than anyone should know that.
Yes, Ishmael told Charles that he knew some of his cousins and they were nowhere near as pompous and name-dropping as he was. Charles took umbrage and departed.
I don’t like it when anyone leaves, or gets banned. Even if I find them obnoxious, PB is a pub and a pub needs people
@charles is much missed. Quite wise and thoughtful
And yes @IshmaelZ could be a little vituperative and nasty, esp after a drink, but he was also clever and witty and had refreshingly unusual opinions
I accept that Holocaust Denial is right up there in the list of modern social sins but if you believe in free speech you believe in free speech. And I do. Also he was a nice guy in private communication and an actual genius in some of his political analysis
The BBC's long-running Radio 5 Live show Fighting Talk, where guests compete for points, has also been pulled from Saturday's scheduling. In a tweet , presenter Colin Murray said: "No Fighting Talk today, for obvious reasons. In the interest of transparency, this was a decision taken by the entire FT team and myself."
Never heard of it, but apparently still within the sports area. The BBC must be praying that news and current affairs staff don't get in on the act.
Don’t they have anyone who is actually on the payroll and required to go to work? Actually, surely a lot of these freelancers are in breach of contract if they had previously agreed to turn up?
And who knows? Perhaps the BBC's contract with Gary Lineker doesn't just entitle the BBC to do what the hell it likes? I hope we'll find out.
Erm, those things are not the same. The BBC can choose to still pay him if there’s any legal risk, but not have him on screen. For the pundits I would find it surprising if they can just choose not to turn up without there being any consequences beyond a loss of pay that day.
If you've seen the contracts, please do enlighten us. It would be very interesting.
If you're just guessing, not so much ...
Why are you deciding to be prick? Are you assuming I’m defending the government or in favour of him being sacked, because neither is the case. Read my posts, to the extent I’ve even touched on the issue at all.
Why is everyone so prickly on here today? This is all froth and trivia about tv personalities.
My first point is obvious - he can’t have a contract that guarantees him tv time. The second is almost as obvious to anyone who has ever dealt with these sorts of contracts.
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.
I don't believe this is quite true. I believe he took a couple, each for a 2-3 weeks.
e.g. Gary explained how he went through the screening process before Rasheed came to stay with him for a total of three weeks.
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.
The funny thing is you can just imagine the kind of discussion that took place.
"Prime Minister, in line with your cunning plan of getting tough with migrants to win back the racist vote, let's really get the BBC to crack the whip against broadcasters who aren't toeing the line. Good idea?"
Sunak grins inanely.
Phone call to BBC ...
.. And now this ...
It may have been a distraction tactic on their part to get Sunak bunging the French £500mn in return for being smiled at for a couple of hours off the front pages.
If they had any sense, yes. But I suspect that they thought paying half a billion - for what the right-wing press had been saying the French should have been doing all along, as a matter of absolute duty - would be some kind of public relations triumph.
I wonder how many times Sunak grinned inanely at Macron during the negotiations.
Haven't seen any PB Tories quoting Kipling: not that I think it is modern Danegeld, but some folk sure will:
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say: –
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!"
We paid Dane-geld when we paid the Americans compensation for the Alabama affair. And that was in our pomp. Arguably we should have told them to fuck off then too.
I'm pretty sure the minimal amount paid was made up for many times over by the discounted interest rates on WW2 loans. But I know you start from a position of "America is always to blame for everything" and work backwards from there.
But yes I don't doubt the users in question are posting in some form, this site is hard to resist, I am sure many of us are slightly obsessed with it
Yes. It's a pub with some wacky characters in it. A fight in the corner. Earnest discussions on rail gauges at one table. A bit of politics. Some very distinctive characters. Never boring. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDpDhofRoXA
A great array of Scotches with associated expertise..
And now it seems a whole BBC radio station has gone off the air: We have an update on the BBC's radio station, 5 Live, which would normally be covering today's football matches, including commentary and punditry. A senior source from the programme said "5 Live's sports programmes are currently being impacted and we are running recorded content".
They could replay that 7-0 Liverpool v Man Utd game, over and over again....
The funny thing is you can just imagine the kind of discussion that took place.
"Prime Minister, in line with your cunning plan of getting tough with migrants to win back the racist vote, let's really get the BBC to crack the whip against broadcasters who aren't toeing the line. Good idea?"
Sunak grins inanely.
Phone call to BBC ...
.. And now this ...
It may have been a distraction tactic on their part to get Sunak bunging the French £500mn in return for being smiled at for a couple of hours off the front pages.
If they had any sense, yes. But I suspect that they thought paying half a billion - for what the right-wing press had been saying the French should have been doing all along, as a matter of absolute duty - would be some kind of public relations triumph.
I wonder how many times Sunak grinned inanely at Macron during the negotiations.
Haven't seen any PB Tories quoting Kipling: not that I think it is modern Danegeld, but some folk sure will:
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say: –
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!"
We paid Dane-geld when we paid the Americans compensation for the Alabama affair. And that was in our pomp. Arguably we should have told them to fuck off then too.
I'm pretty sure the minimal amount paid was made up for many times over by the discounted interest rates on WW2 loans. But I know you start from a position of "America is always to blame for everything" and work backwards from there.
It’s the absolute childishness of all this that astonishes. The Tories are not like 1930s Germany and cancelling the BBC Singers is not the new Belsen
We have all been infantilised by social media. I wonder if it is literally lowering IQs. It is certainly coarsening and trivialising political debate
It seems to me iqs have fallen dramatically since 2020...maybe the stress of covid has taken its toll.
It's all down to anti-social media. Trivial spats are magnified, users are encouraged to be angry about everything and there's a complete overload of information, much of which is irrelevant, distorted or downright false.
But yes I don't doubt the users in question are posting in some form, this site is hard to resist, I am sure many of us are slightly obsessed with it
Yes. It's a pub with some wacky characters in it. A fight in the corner. Earnest discussions on rail gauges at one table. A bit of politics. Some very distinctive characters. Never boring. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDpDhofRoXA
A great array of Scotches with associated expertise..
Indeed, who can forget the Scotch expert who said there wasn't a cat in hell's chance of Kate Forbes standing to succeed Sturgeon?
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.
Today, we have learnt that Lefties are thick, predictable, stupid, herd-like, hyberbolic, surprisingly sensitive, entirely lacking in self-awareness, dumb, possess no sense of irony, hysterical, brainless, and enthusiastic sheep.
Actually, maybe we already knew that.
Did I mention they were idiots?
Anyway, my day beckons.
Happy frothing everyone.
Sounds like it's you that's losing it, yet again.
He'll tell you or me to fuck off or challenge us to a fight soon.
Which you richly deserved.
You drove two friends of mine off the site- @Charles and @Cyclefree - who I know in real life, and you've been personally abusive to me (repeatedly) for no reason other than the fact you dislike my politics.
I am sympathetic to the fact you have mental health issues - and I don't want anyone to suffer from that - but your needy behaviour where you are desperate to be both right and liked (coupled with nastiness and abuse on top) is totally unacceptable - and has real world impacts - and doesn't get a free pass from me for its impact on people I care about. You more than anyone should know that.
Sorry.
Reconsider your attitude and your life.
You can start by apologising and making amends.
You need help. I hope you're able to get it as it helped me out with my mental health issues that it seems you are also going through. Really hope you're able to sort it out in time. Good luck.
You're projecting your own issues on me.
Your bad behaviour has corroded the site, and royally wound me up. That's your problem not mine.
Stop it. You can apologise anytime. You can also approach me privately if you're too embarrassed to do it publicly.
I won't mind.
Come on, trying to deflect it all onto CHB is a bit of a cop out. You have had totally OTT rants about an advert at Waterloo station, a local bookshop recommending a book you consider woke, a local pub that's now offering more non-meat options etc. It really is not normal behaviour to go off on one over trivial issues like that. You post reasonable comments most of the time but it doesn't take much for the red mist to descend.
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.
... Gary could you please say sorry for comparisons to Nazi Germany ...
Don't you see that was the point?
Yes, but I think it was overline, like Clarkson's tits and dragons comment and some of Morgan's way of expressing his disgust at Megan Merkle detachment form the truth. But regardless of if it was or wasn't, the obvious classical political fudge would be to say sorry if I caused offense to those who suffered under the Nazis, I will be more careful when criticising others, but I stand by my position that the government's policy is flawed.
Job done, we all move on, face saved all round.
It has rather descended into the sort of behaviour you see on the playground.
Without wanting to sound like a broken record the Nazi comparison was to the language being used not the policy. I'd like to know which words he was referring to - swarm, swamp, invasion? Has anyone from government actually responded directly to this? Explained why such language is okay or denied the use of such language? All I've heard so far is how comparisons with 1930s Germany is insulting. Sorry but that's a cop out. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to show concern about rhetoric without being seen as making a moral equivalence between Nazi Germany and the Tories.
There is a whole separate issue of the BBC's policy on impartiality and whether any/all of its employees can say political things outside work. As for the culture wars I don't give a s***.
Today, we have learnt that Lefties are thick, predictable, stupid, herd-like, hyberbolic, surprisingly sensitive, entirely lacking in self-awareness, dumb, possess no sense of irony, hysterical, brainless, and enthusiastic sheep.
Actually, maybe we already knew that.
Did I mention they were idiots?
Anyway, my day beckons.
Happy frothing everyone.
Sounds like it's you that's losing it, yet again.
He'll tell you or me to fuck off or challenge us to a fight soon.
Which you richly deserved.
You drove two friends of mine off the site- @Charles and @Cyclefree - who I know in real life, and you've been personally abusive to me (repeatedly) for no reason other than the fact you dislike my politics.
I am sympathetic to the fact you have mental health issues - and I don't want anyone to suffer from that - but your needy behaviour where you are desperate to be both right and liked (coupled with nastiness and abuse on top) is totally unacceptable - and has real world impacts - and doesn't get a free pass from me for its impact on people I care about. You more than anyone should know that.
Yes, Ishmael told Charles that he knew some of his cousins and they were nowhere near as pompous and name-dropping as he was. Charles took umbrage and departed.
I don’t like it when anyone leaves, or gets banned. Even if I find them obnoxious, PB is a pub and a pub needs people
@charles is much missed. Quite wise and thoughtful
And yes @IshmaelZ could be a little vituperative and nasty, esp after a drink, but he was also clever and witty and had refreshingly unusual opinions
I accept that Holocaust Denial is right up there in the list of modern social sins but if you believe in free speech you believe in free speech. And I do. Also he was a nice guy in private communication and an actual genius in some of his political analysis
Disagreed with most of Isam's politics but I'd have assumed he'd always be a straight arrow when it came to betting. Disappointing.
Yep, and I should correct what I said so as not to slander him. He's gone cos of being banned and he only owes me IF the GE produces PM Starmer. Looks a dead cert but hasn't happened yet. And when it does, Isam might pop back and pay up. If so, I'll be so impressed I'll probably let him off!
The BBC's long-running Radio 5 Live show Fighting Talk, where guests compete for points, has also been pulled from Saturday's scheduling. In a tweet , presenter Colin Murray said: "No Fighting Talk today, for obvious reasons. In the interest of transparency, this was a decision taken by the entire FT team and myself."
Never heard of it, but apparently still within the sports area. The BBC must be praying that news and current affairs staff don't get in on the act.
Don’t they have anyone who is actually on the payroll and required to go to work? Actually, surely a lot of these freelancers are in breach of contract if they had previously agreed to turn up?
And who knows? Perhaps the BBC's contract with Gary Lineker doesn't just entitle the BBC to do what the hell it likes? I hope we'll find out.
Erm, those things are not the same. The BBC can choose to still pay him if there’s any legal risk, but not have him on screen. For the pundits I would find it surprising if they can just choose not to turn up without there being any consequences beyond a loss of pay that day.
If you've seen the contracts, please do enlighten us. It would be very interesting.
If you're just guessing, not so much ...
Why are you deciding to be prick? Are you assuming I’m defending the government or in favour of him being sacked, because neither is the case. Read my posts, to the extent I’ve even touched on the issue at all.
Why is everyone so prickly on here today? This is all froth and trivia about tv personalities.
My first point is obvious - he can’t have a contract that guarantees him tv time. The second is almost as obvious to anyone who has ever dealt with these sorts of contracts.
Obviously my point was that it would be interesting to see whether his contract really forbade him from expressing personal opinions in other places.
As for the name-calling, it's like water off a duck's back, I assure you.
The funny thing is you can just imagine the kind of discussion that took place.
"Prime Minister, in line with your cunning plan of getting tough with migrants to win back the racist vote, let's really get the BBC to crack the whip against broadcasters who aren't toeing the line. Good idea?"
Sunak grins inanely.
Phone call to BBC ...
.. And now this ...
It may have been a distraction tactic on their part to get Sunak bunging the French £500mn in return for being smiled at for a couple of hours off the front pages.
If they had any sense, yes. But I suspect that they thought paying half a billion - for what the right-wing press had been saying the French should have been doing all along, as a matter of absolute duty - would be some kind of public relations triumph.
I wonder how many times Sunak grinned inanely at Macron during the negotiations.
Haven't seen any PB Tories quoting Kipling: not that I think it is modern Danegeld, but some folk sure will:
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say: –
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!"
We paid Dane-geld when we paid the Americans compensation for the Alabama affair. And that was in our pomp. Arguably we should have told them to fuck off then too.
I'm pretty sure the minimal amount paid was made up for many times over by the discounted interest rates on WW2 loans. But I know you start from a position of "America is always to blame for everything" and work backwards from there.
A much better example of American generosity at that time is the $3.5 billion in Marshall Aid, 90% of which was a gift rather than a loan.
No other country in history had ever been so generous - Churchill was right when he called it the most unsordid act in history.
The funny thing is you can just imagine the kind of discussion that took place.
"Prime Minister, in line with your cunning plan of getting tough with migrants to win back the racist vote, let's really get the BBC to crack the whip against broadcasters who aren't toeing the line. Good idea?"
Sunak grins inanely.
Phone call to BBC ...
.. And now this ...
It may have been a distraction tactic on their part to get Sunak bunging the French £500mn in return for being smiled at for a couple of hours off the front pages.
If they had any sense, yes. But I suspect that they thought paying half a billion - for what the right-wing press had been saying the French should have been doing all along, as a matter of absolute duty - would be some kind of public relations triumph.
I wonder how many times Sunak grinned inanely at Macron during the negotiations.
Haven't seen any PB Tories quoting Kipling: not that I think it is modern Danegeld, but some folk sure will:
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say: –
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!"
We paid Dane-geld when we paid the Americans compensation for the Alabama affair. And that was in our pomp. Arguably we should have told them to fuck off then too.
I'm pretty sure the minimal amount paid was made up for many times over by the discounted interest rates on WW2 loans. But I know you start from a position of "America is always to blame for everything" and work backwards from there.
'Discounted interest rates' - do fuck off.
Perhaps you can suggest which other lenders on the market would provide the loans at a similar rate? The subsidy was massive.
Or is this one of the cases where America should have just given the money as gifts rather than loans? Their behaviour was unreasonable in your eyes. I hate to think how you would have reacted had, say, half of Britain tried to breakway to maintain slavery and America had provided warships to support the effort. That's only ok if the British do it, right?
Today, we have learnt that Lefties are thick, predictable, stupid, herd-like, hyberbolic, surprisingly sensitive, entirely lacking in self-awareness, dumb, possess no sense of irony, hysterical, brainless, and enthusiastic sheep.
Actually, maybe we already knew that.
Did I mention they were idiots?
Anyway, my day beckons.
Happy frothing everyone.
Sounds like it's you that's losing it, yet again.
He'll tell you or me to fuck off or challenge us to a fight soon.
Which you richly deserved.
You drove two friends of mine off the site- @Charles and @Cyclefree - who I know in real life, and you've been personally abusive to me (repeatedly) for no reason other than the fact you dislike my politics.
I am sympathetic to the fact you have mental health issues - and I don't want anyone to suffer from that - but your needy behaviour where you are desperate to be both right and liked (coupled with nastiness and abuse on top) is totally unacceptable - and has real world impacts - and doesn't get a free pass from me for its impact on people I care about. You more than anyone should know that.
Sorry.
Reconsider your attitude and your life.
You can start by apologising and making amends.
What's happened to cyclefree ?
PB would be definitely the worse without her.
She quit below the line, in large part because of the behaviour of @CorrectHorseBattery
He seems to be struggling to accept this.
NB. What does “quit below the line” mean in this context?
Presumably that she still retains the right to write headers.
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.
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.
I don't understand why people get so arsey about comments on a website where you can pretty much be as anonymous as you want. It's even funnier when people moan about arsey comments on social media, whilst demanding apologies and retribution on this social media site....
The BBC's long-running Radio 5 Live show Fighting Talk, where guests compete for points, has also been pulled from Saturday's scheduling. In a tweet , presenter Colin Murray said: "No Fighting Talk today, for obvious reasons. In the interest of transparency, this was a decision taken by the entire FT team and myself."
Never heard of it, but apparently still within the sports area. The BBC must be praying that news and current affairs staff don't get in on the act.
Don’t they have anyone who is actually on the payroll and required to go to work? Actually, surely a lot of these freelancers are in breach of contract if they had previously agreed to turn up?
And who knows? Perhaps the BBC's contract with Gary Lineker doesn't just entitle the BBC to do what the hell it likes? I hope we'll find out.
Erm, those things are not the same. The BBC can choose to still pay him if there’s any legal risk, but not have him on screen. For the pundits I would find it surprising if they can just choose not to turn up without there being any consequences beyond a loss of pay that day.
If you've seen the contracts, please do enlighten us. It would be very interesting.
If you're just guessing, not so much ...
Why are you deciding to be prick? Are you assuming I’m defending the government or in favour of him being sacked, because neither is the case. Read my posts, to the extent I’ve even touched on the issue at all.
Why is everyone so prickly on here today? This is all froth and trivia about tv personalities.
My first point is obvious - he can’t have a contract that guarantees him tv time. The second is almost as obvious to anyone who has ever dealt with these sorts of contracts.
Obviously my point was that it would be interesting to see whether his contract really forbade him from expressing personal opinions in other places.
As for the name-calling, it's like water off a duck's back, I assure you.
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.
But those have nothing to do with the current dispute.
It’s the absolute childishness of all this that astonishes. The Tories are not like 1930s Germany and cancelling the BBC Singers is not the new Belsen
We have all been infantilised by social media. I wonder if it is literally lowering IQs. It is certainly coarsening and trivialising political debate
It seems to me iqs have fallen dramatically since 2020...maybe the stress of covid has taken its toll.
It's all down to anti-social media. Trivial spats are magnified, users are encouraged to be angry about everything and there's a complete overload of information, much of which is irrelevant, distorted or downright false.
Unfortunately people deal so much more in absolutes on social media as well, it feels to me.
I often feel rather politically homeless because I can see both sides of a lot of recent issues (although I think the government is useless, clapped out, self-serving and deserves to lose the next GE). Unfortunately it feels like you have to be in one camp or the other, or you just don’t belong.
Case in point: Lineker. Do I think what he said was unacceptable? Not really, possibly a bit close to the bone. Do i think he should get sacked for it? No. Do I think the outrage and boycotting now happening is a proportionate response? Not at all.
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.
Is Lineker a socialist?
No he is just culturally left wing a typical bbc employee in other words.
It’s the absolute childishness of all this that astonishes. The Tories are not like 1930s Germany and cancelling the BBC Singers is not the new Belsen
We have all been infantilised by social media. I wonder if it is literally lowering IQs. It is certainly coarsening and trivialising political debate
It seems to me iqs have fallen dramatically since 2020...maybe the stress of covid has taken its toll.
It's all down to anti-social media. Trivial spats are magnified, users are encouraged to be angry about everything and there's a complete overload of information, much of which is irrelevant, distorted or downright false.
Unfortunately people deal so much more in absolutes on social media as well, it feels to me.
I often feel rather politically homeless because I can see both sides of a lot of recent issues (although I think the government is useless, clapped out, self-serving and deserves to lose the next GE). Unfortunately it feels like you have to be in one camp or the other, or you just don’t belong.
I feel like there is an iteration of the Tory Party I could vote for - but they seem intent on destroying it.
The funny thing is you can just imagine the kind of discussion that took place.
"Prime Minister, in line with your cunning plan of getting tough with migrants to win back the racist vote, let's really get the BBC to crack the whip against broadcasters who aren't toeing the line. Good idea?"
Sunak grins inanely.
Phone call to BBC ...
.. And now this ...
It may have been a distraction tactic on their part to get Sunak bunging the French £500mn in return for being smiled at for a couple of hours off the front pages.
If they had any sense, yes. But I suspect that they thought paying half a billion - for what the right-wing press had been saying the French should have been doing all along, as a matter of absolute duty - would be some kind of public relations triumph.
I wonder how many times Sunak grinned inanely at Macron during the negotiations.
Haven't seen any PB Tories quoting Kipling: not that I think it is modern Danegeld, but some folk sure will:
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say: –
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!"
We paid Dane-geld when we paid the Americans compensation for the Alabama affair. And that was in our pomp. Arguably we should have told them to fuck off then too.
I'm pretty sure the minimal amount paid was made up for many times over by the discounted interest rates on WW2 loans. But I know you start from a position of "America is always to blame for everything" and work backwards from there.
A much better example of American generosity at that time is the $3.5 billion in Marshall Aid, which was a gift rather than a loan.
No other country in history had ever been so generous - Churchill was right when he called it the most unsordid act in history.
Yes, the massive amounts pumped into West Germany were quite something, but hey, Britain got 'reduced interest rates', so there's that.
The BBC's long-running Radio 5 Live show Fighting Talk, where guests compete for points, has also been pulled from Saturday's scheduling. In a tweet , presenter Colin Murray said: "No Fighting Talk today, for obvious reasons. In the interest of transparency, this was a decision taken by the entire FT team and myself."
Never heard of it, but apparently still within the sports area. The BBC must be praying that news and current affairs staff don't get in on the act.
Don’t they have anyone who is actually on the payroll and required to go to work? Actually, surely a lot of these freelancers are in breach of contract if they had previously agreed to turn up?
And who knows? Perhaps the BBC's contract with Gary Lineker doesn't just entitle the BBC to do what the hell it likes? I hope we'll find out.
Erm, those things are not the same. The BBC can choose to still pay him if there’s any legal risk, but not have him on screen. For the pundits I would find it surprising if they can just choose not to turn up without there being any consequences beyond a loss of pay that day.
If you've seen the contracts, please do enlighten us. It would be very interesting.
If you're just guessing, not so much ...
Why are you deciding to be prick? Are you assuming I’m defending the government or in favour of him being sacked, because neither is the case. Read my posts, to the extent I’ve even touched on the issue at all.
Why is everyone so prickly on here today? This is all froth and trivia about tv personalities.
My first point is obvious - he can’t have a contract that guarantees him tv time. The second is almost as obvious to anyone who has ever dealt with these sorts of contracts.
Obviously my point was that it would be interesting to see whether his contract really forbade him from expressing personal opinions in other places.
As for the name-calling, it's like water off a duck's back, I assure you.
I didn’t say it did…..
So why the name-calling?
(Edit - ah, sorry, missed your edit in which you called me something you were too cowardly to spell out. Enough said!)
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.
Is Lineker a socialist?
No he is just culturally left wing a typical bbc employee in other words.
See yesterday's thread. The typical BBC administrator is increasingly Tory.
It’s the absolute childishness of all this that astonishes. The Tories are not like 1930s Germany and cancelling the BBC Singers is not the new Belsen
We have all been infantilised by social media. I wonder if it is literally lowering IQs. It is certainly coarsening and trivialising political debate
It seems to me iqs have fallen dramatically since 2020...maybe the stress of covid has taken its toll.
It's all down to anti-social media. Trivial spats are magnified, users are encouraged to be angry about everything and there's a complete overload of information, much of which is irrelevant, distorted or downright false.
Unfortunately people deal so much more in absolutes on social media as well, it feels to me.
I often feel rather politically homeless because I can see both sides of a lot of recent issues (although I think the government is useless, clapped out, self-serving and deserves to lose the next GE). Unfortunately it feels like you have to be in one camp or the other, or you just don’t belong.
Maybe its people not getting enough sex . Arent 30% of young men celibate now.
Is this something that the BBC would now intervene in re Lord Sugar? Or are the rules different for Match of the Day (sport) and The Apprentice (business/gameshow)?
Lord Sugar literally backed a candidate for PM whilst working for the BBC.
Can anyone defending the BBC honestly justify Sugar's continued employment?
It’s the absolute childishness of all this that astonishes. The Tories are not like 1930s Germany and cancelling the BBC Singers is not the new Belsen
We have all been infantilised by social media. I wonder if it is literally lowering IQs. It is certainly coarsening and trivialising political debate
It seems to me iqs have fallen dramatically since 2020...maybe the stress of covid has taken its toll.
It's all down to anti-social media. Trivial spats are magnified, users are encouraged to be angry about everything and there's a complete overload of information, much of which is irrelevant, distorted or downright false.
Unfortunately people deal so much more in absolutes on social media as well, it feels to me.
I often feel rather politically homeless because I can see both sides of a lot of recent issues (although I think the government is useless, clapped out, self-serving and deserves to lose the next GE). Unfortunately it feels like you have to be in one camp or the other, or you just don’t belong.
In addition to limitations on characters, its because social media algorithms are built to amplify the extremes. Its very difficult for anybody who is nuanced to be stand out among this.
One interesting observation I heard somebody bring up a while ago was at one point most social media you could only reply / comment directly to the original post, there was no reply to a reply to a reply, and thus it is much more difficult for arguments to spiral into shut up you racist Nazi...
I believe they did some research looking at replies to Obama's social media, pre and post this introduction and the level of discourse worsened significantly post its introduction.
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.
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.
Is Lineker a socialist?
No he is just culturally left wing a typical bbc employee in other words.
See yesterday's thread. The typical BBC administrator is increasingly Tory.
I couldn't give a toss if the BBC employees are left wing or not. What I care about is them reporting the news in a factual way which is increasingly being removed.
And to be fair New Labour tried the same thing with Iraq.
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.
Colin Murray has been very clear on this. It isn't just about presenters. It's about the whole team. You could get a pundit, but nobody to provide a script, lighting or cameras? Radio 4 just reported LFC one down at Bournemouth. There was no reporter to hear from quite how or why that was so.
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.
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"
“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.
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.
Colin Murray has been very clear on this. It isn't just about presenters. It's about the whole team. You could get a pundit, but nobody to provide a script, lighting or cameras? Radio 4 just reported LFC one down at Bournemouth. There was no reporter to hear from quite how or why that was so.
Have we talked about the SNP leadership election recently?...
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.
They have got themselves in a weird position. Turning down free coverage of golf, while paying for second tier MMA (then only to shove it only on iPlayer, with little to no promotion).
Then they try and have a website that covers everything, but it is increasingly jack of all trades, master of none. There is little insight or quality analysis.
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.
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"
Maybe the bbc can bring Tucker Carlson over and turn themselves into fox news.
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.
It is "running recorded content".
Well, that's a bit more significant than Final Score not being on.
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.
The funny thing is you can just imagine the kind of discussion that took place.
"Prime Minister, in line with your cunning plan of getting tough with migrants to win back the racist vote, let's really get the BBC to crack the whip against broadcasters who aren't toeing the line. Good idea?"
Sunak grins inanely.
Phone call to BBC ...
.. And now this ...
It may have been a distraction tactic on their part to get Sunak bunging the French £500mn in return for being smiled at for a couple of hours off the front pages.
If they had any sense, yes. But I suspect that they thought paying half a billion - for what the right-wing press had been saying the French should have been doing all along, as a matter of absolute duty - would be some kind of public relations triumph.
I wonder how many times Sunak grinned inanely at Macron during the negotiations.
Haven't seen any PB Tories quoting Kipling: not that I think it is modern Danegeld, but some folk sure will:
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray; So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say: –
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost; For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!"
We paid Dane-geld when we paid the Americans compensation for the Alabama affair. And that was in our pomp. Arguably we should have told them to fuck off then too.
I'm pretty sure the minimal amount paid was made up for many times over by the discounted interest rates on WW2 loans. But I know you start from a position of "America is always to blame for everything" and work backwards from there.
A much better example of American generosity at that time is the $3.5 billion in Marshall Aid, which was a gift rather than a loan.
No other country in history had ever been so generous - Churchill was right when he called it the most unsordid act in history.
Yes, the massive amounts pumped into West Germany were quite something, but hey, Britain got 'reduced interest rates', so there's that.
West Germany received $1.7billion in Marshall Aid. Britain received $2.7billion.
And of course, lend-lease was another $26 billion, net.
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.
But those have nothing to do with the current dispute.
No, but that was in response to Foster, who took exception to my sarcasm.
Anyway, I don't think the BBC should have sacked Lineker for 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
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.
That's not true. You can be defending the principle of him being able to speak out, without agreeing with his comments.
“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.
I think the second was the position they tried to go for, Gary can you apologise for causing any offense and just reign it in a bit, and then he gave it the big'un, nobody is telling me what to do, I stand by every word, I talk to the top bods regularly and they agree with my ability to say what I like....
The problem the BBC has they have inconsistently enforced their policies in the past, both celebrities who work for them and news people. They have let news people get away with clearly political positioning both on social media and in other outlets, then they have also cracked down on some.
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.
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?
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.
Probably proves to the right wing how left wing most bbc employees are.
Nothing to do with left versus right. It is to do with playing to the BBC's strengths. And however much you love the BBC, you'd be hard pressed to defend its sport offering today.
(Well, not today obvs, as they aren't offering any! But recently....)
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.
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.
They have got themselves in a weird position. Turning down free coverage of golf, while paying for second tier MMA (then only to shove it only on iPlayer, with little to no promotion).
Then they try and have a website that covers everything, but it is increasingly jack of all trades, master of none. There is little insight or quality analysis.
My personal gripe is their losing the hand egg ball to ITV.
Chappers , Jason and Osi was just brilliant Bloke TV. Probably why it was condemned to death....
Still waiting for UnHerd to "challenge the herd" with a refreshing blast of free speech absolutism.
I swear there used to be a fair number of interesting articles on there, but when I've looked in recent times its all been very predictable and repetitive.
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.
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.
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.
Probably proves to the right wing how left wing most bbc employees are.
Nothing to do with left versus right. It is to do with playing to the BBC's strengths. And however much you love the BBC, you'd be hard pressed to defend its sport offering today.
(Well, not today obvs, as they aren't offering any! But recently....)
However. It depends what sports offering you are talking about. If you want comprehensive real time coverage of what's happening in live sport on a Saturday afternoon whilst driving, in the garden or at the gym, then 5 Live is pretty hard to beat.
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.
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.
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.
They have got themselves in a weird position. Turning down free coverage of golf, while paying for second tier MMA (then only to shove it only on iPlayer, with little to no promotion).
Then they try and have a website that covers everything, but it is increasingly jack of all trades, master of none. There is little insight or quality analysis.
My personal gripe is their losing the hand egg ball to ITV.
Chappers , Jason and Osi was just brilliant Bloke TV. Probably why it was condemned to death....
I think it is a wider issue with the BBC that we have discussed endlessly on here. The people who watch it are old, they try to pivot to younger generation and not doing very well, and then they flail about e.g. BBC Three, on / off / on, nobody watches it.
So most recently not taking up the offer of free golf coverage, because youngsters don't watch it, but oldies who do watch the BBC, will watch it.
And then the hand egg, its very popular in the UK, but I think again its lots of middle aged white people like (at least that appears to be the demographic when I have been to the live games). Basketball is the popular US game among urban youth, which I think they show some UK games hidden away somewhere on the website.
And of course we talked about how out of sync with the rest of the industry they are with long term planning of content creation, it gets made when it gets made, versus the one season every year at the same time model.
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 .
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.
But the people concerned are implicitly supporting his statements, and therefore proving that the BBC has an institutional left wing bias.
Some people have been implicitly or explicitly supporting his statements. That is easily dismissed as partisan defence of the 'truth', which is of course subjective.
But that is not all it is. Plenty of people who don't think he was right still think the reaction has been wrong. Or even if they think it technically right, on the standards for BBC employees, it was a bad idea.
I think it has actually been a useful moment for the BBC, though it won't feel like it to them right now. It's shown the pointlessness of trying to rein in big stars who don't work in news, as it only makes things worse (albeit it only looks really bad because the BBC Chair is seriously dodgy and Lineker's bog standard political views are contrasted with that).
If they don't announce an urgent review of their policy and new guidelines for non news staff before next week I will be surprised.
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.
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?
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.
Comments
We have all been infantilised by social media. I wonder if it is literally lowering IQs. It is certainly coarsening and trivialising political debate
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 proposed legislation than most . Hence he doesn't feel any reason to back down.
e.g. Gary explained how he went through the screening process before Rasheed came to stay with him for a total of three weeks.
https://www.itv.com/goodmorningbritain/articles/gary-lineker-housing-a-refugee-and-explains-why-he-did-it-bbc-sir-bobby-charlton
Why is everyone so prickly on here today? This is all froth and trivia about tv personalities.
My first point is obvious - he can’t have a contract that guarantees him tv time. The second is almost as obvious to anyone who has ever dealt with these sorts of contracts.
But I doubt we'll agree who is performing that role here.
You can't possibly be listening to a source other than the BBC?
SCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB!
There is a whole separate issue of the BBC's policy on impartiality and whether any/all of its employees can say political things outside work. As for the culture wars I don't give a s***.
As for the name-calling, it's like water off a duck's back, I assure you.
Could it be that the free speech brigade like what Sugar says?
No other country in history had ever been so generous - Churchill was right when he called it the most unsordid act in history.
And without it, we might even be Communist now.
Or is this one of the cases where America should have just given the money as gifts rather than loans? Their behaviour was unreasonable in your eyes. I hate to think how you would have reacted had, say, half of Britain tried to breakway to maintain slavery and America had provided warships to support the effort. That's only ok if the British do it, right?
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.
Got you. Being a #### is your default.
I often feel rather politically homeless because I can see both sides of a lot of recent issues (although I think the government is useless, clapped out, self-serving and deserves to lose the next GE). Unfortunately it feels like you have to be in one camp or the other, or you just don’t belong.
Case in point: Lineker. Do I think what he said was unacceptable? Not really, possibly a bit close to the bone. Do i think he should get sacked for it? No. Do I think the outrage and boycotting now happening is a proportionate response? Not at all.
The worst of all humanity has touted itself there.
(Edit - ah, sorry, missed your edit in which you called me something you were too cowardly to spell out. Enough said!)
Is this something that the BBC would now intervene in re Lord Sugar? Or are the rules different for Match of the Day (sport) and The Apprentice (business/gameshow)?
Lord Sugar literally backed a candidate for PM whilst working for the BBC.
Can anyone defending the BBC honestly justify Sugar's continued employment?
One interesting observation I heard somebody bring up a while ago was at one point most social media you could only reply / comment directly to the original post, there was no reply to a reply to a reply, and thus it is much more difficult for arguments to spiral into shut up you racist Nazi...
I believe they did some research looking at replies to Obama's social media, pre and post this introduction and the level of discourse worsened significantly post its introduction.
And to be fair New Labour tried the same thing with Iraq.
It's about the whole team. You could get a pundit, but nobody to provide a script, lighting or cameras?
Radio 4 just reported LFC one down at Bournemouth. There was no reporter to hear from quite how or why that was so.
Rejoin: 52% (+5)
Stay out: 30% (-2)
via @Omnisis, 9-10 Mar
(Changes with 3 Mar)
Keep going Rishi.
Which of the following do you think would be the better Prime Minister?
Keir Starmer (LAB): 38% (+2)
Rishi Sunak (CON): 30% (-1)
via @Omnisis, 9-10 Mar
(Changes with 3 Mar)
LAB: 50% (+5)
CON: 26% (=)
LDM: 7% (-4)
REF: 6% (=)
GRN: 5% (-1)
via @Omnisis, 9-10 Mar
(Changes with 3 Mar)
Close it down. Other providers now do it far, far better.
Put the money into original content.
“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.
Then they try and have a website that covers everything, but it is increasingly jack of all trades, master of none. There is little insight or quality analysis.
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.
And of course, lend-lease was another $26 billion, net.
Anyway, I don't think the BBC should have sacked Lineker for this.
The problem the BBC has they have inconsistently enforced their policies in the past, both celebrities who work for them and news people. They have let news people get away with clearly political positioning both on social media and in other outlets, then they have also cracked down on some.
(Well, not today obvs, as they aren't offering any! But recently....)
Have you ever heard of a bloke called Voltaire? If not, Google him.
Chappers , Jason and Osi was just brilliant Bloke TV. Probably why it was condemned to death....
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.
Who knew...
If you want comprehensive real time coverage of what's happening in live sport on a Saturday afternoon whilst driving, in the garden or at the gym, then 5 Live is pretty hard to beat.
So most recently not taking up the offer of free golf coverage, because youngsters don't watch it, but oldies who do watch the BBC, will watch it.
And then the hand egg, its very popular in the UK, but I think again its lots of middle aged white people like (at least that appears to be the demographic when I have been to the live games). Basketball is the popular US game among urban youth, which I think they show some UK games hidden away somewhere on the website.
And of course we talked about how out of sync with the rest of the industry they are with long term planning of content creation, it gets made when it gets made, versus the one season every year at the same time model.
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 .
But that is not all it is. Plenty of people who don't think he was right still think the reaction has been wrong. Or even if they think it technically right, on the standards for BBC employees, it was a bad idea.
I think it has actually been a useful moment for the BBC, though it won't feel like it to them right now. It's shown the pointlessness of trying to rein in big stars who don't work in news, as it only makes things worse (albeit it only looks really bad because the BBC Chair is seriously dodgy and Lineker's bog standard political views are contrasted with that).
If they don't announce an urgent review of their policy and new guidelines for non news staff before next week I will be surprised.